Just a quick reminder, friends, the Gospel is NOT the "death, burial and resurrection." As a Roman Catholic for the first 18 years of my life, I believed that Christ died, was burried, and rose again. But I believed my sins were erased in the confessional with the priest. I did not know that Christ died FOR MY SINS. Please, let us stop saying the "death, burial and resurrection." If we fall in to that trap, we will be defending an indefensible position with the crossless people.
It got me to thinking.
I understand that Free Grace Theology teaches that belief and faith and trust are one and the same. I think this is a top-notch teaching. However, I want to discuss belief in another aspect, in a non-topical sense of the word.
I had a great conversation today with an "uncultured" believer. Go with me here, on this....
This person pointed out to me the difference between faith, belief (what some might call doctrine), and knowledge.
FAITH - Confidence in trustworthiness of a person, thing or idea
BELIEF - Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something
KNOWLEDGE - What is factual
If I understand Elijah's comments correctly it sounds as if he was caught in that common scenario where there were several beliefs taught to him but not enough to cause faith (and eternal life).
I am convinced that we all have changed our "beliefs" through time. What I believed ten years ago about man, God, and issues concerning God's will is different than what I believe today. I am sure that given another ten years, what I believe will most likely be noticeably different even concerning important issues.
I've heard Dr. Radmacher share on more than one occasion how a student once said, "Well but Dr. R. -- that's not what you taught us ten years ago," to which he replied, "If I'm not changing what I believe, then just shoot me!" or something very close along these lines. I too think that being able to challenge what I believe is an important quality to improving what I have done with my faith both for myself and others.
Some people use the word "knowledge" in the place where the word "belief" ought best be used. For what is "known" is universal and applies to all as obvious, and does not contain contradiction or abstraction or nuance. When used in the context of religion it also implies a level of investment or egotism that is not easily overcome. Dialogue is not invited.
Faith is connectedness based on a level of experience, sensation, spirituality, emotion or realness of something. It is the element that causes reliance. I have reliance on Jesus Christ the person, as many readers of this blog do, and while my beliefs can be challenged, my reliance on Jesus Christ cannot be so easily converted.
Our goal in sharing the free grace gospel, or the crossless gospel, is not to diminish belief. The Lordship camp unapprovingly calls FG (Free Grace) "easy believism." The mainstream FGr's call that which is more liberal "a crossless, deity-less gospel."
We want to share enough belief to cause faith but not so much that suggests a legalism that will never be satiated.
The goal of FG is to elevate faith to its proper position. Beliefs are not irrelevant, but faith is essential. Belief is not enough alone. Belief is oftentimes the route to find faith. How much belief is required to produce faith will depend on the person receiving the message. In the case of Cornelius in Acts 10, the opposite is true; faith was the route to find belief.
It is so easy to talk back and forth and argue and debate belief. Faith is harder to create than beliefs are. One cannot teach faith as one might teach a belief.
Belief is subjective, prone to error and controversy, but faith is assurance.
The problem in all of historical Christianity is found in belief. Are the beliefs being set forth ones that create new faith, and ones that annex nonsubmissive faith?
9 comments:
Michele,
Much of what you say does not make sense to me.
faith = belief
they are both the same thing. They just come to the English by way of different languages.
I have many good articles on faith if you would be willing to read them.
Drop me an email and I will send you the links if you are interested.
I would do so now but it may be too much work for me at this moment. I am kinda feeling under the weather.
Your fg friend,
Antonio
BTW- the designation "crossless" is a pejorative, inaccurate, disingenuous, and a theological expletive.
I do not perpetuate the evil of even stating that word in association with my position. It is being used as a tool for Satan to cause division.
I prefer to call the position of Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin - consistent Free Grace theology.
Antonio
So, can I say "consistent" to the ayes and "crossless" to the "nays?" Or will somebody not like me using them interchangeably, do you think?
As for this post above, I can see we have some definition problems here. What happens... if I replace the less-impactful word "belief," with the word, "doctrine"??
So doctrine (truth, or a set of beliefs), makes it sound like belief is relative, optional, or irrelevant. Rather what "doctrine" is, is the human way of explaining the things he reads for his benefit and also to teach others, without quoting the whole text. A teacher summarizes major points.
Now whatever doctrine we have today as individuals, based on our personal studies or teachings we have received, is always growing and alternating or confirming itself, in various ways in various areas. Most of those changes are improvements, when we consider the changes come from reading the Words of God, which are true, trustworthy, and useful for correction.
Can you notice that faith is different than doctrine? Faith is a spiritual participation with an unseen God (trusting, receiving, etc.).
Now that maybe these definitions are better said, can I ask again, isn't the goal of free grace to elevate faith to its proper significance as the conduit of justification (salvation)?
If this so, is the solution in some cases a minimizing of doctrines (beliefs), and in other cases a maximizing of doctrines (beliefs)?
I hope I said this better.
Have a blessed week!
Michele:
The advocates of the Crossless gospel are fond of using terms like "Consistent" and "Refined" to label their theology.
In a nutshell, and it makes their use of those labels somewhat humorous, is that they have been "consistent" in just one way, and that is they have consistently ReDefined their theology into an ever deeping reductionism of the Gospel.
As it stands now they are about a half-step away from full-blown universalism. That is not funny!
We really need to do all we can to alert believers across a broad spectrum of evenagelical Christianity to the dangers of the GES's Crossless gospel.
LM
Actually, "Crossless" does not fully describe the GES's reductionism.
BTW, the Crossless/Deityless gospel is the reason for the biblically mandated division in the FG community.
There is no way there can be fellowship around the heretical views of the men holding to the Hodges, Wilkin, GES's interpretation of the Gospel.
Unity at the Price of Truth is Treason!
LM
Lou,
Thank you for this warning which I am sure comes from nothing short of the best of intentions.
I understand that you have read the collection of scriptures which teach dis-association with those who variate the truth of the gospel.
The only problem with this is, how can you prove that it is appropriate to apply them to members of FG?
You are justifed in one and only way, which comes from comparing the written content of their idea of the gospel, to outsiders we more readily do not accept:
You said
"As it stands now they are about a half-step away from full-blown universalism. That is not funny!"
So it is fear, distrust, of the power of the reduced gospel to save, which keeps you at odds, and you justify by a list of scriptures even with exegetical excellence, which is a good thing in themselves....
What you do not grasp, I wonder, about the reduced gospel of Wilkins and Hodges, is not that they ignore or neglect teaching the truth, just that the salvation experience takes less to invoke than those truths that you cling to.
There is a tremendous difference between saying,
"Jesus dying on the cross is good for you if you think it's good for you personally,"
AND
"Yes, Jesus died on the cross, now let me tell you how you are saved because of your faith in Him!"
We take grace so far because Jesus did. He wasn't afraid of the righteousness that comes by faith and not by what can be taught!
The law is not of faith. You cannot put your trust in yourself to having known enough about the deity or payment of Christ, your trust must be in Christ alone.
"For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them."" gal 3:10
If we do not endure in an understanding of Jesus as part of a trinity, and at some point throw out the whole teaching, because they were convinced by a Dan Brown book that it was a pagan infiltration, would they then cease to be saved? If a Christian considered the Shema from the OT and decided it was a better tradition by which to explain God and therefore had some level of corruption in his belief in Jesus Christ as fully God, what happens to him? Was he ever saved?
If someone was saved knowing that Jesus died for their sin, according to the gospel you defend, but then much later discovers that it was prophecied in Isaiah 53 or explained in detail in the book of Hebrews all that was meant by His payment for my sin, and believes in a more conformed manner, should this newly acquired knowledge give him doubt that he had ever once been saved?
And so on and so forth--we free grace people know it is nonsense for anyone to ever doubt their salvation unless they do not have assurance that the Spirit of Christ is indwelling.
"But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His." rom 8:9
Thanks for letting me give a reply,
Michele
Michele:
You asked, “The only problem with this is, how can you prove that it is appropriate to apply them to members of FG?”
Because members of the extremist GES faction of the FG community have been irrefutably shown to be teaching a false, reductionist non-saving interpretation of the biblical plan of salvation.
They teach doctrine that is contrary and antithetical to the Scriptures. Their views have introduced division and offences in local churches and fellowships.
Obedience to the biblical mandates for marking, avoiding and withdrawing from the teachers of false doctrine is not an option.
LM
Lou,
Couldn't the Lordship Theologists take your entire paragraph, above, and write the same thing about their perspective of Free Grace?
Everybody reads their bible a little differently, and contributes something important by means of their own strong convictions.
I want to hear your sense of the larger perspective. For I fear that one day you will grow tired, noticing this style isn't changing the world and see their point of view for the first time, how God approves of it, and then have to reconcile that change. Only once you have made this kind of reconciliation, will those who you desire to conform, conform, watching you lead the way by your own humility.
Can you share with me how you are encouraged that your method is accomplishing good?
Thank-you, Michele
Michele:
You asked,"Can you share with me how you are encouraged that your method is accomplishing good?"
The ONLY thing that matters is fidelity to the Word of God. That may mean you will not win a popularity contest.
By obeying the Word of God I am doing what is right in the sight of God. That is all the enouragement I need.
Just who should we be trying to please or appease; our friends and fellowships or the Lord?
LM
Lou,
I hope that I understand what you are saying.
I agree with your point.
I still wonder, how do you cope when your convictions change? What the message is in the Word of God today, is not what it was yesterday and is not what it will be tomorrow?
I know of a few people who never change their minds on some portion of the important things in scripture... usually it is the ones who have studied the longest, or who are publicly associated with a point of view, those are the ones who change the least.
It seems to me that those who are fully engaged in getting across a particular point, it is within that field that there is the most need for updating and correction of self and even admitting mistakes. In order to make the ministry more about Jesus and less about politics.
If you or I or anyone else has a message and we care more about spreading the message than we do about the welfare of those it is intended for, we make ourselves hypocrites. But, that's my opinion. I know it is strong, it is not intended to harm you but to probe and discover more about your thoughts.
I would love it to know and see that you have put forth a practice of publicly announcing when you've made mistakes; it would greatly encourage me and I believe your listeners, too.
Blessings, Michele
Post a Comment