On pages 250-251 of his text, "Biblical Separation" [1], Dr. Pickering quotes several of his opponents to this teaching, those who admit for example, "The scriptures say nothing about secondary separationism," and, "There is no such thing as first-degree, second-degree separation, etc." Pickering acknowledges that secondary separationism is not labeled specifically as such, in the scriptures. But that's not the end of it: Pickering also has to justify his teaching past this confession that it is no where directly taught in scripture.
Pickering insists that the practice can be drawn as a valid principle from the following scripture:
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received from us.... And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed" (2 thess 3:6, 14).
Pickering acknowledges that in context the Thessalonian Christians were merely shirking their responsibilities and had become busybodies. He then immediately rationalizes upon this scripture, saying (on page 255): "The question is this: Is that all this passage teaches? Does the principle go beyond the specific situation evident at Thessalonica, and should it be applied in other situations as well?" He then moves right in to pointing out Paul had authority from God to teach the truth. And he points out that those idle brothers, in their disregard of Paul, were called "disorderly." Through this simple but poor connection, Pickering gives his readers the impression that 2 Thess. 3 is calling all those who reject Paul's written authority, those who are idle.
Rather, I ask you to take a look at this passage and see if it is not saying that those who Paul is calling "disorderly" are those practicing idleness. It is the demonstration of idleness, which Paul is commanding the Thessalonicans to take note of, and withhold their company from.
Pickering nevertheless insists that "Their improper actions resulted from their incorrect grasp of doctrine." Friends, this next unabridged paragraph (pg. 256-257) is where you are going to see the door open up for a moral kind of legalism in the practice of secondary separationism....
The main question among separatists is this: Does this portion of scripture apply only and exclusively to people who leave their work, sponge off other believers, and live idle lives that contribute to spiritual confusion? Certainly this is the context of the passage as it is written. Is it not true, however, that the principle clearly seen here applies to other situations? The principle is this: When our brethren do things that are wrong - caused by an incomplete knowledge of or deliberate disobedience to some teaching of Scripture - we should not merely continue to fellowship with them as those who have done nothing wrong.... It is the principle of maintaining a pure walk that should be stressed. It is the principle of refusing to condone, honor, or utilize those who continually and knowingly are following a course of action that is harmful to other believers and to the welfare of the churches.
Can he defend his interpretation with other scriptures? He had none others. Following this look into 2 Thess. 3, Pickering quotes the commentary of other respected fundamentalists who happen to agree about this interpretation from the text, and concludes, "We cite them, however, to show that there have been a host of men through the years who have believed that the practice of so-called secondary separation has Biblical support" (pg. 261).
[1] Pickering, Ernest & Houghton, Myron. Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church. Schaumberg, Illinois: Regular Baptist Press; 2008.
47 comments:
Readers,
You've heard some FG brothers say, "Bad theology makes bad character." What say you?
Michele,
I think it's typically not our theology that contributes to bad character but rather our unwillingness to live out what we say we believe. It's one thing to defend the doctrine of grace but it's an entirely whole different thing to exhibit grace. Egotistic pride and hardness often come alongside the defense of doctrine. If I have all knowledge--even perfect doctrine--but have not love, I am nothing.
"Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity."
DB
David!
Wow, it's so neat to hear from you again! There are some people I am sure who are much more resourced than I, like yourself; I just want to get right in the middle and talk about it which is pretty much all I got goin' for myself.
This is the smartest thing I've heard that goes far above the fray level that even I am on:
"I think it's typically not our theology that contributes to bad character but rather our unwillingness to live out what we say we believe."
Great job in saying that. And that would be a perfect verse, if all of us were ready to understand and be persuaded by it. I get the sensation after hanging out with online FG people that the word "unity" was ungodly or something. What a far cry from the truth. Not only are there very few scriptures on separation, practically nothing on secondary separation, but... just wait... as you're previewing, there are a ton of scriptures on unity.
How many times has it been said that Calvinism is logical... but not scriptural... separationism is a logical structure but I am eager to know if it is also scriptural. No matter how bad a reputation the word "unity" has acquired in my mind through listening to some of my brothers and sisters, I must be willing to follow the Word of God. It does not, obviously, mean ecumenism, as we have been led to be told.
Do you have another thought on this?
So glad you left a comment!
Michele
Michele,
Thanks for your kind words.
I'm very grieved by what's going on in the FG community, the way people are treating each other. I'm no church history expert but I've read The Great Evangelical Disaster by Francis Schaeffer and it seems like history is repeating itself, as I'll try to show below.
You said "It does not, obviously, mean ecumenism, as we have been led to be told."
Correct. Schaeffer was by no means an ecumenist but he was known for showing love to those with whom he disagreed while at the same time exhibiting the holiness of God (i.e. upholding the truth). He said:
"We must do all that is necessary for the purity of the visible church to exhibit the holiness of God; and yet, no matter how bitter the liberals become or what nasty things they say or what they release to the press, we must show forth the love of God in the midst of the strongest speaking we can do. If we let down one side or the other, we will not bear our testimony to God who is holy and who is love."
He goes on to summarize what happened in the thirties. Try substituting "LS advocates" for "liberals" and see if you think history is repeating itself:
"Some of them treated the liberals as less than human, and therefore they learned such bad habits that later, when those who formed new groups developed minor differences among themselves, they continued to treat each other badly. Beware of the habits we learn in controversy. Both must appear together: the holiness of God and the love of God exhibited simultaneously by the grace of God. It will not come automatically. It takes prayer."
Now, some would argue that the FG differences aren't "minor" but the point is still valid. If only someone in the FG community could facilitate loving discussion over the current issue.
Finally--and I'm sorry this is so long--two more quotes from Schaeffer. First, regarding his view or separation:
"It is important to notice the principle we are speaking about...is not the principle of separation. It is the practice of the principle of the purity of the visible church...That principle may have to be exhibited in various ways."
He later says that if principle of purity ends up having to be exhibited in division, "I plead with you to find some way to show observable love among true Christians before the world. The practice of truth requires that a line be drawn between those who hold the historic view of Scripture and the new weaker one [he was referring to the issue of inerrancy]. But this is not to say that those who hold this view are not often brothers and sisters in Christ, nor that we should not have loving personal relationships with them. Don't just divide into ugly parties. If you do, the world will see an ugliness which will turn it off. Your children will see the ugliness, and you will lose some of your sons and daughters. They will hear such harsh things from your lips against men who they know have been your friends that they will turn away from you. Don't throw your children away; don't throw other people away by forgetting to observe, by God's grace, the two principles simultaneously--to show love and holiness."
Again, I'm sorry this is so long. I guess I have just found words in Schaeffer that express my grief. I literally type this with tears
DB
Nice to read your comments David. I read Disaster so long ago I didn't remember that Schaeffer had said those things. Another good book with similar sentiment is Colson's The Body. "Unity" quickly becomes a no-brainer when you read that. I hate to admit it, but I think true "purity" only comes with the real threat of persecution, as Colson pretty clearly showed.
Hi Michele, you said: "I get the sensation after hanging out with online FG people that the word "unity" was ungodly or something."
For the record... I don't think "unity" is 'ungodly or something'. ;-)
My nephew sent me the following link to a video this morning and I couldn't help but think of the FG debate while I watched it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bfj6bdBB9go
There is much we agree on which is, in part, why neither Rachel nor I have actively "separated" from anyone.
Now, my nephew who sent me the link (for entirely different reasons, he just likes the song) is Charismatic so there's no lack of disagreement between us and discussion at our family get-togethers can get pretty... lively. :-) But we get along very well relationally, there is zero "tension" between us because we do believe we share a general unity. Still, some level of "distinction" between us is simply unavoidable because we just see things very differently. It's not so much a matter of ACTIVE separation as it is a natural division that arises from our known differences.
For that matter, one of our best friends (with whom we previously had a group blog) emerged from the Wilkin experience at our church on the side of Lordship. We openly disagree with him on several items, obviously, but we also believe it's an "honest" disagreement so it's never even crossed our minds to "separate" from him. I think he's wrong, but matters of right/wrong dont' keep us from being friends. In fact, I actually value his opposing views on some things because it helps keep me honest in regard to my own views. However, there's no doubt that our differences do keep us "distinct" from one another... it's simply unavoidable unless one or both of us sticks our head in the sand... and neither of us will do that. :-)
1 Cor 11:19 is a passage I've long considered to support the notion that some "separation" is unavoidable and even appropriate.
I do have more thoughts but I'll cut this off for now and clarify later if needed.
Tschüß
David,
I have an overwhelming collection of thoughts when I read your post over and over. It wasn't too long, trust me it was too short. I will certainly make another comment on your post soon. In the meantime, your post is like the refreshing ocean wave upon the shore. It sparks a light in the dark.
Michele
Jim & Stephen,
I'm caught up in family things today. I encourage anyone to take up discussion with one another.
I'll mention though, that I am looking at the scriptures at all the passages which command some sort of separation, and beyond the category of false teachers without (unsaved), the false teachers within are those who are generally schismatic, or legalistic.
Have you seen this connection between the separationist scriptures, as commands to handle the legalists?
I'll have to look in to it a lot more. Thanks for commenting, I will be back soon.
Michele
Readers,
I have not been in the mood lately to think about this. Before I do move on, I'd like to share a couple of my own thought-questions.
My Question:
"What makes someone not Free Grace? What makes someone not Free Grace -- on the internet?"
What if someone answered, saying, "I can tell you what a Free Grace person is NOT." Then they gave you this list:
- You cannot be Free Grace and be someone who has been a sock-puppeteer.
- You cannot be Free Grace and be someone who has ever knowingly not bothered to cite every source in a blog post.
- ...
- ...(And I think everyone can imagine some other most familiar traditional items which could fit in on such a list. I won't bother, this is just an illustration.)
This proposal goes on to describe what "Free Grace is Not" by adding
- If someone ever practices these activities, they will have such behaviors scored on a public list that will forever be attached to their name. Repentance and confession are irrelevant to the permanence of the list of violations.
- This sort of list-keeping is profitable for Free Grace, because it's a testimonial of practical (moral) proof, of theological error.
Is this effectually, legalism?
Is this not a code of law that has subterfuged the grace of God?
Nevermind the genteel content of the code; nevermind how short or long the list might be.
Even on paper, my former "You must be baptized according to these scriptures on discipleship"-religious-legalistic-group had godly, "biblical" rules... what made the difference is in how they had been set up for the people.
I wanna think this one through.
Thanks for reading,
Michele
Good evening Michele, Happy Mother's Day to you and any other reader-mothers!
In addressing your previous comment I want to be very careful in what I say Mr Martyouknowwhouneac has/hasn't said... because I don't KNOW everything he's said. ;-)
However, I'm fairly certain that Mr M has not associated the statements you cite the way you are citing them. e.g., I don't recall Mr M saying anything that could be even construed to equal "sock-puppeteers can't be FG". Mr M (and most everyone) finds such behavior "unethical" but that is entirely different than "not FG." I think the other items you list are similarly inaccurate representations of why Mr M may think someone isn't FG.
So, while it's quite plausible that Mr M has suggested GES/AdR aren't FG, I don't think his reasons for saying such have anything to do with the items you reference here.
To summarize, I think Mr M finds these as evidence of poor character but I've never heard him reference these as FG distinctives the way you have cited them here.
I'm not accusing you of lying, but rather of misunderstanding. If Mr M thinks anyone is not FG then it is because of their theology, not their behavior or even their character. If you believe otherwise then I'm willing to consider -- please provide examples of Mr M using any of the items you've cited as what makes someone "not FG".
Thanks for your consideration,
Stephen,
I rejoice that you feel welcome to share your mind with me and have. I do want to know what you think, Stephen. Otherwise I turned a new leaf and I want to stick to paradigm here, I think paradigm is a suitable locale to apply critical thinking.
Does it have to be said? Peter didn't verbally express what he was doing wrong when he separated with the Judiazers in gal 2, but Paul called him out even while only demonstrating legalism. Does it need to be explicitly stated, that theological opponents that have been tracked as unethical are not therefore encouraged for inclusion (in free grace)? What other use is there for keeping record? What is it supposed to be proving?
Stephen do you think there is an ethical lapse on the part of those sympathetic or belonging to GES?
Let us set aside theology as you are replying. Is the flesh by itself appropriate grounds, while expressing its unfortunate self in a moment here or there, in which to seek to exclude someone from free grace? I beg you to consider your own reflection in His mirror, just as I would, when answering that kind of question. In the case that it is not, how is it, then, that some who are doctrinally-ministering to free grace have made ethics so very relevant?
Perhaps you are right, only theology makes one in or out. I can accept that.
I'm still looking in the face of 2007-2009, two years worth of "documentation" and repetition over and over everywhere of not only sins I think all of us have committed at one point on the internet but even speculated sins which are wholly untrue.
What gives?
Michele
A very good morning to you Michele,.. or at least it was morning when I started this. :-) Anyway, thanks for replying.
I'm sorry this long, I don't see how it could be avoided to answer you completely. Take your time, but I do ask you that work through it completely before responding. Thanks.
Michele:
Perhaps you are right, only theology makes one in or out. I can accept that.I think we both know it's more than a "perhaps", but I'll take this is a step in the right direction. Thanks for that at least :-). However, If you think "perhaps" is indeed as much as you can give then I'd ask you again, as I did earlier, to provide any specific examples of the above items being used by Youknowhou that explains your referal to them in the way you have -- as a basis for his determining anyone's inclusion within FG. If you can't then I submit that you should retract and use more accurate examples rather than feed personally identifiable strawmen to the masses that may/may not know better. I've had a side conversation with Mr M about exactly this and he has confirmed that, as I already said, whether someone is FG is indeed only about theology. If you think he's lying about his position then just show me otherwise and I'll consider it.
Michele:
Otherwise I turned a new leaf and I want to stick to paradigm here, I think paradigm is a suitable locale to apply critical thinking.Turning a new leaf is fine, sticking to paradigm is fine. I only ask that you use accurate illustrations, especially when we all know whou you're referencing with the examples you've chosen. Look, it's fine if you want be critical of YouKnowWhou and how he expresses himself, really -- he's made his views public so he's as fair game as anyone. I wouldn't dream of asking you to refrain from critical examination of his statements and views but surely you agree you should build your paradigm on solid ground rather than sand, right?
Michele:
Does it need to be explicitly stated, that theological opponents that have been tracked as unethical are not therefore encouraged for inclusion (in free grace)?In this case I think it does -- because I don't think Mr M, and certainly not I, have ever advocated that behavior has any bearing whatsoever on someone's general inclusion within FG. Behavior may however be grounds for some degree of distance, at least in terms of who we have close association with. Consider Prov 13:20:
He who walks with wise men will be wise,
But the companion of fools will suffer harm.There are many such proverbs that advise us to use discernment in regard to with whom we throw in our lot. Do you disagree with such biblical advice?
What other use is there for keeping record? What is it supposed to be proving?First, I would agree that one should not keep a list in the form of "things so-and-so has done which I will hold against them for as long as I live." That's a recipe for bitterness, a graphic definition of which I heard once as "bitterness is the poison WE drink hoping someone ELSE is harmed". That's the wrong use of any such "list". List-keeping is not intrinsically bad however and need not even be an active process; when one is abused/wronged consistently by someone then it doesn't require active list-keeping to remember what they've done to you. When this happens, a "list" forms passively out of the natural course of events. Namely, if so-and-so treats me badly then perhaps I should avoid so-and-so. Depending on the offense, warning others may be called for as well. Such list-keeping isn't bad, it's wise.
In general, some kind of "list" is required to help one objectively determine whether another's bad behavior is a repeated pattern of bad character -- a fool to be avoided -- or if such behavior is the result of the kind of general sin that inflicts us all at times and which might actually draw us together to build each other up. If one acts consistently foolish then many proverbs indicate we should avoid making such our close acquaintences.
We should of course be willing to forgive even the vilest offender. Forgiveness should never be out of our reach for it is never out of the reach of our Savior. That said, I'm not likely to put even a forgiven child molester to work in the nursery. I'm not likely to make even a forgiven embezzler the treasurer.
To summarize: We ALL keep lists of some sort and the proper use of them helps us make objective biblical decisions about our close associations and to even lovingly avoid placing even forgiven brothers/sisters in positions that expose their weaknesses.
You asked for other uses, there you go. Do you disagree with any of this?
Michele:
Stephen do you think there is an ethical lapse on the part of those sympathetic or belonging to GES?That would be an overgeneralization, so no. Anybody, GES or not, can be unethical. Does that need to be explicitly stated? ;-)
Michele:
Is the flesh by itself appropriate grounds, while expressing its unfortunate self in a moment here or there, in which to seek to exclude someone from free grace?Of course not, and I'm not aware of anyone who says otherwise... We agree... So say we all.
Michele:
In the case that it is not, how is it, then, that some who are doctrinally-ministering to free grace have made ethics so very relevant?In determining whether someone is FG, as you've put it here, it isn't relevant at all... which is exactly my previous point. Namely, that neither LM, myself, nor anyone else I'm aware of has advocated such a ridiculous position. That's exactly why I think your debated references are terribly inaccurate. Behavior -- even being a well-documented "fool" -- is completely irrelevant to whether someone isn't FG and we all agree on that. So, yes, indeed, what's the relevance?
If you can demonstrate that LM advocates that behavior has anything to do with FG/not FG then I'll openly disagree with him on the matter... it's that simple... so do you have any examples of him holding that position or not? LM has specifically told me that he does not advocate that position so if you think he's lying to me then here's your chance to prove it... produce clear statements that LM advocates behavior has anything to do with fg/not fg and I'll publicly confront him myself. If not, then isn't it only proper by even your own standard that you no longer hold that list of offenses against him, at least not in this way?
I'm not asking you to forget the past or to forgo being justly critical of him... have at it... just use the list you're keeping properly. Fair 'nough?
Michele:
Perhaps you are right, only theology makes one in or out. I can accept that.I trust I've made the case that there is no "perhaps" about it. LM is many things, I'm not saying he's an angel... I think even LM would agree with that... :-) but in the absence of any specific examples he is apparently not as you've portrayed him earlier.
I'm not beating you up, you have some fine qualities in terms of conflict resolution and you've provoked some fine thoughts in me through our discussions, Don't take this personally, I just think you're wrong on this particular matter -- all I'm saying is that If you can't clearly demonstrate that LM advocates behavior as an FG/not FG matter then I request as a matter of brotherly accountability that you untie your load on this one and let it go by changing/removing the inaccurate inferences to Youknowwhou.
Thanks for your consideration and further thoughts, Peace.
Hi Stephen,
Thank you so much for leaving a thorough reply because I am glad to discuss it with someone who may be able to converse about it.
I will carefully think upon your comments, but in the meantime while I am doing so, I'd like to get the responsibilities straight, if you do not mind: I am not the one who is creating the wedge. I'm just trying to comprehend what it's doing there.
With appreciation, Michele
Hi again Stephen,
I just appreciate your comments. I want to say that again. I'm trying to consider your requests.
Maybe you can suggest a way for me to do as you would like by being specific and mention names without violating my previous commitments. Those commitments are that I think it unfair to talk about a specific brother individually unless he was also welcomed to discuss it directly of course. I always wanted that direct dialogue, tried to host it before. But I can't offer that welcome now for one person, not until our particular dyad has reached reconciliation. I also can't set aside the counsel of such people as for instance my own pastors.
I also disagree that this paradigm belongs to only one brother. I think it belongs to a small group. In fact I believe that I see it being systematized in a very small part in Pickering's text.
Stephen said:
"If you can demonstrate that LM advocates that behavior has anything to do with FG/not FG then I'll openly disagree with him on the matter... it's that simple... so do you have any examples of him holding that position or not?"
Michele replies:
"Bad theology makes bad character."
I've seen many individuals, not just one, say this in conversations speculating on Rose and Antonio through the years. Let's take a recent case:
Read this comment: April 24, 2009 4:54 PM At Lybrand's blog, in his comment thread on the open letter. You'll have to click on "Newer" comments and scroll down to the time/date stamp to find that comment.
I'm not in charge of tying them together. I just want to know why they have been!
I'll read some more on your comments, and hopefully try and understand. If we do come to some understanding, and it appears I was wrong in any part of what I said or even was misunderstood to have said, I will apologize. But let me first understand what IS before we mark off what IS NOT. Is this alright with you? I'm honorable enough for the task of taking back something when I'm mistaken. Meanwhile there is something quite interesting going on here.
Looking forward to discussion with you,
Michele
On my way out the door so this'll be very very short. I'll consider and respond to the rest later.
Michele replies:
"Bad theology makes bad character."
"bad theology = bad character" is not even remotely the same as "bad character = not FG".
FG people can most certainly have both bad theology AND bad character... neither disqualifies them from being FG and that quote is too broad to be used to prove such a specific point.
Oh man, I am sooooo late. Bye!
Okay Stephen,
You're on to something now. And then you leave. :( :) Anyway, I can agree, they are different, perhaps very different, but, did you see that comment linked above?
What did you think of it?
Michele
Stephen,
I'm open to God's will. I want to make myself open to whatever He wants to work. I am willing to reconcile, and perhaps a third party mediation would be beneficial. Whatever can be reconciled should.
Hi Michele, I have now read the link and apparently the fellas have some history, however brief, that I'm not aware of. (Perhaps there's more info in the thread but I haven't read even half of the 265 comments there -- I got way behind pretty early on, peaked in from time-to-time, but never really caught up.)
I can't speak to the content of their disagreement, I don't know what it's about, but I don't see how that comment demonstrates that bad behavior = not FG.
However, I'd also like to say that I have no problem with Jim yet. I think we'd disagree on some stuff but he seems level-headed enough in his manner and presentation that I think he's someone I could at least have an honest disagreement with.
I made the connection just now, while preparing this comment, that he's the same guy who made at least one supportive comment toward Rachel and I on a previous thread here. At least a portion of that comment meant a great deal to me and I meant to tell him so but the thread moved on and I never followed-up.
I can't speak to why LM thinks of Jim as he does, I'm sure LM has his reasons and I'm sure he'll tell me what they are as soon as he reads this :-) unless he's bound by privacy not to. That said, Lou's reasons aren't my reasons... I'm not sympathetic to GES' Gospel, Lou knows that, but my limited appraisal is that Jim is someone I could at least coherently interact with, so I would.
As to 3rd party mediation, and reconciliation... I'm honestly not sure what you're referring too. Reconciliation with LM, me? Sister, there is no breach between "us"... we just disagree on the specific illustration's you used earlier -- I think they needlessly and inaccurately soil the reputation of a man I know fairly well. You say you have more than one person in mind, fine, but your examples are so specific that I think LM will unfairly be first on everybody's mind who has a clue. If you want to reconcile the matter, then simply remove the inaccurate personally identifiable references or replace them with generic ones. That simple. It'll be done and I'll never bring it up again... all reconciled. If you mean somebody else then I'll confess I'm not tracking with what you mean.
Anyway, think about it. Thanks.
Wow, it's late,
Good morning Stephen,
You said "Wow, it's late," and it is for you, and it's morning for me but not much longer for you. :D
Reconciliation is in reference to Lou Martuneac. I am open.
As for the rest of your points, I thought about them all day yesterday and now I am going to merge them with what you left in the latest comment. I will reply to those things in a bit.
Glad for you,
Michele
you said:
"Wow, it's late," and it is for you, and it's morning for me but not much longer for you. :D
LOL, yeah, I thought later of how that would look from your perspective: "wooh... 10:32 PM... yeah... that's reeeaaallly late."
goodness,
Hi Stephen,
I appreciate your effort to establish agreed rules of engagement, no need for disagreement of that sort while we look into the matter here.
You said, "You say you have more than one person in mind, fine, but your examples are so specific that I think LM will unfairly be first on everybody's mind who has a clue."
I would be citing his statements proportionally. The solution is, in my mind, to extend an offer for reconciliation so that he may be off my ban and participate personally. And then otherwise let me just say this. The premise I'm putting forth is that there is a strain of legalism in our community. If I am mistaken then it's possible as you are concerned, that I have thus far been deluded in to a mission of soiling a fellow brother, but there is another possibility, which is that I have simply discerned incorrectly while also having no interest in soiling a brother you care for.
Also whether the alleged legalism is being established by one or by a group I think is also not as important. If one or an army is doing it, it's still inappropriate. It may be that only one is leading in that. And if anyone has seen it and done nothing, Peter's example comes to mind.
As for Jim, I'm glad that you noticed his heart. He is one of those brothers who is interested in building community for FG.
Your replies are concerning these individual cases, but I hope you see that legalism is something a little more entrenched than simpler personality clashes. I've noted the legalism gone unaddressed since spring of last year, and I could have posed a discussion over what it was back then. I've found one root by Pickering, and if I kept reading more separationist textbooks I bet I'd find even more egregious teachings promoting it. It's really not about me, or Jim or Rose or Antonio. It's about discerning the spiritual content of the messages being sent from a corner of FG.
The premise I've got, is, this is legalism. You tell me if I am right or wrong. I haven't put this out there publicly without a good deal of forethought. If it's not legalism, I want to know what it is.
On a slightly lighter note, my two year old just came out of the kitchen with a formerly empty morning-coffee mug, now filled to the brim with just cream. Hmm. My raspberry-mocha creamer was found fully emptied on the other side of the kitchen. I made him clean up his mess, gave him a kiss and said, "Don't make me choose between coffee and a cute two year old cause I'm not sure you'll win this one." :D Time to put a lock on the fridge. Before he was only bringing me carrots and cucumbers, but now he's crossed the point of no return.
Don't mess with my coffee, boy.
:)
Yup, coffee is sacred.
Legalism is a fine topic, I realize you want to go there, and I suppose you'll go there with or without me at some point. However, I think you've either strayed from or missed my point so I'll restate to get us on the same page again.
In an earlier comment you said:
My Question:
"What makes someone not Free Grace? What makes someone not Free Grace -- on the internet?"
What if someone answered, saying, "I can tell you what a Free Grace person is NOT." Then they gave you this list:
- You cannot be Free Grace and be someone who has been a sock-puppeteer.
- You cannot be Free Grace and be someone who has ever knowingly not bothered to cite every source in a blog post.
My point in the most recent posts is that a certain someone, whatever else he is/isn't guilty of, he has never advocated that being a sock-puppeteer makes one not FG. He has never advocated that failure to properly credit your sources makes one not FG. Whether or not LM is a legalist is irrelevant to using examples that blatantly cast him as holding a position he doesn't hold.
It's as simple as this, do you really think LM thinks being a sock-puppeteer makes one not FG? Do you really think that LM thinks one can't be FG while having "knowingly not bothered to cite every source in a blog post"?
If you can clearly state that that's not what you intended to convey then we're done here and I'll happily move along to the legalism issue you want to discuss. Unless remedied, I think your statements soil the reputation of a man among a group of people who don't need any more eggs to throw if you get my drift. Disagree with who he is, fine, but don't disagree with who he isn't.
That is all, thanks.
Hi Stephen,
My point in the most recent posts is that a certain someone, whatever else he is/isn't guilty of, he has never advocated that being a sock-puppeteer makes one not FG. He has never advocated that failure to properly credit your sources makes one not FG. Whether or not LM is a legalist is irrelevant to using examples that blatantly cast him as holding a position he doesn't hold.That's totally fair. Okay. I don't want to misspeak his specific position. Yes, you may be on to something here. Identifying legalism may require a good deal of care on my part because it is an underlying sort of phenomena. I'm committed to reorganizing my thoughts according to your specifications as we go. Glad you restated yourself.
Thanks. Michele
Hey Michele, is your coffee and creamer safe? ;-)
It's late so I'll just get right to it, please don't take my brevity as hostility or impatience, it's just that I get up for work in about 4 hours... and this is the 3rd night in a row.
So, getting right to it... is the previous comment your stab at an answer to my question? I can't tell. If so, and I mean no offense, but you're still not answering what I think should be a very simple thing to directly answer.
Do you really think LM thinks being a sock-puppeteer makes one not FG?
Do you really think that LM thinks one can't be FG while having "knowingly not bothered to cite every source in a blog post"?
That's all I'm asking, it's no more complicated than that. These aren't trick questions so please consider them and answer as directly as you can. I'm honestly trying to understand if you actually believe LM holds such absurd positions as you indicated in the examples you provided to your own earlier question(s), which were: "What makes someone not Free Grace? What makes someone not Free Grace -- on the internet?"
Thanks, sleep well.
Hi Stephen,
I know it's AWANA night, you'll catch up with me later and I look forward to it. I just got back from an unexpected rendezvous with a wayward sister. I'm glad that you care for this brother's honor. I think we can attend both goals simultaneously. You're way on to something. Why use my words when his words are available. Please go back and read that post I linked.
April 24, 2009 4:54 PMI think you would agree it is an explicit statement categorizing a whole bunch of believers on a small and poorly explained criterion. It specifically is an attempt to speak down the ethics of the people of the GES. This large-scale dismissal, attempted by means of outward measurements of ethics, doesn't come by my poorly worded capture. The scale I draw right from his statement. Perhaps I selected an incorrect "bullseye" for what people the exclusion was designed to work on - not all FG people. Okay. I'm sorry about that. He reports to you that I am incorrect... concerning the who. Is this right? I don't want to draw up anything other than what is, so are you happier thinking I will simply use his own words?
BTW in the case that he reconciles with me and I with him I am still not sure I would invite him to participate in my blog. That may be a bit of a ways off. So still open to suggestions on how to do this right, in your eyes.
Appreciate you, and your patience. I know it's not fun being in the middle.
Hi Stephen,
I saw you posted as I was. If the above answer is not sufficient I can answer more explicitly. Meanwhile, I am reviewing all you wrote especially your request to look at each of your replies carefully before responding.
One of those was taking note on who fools are, and I do not disagree with getting distance from those who are unwise. I appreciated your lengthy description on why to use a list, and found myself agreeing in some parts, such as establishing at least a mental awareness of what sorts of behaviors are dependable and what sorts are not dependable for any one person.
I just am unsure if there are proverbs which talk about making the list and person public. Perhaps a fool is known all by himself without us adding any momentum. I'm sure you've met the kind. In our case momentum is being added in publication ahead of arrival, for some persons, with the list of faults.
Also, you said, "Forgiveness should never be out of our reach for it is never out of the reach of our Savior. That said, I'm not likely to put even a forgiven child molester to work in the nursery. I'm not likely to make even a forgiven embezzler the treasurer."
You're talking about a believer who has done the sorts of things that dismisses someone from serving in some way. Having a fleshly response now and then certainly doesn't give grounds for either being a fool or establishing any pattern for some disqualification. Does it? How can any of us measure up if that was true....
In summary I do appreciate and think wise to acknowledge with one another like a family would, the strengths and weaknesses of a brother or sister. But again I am seeing simple humanity, and the documentation of it, being used as grounds to dismiss others.
You? You know proverbs better than I on this I can imagine.
In the case that you want me to share my mind more I thought answering this specific angle would be important to the conversation.
BTW, Stephen. Can I describe my ways of engagement too? I said to Dr. Lybrand here on my blog that my posts are a cry for help. Kev says on his blog that he "can't promise what says here is infallible" but the Word is. I like that just as much. If you are only in this thread so you can discover a flaw with my words, my premise, you may find it and then exit. Are you trying to prove I can make errors? This is not intended as a brain exercise to discover the hole in my sock. I have to start with a premise. I have to say it out loud. I haven't seen anyone bring this up before. I put it out there. I admit my errors, freely, hopefully sufficiently for you, and so you and I may move on to more interesting things, which is not about being imperfect, but getting things thought through. I want to have a conversation about it. I want to know; if not, what is? You can help me get there.
Appreciate you, hope you do alright tomorrow.
Yup, last night was our church's AWANA awards night. Our 5yo and many others his age memorized something like 60 verses last year. Wow, that is so cool.
you said:
Why use my words when his words are available.
Because it's your characterization of his words that I'm asking about. It's the allegation in your words that I'm seeking answers on. If I want to know what you think, I'll come to you.. and that's what I'm doing.
As to the comment you linked -- I agree it's a manifestation of his view that "bad theology = bad character". I'm not aware that anyone, even LM, disputes that that's his view. However, that comment is not a manifestation of what I think you allege against him, which reads as that you believe he advocates "bad character = Not FG", an allegation that I find plainly untrue.
you said:
If the above answer is not sufficient I can answer more explicitly.
Yes, please answer explicitly. It doesn't nave to be a simple yes/no, but short and explicit would be nice. Thank you very much.
For your convenience, here are the simple questions I'm seeking to understand your view on.
Do you really think LM thinks being a sock-puppeteer makes one not FG?
Do you really think that LM thinks one can't be FG while having "knowingly not bothered to cite every source in a blog post"?TIA,
Well, I see LM was writing a reply while I was, I didn't see his until I posted mine so take that into consideration in how you reply/react/respond to each of us. I have a lot in common with LM but LM is not me, I am not LM. I think sometimes that you and many others lose site of that. That's why I was so thankful for Jim's comment... he discerned a difference that I think others would do well to see as well. I may disagree wtih Jim theologically (maybe not, I just haven't read him much) but he's demonstrated, to me at least, a level of objectivity that I think is sorely needed in all this.
Michele, whatever you think of LM's previous interactions, he certainly has a valid gripe at least this time -- you've alleged in your examples above that LM thinks behavior has anything whatsoever to do with whether one is FG or not, a specific allegation that I think is simply and obviously not true.
I don't share his aggressive tone, but then it's not me who's been misrepresented. Straightly, I think you owe him a simple retraction of your allegation that he thinks one "cannot be Free Grace and be someone who has been a sock-puppeteer."
Please Michele, look past the emotion and perception of previous wrongs and realize that I am drawing you toward repentance on this as gently but deliberately as I can. You can make at least this one issue right very easily and painlessly by first clearly acknowledging whether you do or do not believe he holds the view that your words convey.
If you don't think he holds that view, then simply repent of mis-characterizing his view for the sake of your earlier illustration and then I'll gladly move on to "more interesting things" with you. Really. I want to move past this more than you know. I really do. But if you can't represent him clearly on something so simple as this then you'll understand that I'm going to have trouble accepting your evaluation on things that are much more complicated.
If you do think he holds that view... then... well.. I guess we'll cross that bridge when we get there. I'm really hoping we don't even need to go there... but I can't go anywhere with you unless you clearly own a position on whether you think LM
I'm reaching out to you with tenderness to simply repent of mis-characterizing LM on at least this one false allegation of "bad behavior = not FG".
This doesn't have to be painful,
Hi Stephen,
We had our awards ceremony last night too. In Cubbies they learn usually one verse a night. You probably know that. I have a daughter in Sparks too.
I personally did believe what I said in the first. I can make a case that he demonstrates something close or exact to what I wrote. You called him on the phone and asked his position, then came here early in the conversation and told me that he would not take this specific position. I'm not going to refute his own testimony. I'm going to accept it. My principles are attempting to be people-centric; any man is the residing expert on himself. I stand corrected from that point forward, and will not make that conclusion any longer. On specifics, I am wrong, he is right. On the underlying premise, no, it's not absurd in my mind.
I am investigating what gives the privilege of some brothers to stand over others in perpetual judgment, whose first interest is to gather proof for which to make a case of dismissing others from fellowship and participation and conversation. I should admit the potential that anyone who fellowships with the instigator of this philosophy is influenced to do likewise in trapping others like they tried to trap Jesus - impossible for a perfect man, possible for an imperfect man such as myself. Back then they were not really interested in listening to what Jesus was saying, they were interested in dismissing him.
Your repeated interest here in my thread upon myself is kind of proving my point. There is a definite need to explore this. In that investigation I will not make those specific assertions any longer. I trust he is correct and that I am not.
Okay...? :D Michele
Hi again Stephen,
I appreciate the tenderness, it comes over here as authentic. Tell me the words you want me to say. I need your help here. I keep missing the thing you are needing.
Or did I finally say it?
you said:
In that investigation I will not make those specific assertions any longer. I trust he is correct and that I am not.Thank you, that's clear enough for me to move forward with you. I AM interested in what you have to say, that's why I took what you said so seriously. I hope that makes sense and that you see it that way.
you said:
I should admit the potential that anyone who fellowships with the instigator of this philosophy is influenced to do likewise in trapping others like they tried to trap Jesus - impossible for a perfect man, possible for an imperfect man such as myself. Back then they were not really interested in listening to what Jesus was saying, they were interested in dismissing him.Your repeated interest here in my thread upon myself is kind of proving my point.In what way Michele? Do you think I'm trying trap you? Do you feel I'm not listening to what you say? Or, do I misunderstand what you intended to convey? I hope I've misunderstood because I thought you and I were able to keep this disagreement pretty civil and level-headed and I'd like that kind of thing to take root and flourish among you and others. I was persistent in pursuit of the truth here but I'm equally persistent in giving you the grace I promised and I hope you note that as well -- I'm satisfied with your reply to move forward now to "more interesting things" :-). K? K.
Grace and peace,
BAH! I see you posted while I was writing that last one.
you said:
Or did I finally say it?As far as I'm concerned, yes, you finally said it. Thank you.
Stephen :D
You asked "In what way Michele? Do you think I'm trying trap you? Do you feel I'm not listening to what you say?"
Not any longer, I was worried but I'm not any more. I understand that any time I speak falsely I cause considerable damage and for that I'm truly sorry, I just don't want to be written off as something hopeless so that I can't find my way out to forgiveness and restoration, with you.
I trust you. :) Michele
BAH!
Posted again on ya'. :D
Hi Stephen,
I wanted you to have rest and I wanted myself to have rest, of course too you may not wish to continue to participate. I also thought of not posting the rest. Maybe most already understand the vein I'm tracking on. But then I counted it out and I have three more points related to things you care for, for this post. It may be better than waiting for the subject to come round again. I do want to move on, I need to talk about other things for my own spiritual health.
I can make a case, I don't want to just make a case. I would rather have a conversation... you know? It doesn't do anyone as much good including myself to just use logic to slam something. You share your thoughts, though, and I'll see how to get the rest out. :D
P.S., I try to regularly mention that because I am a woman I do seek non-women to confirm or participate, when I get anywhere close to "leading" or "teaching." I don't think I am, I think I am using a gift for discernment and I want to also be humble about that, that's my personal weakness even if I wasn't a woman.
Michele
Readers,
My logic may be quite flawed, or wrong. Others have to use their own logic of the same input and decide what these statements really mean. If I'm wrong then I will be glad to learn it, and my hope is that in the end at least those who constitute my readership will have direct explanation, or confirmation that they are not the only one who comprehend these statements as worrisome. I have three points of reasoning on things I have read, and this is point number one.
PRINCIPLE / INDIVIDUAL
The pattern of dialogue by the proponents of "bad theology makes bad character," concludes exchanges with individuals with a reference to the general ethic of GES people. Another words, there exist weaknesses and flaws and so forth which belong to individuals. And then also there exists the weaknesses and flaws of an entire theological association, meaning the GES. These two: the individual, and the alleged principle belonging to the group, are frequently being actively bound together in public. [1]
To me, and I may be incorrect, it seems there is a hurry to apply the principle to the individual, and the individual to the principle. With just a few short exchanges. Six, I believe I counted at Dr Lybrand's blog on the Open Letter. Six exchanges between two men who had previously never interacted publicly on the internet, is all it required for a FG brother to decide the individual and the principle as sufficiently correlated. [1]
For instance:
Being a sock puppet is a specific example of the ethic
-then-
Declared the entire group should be avoided on a principle
Or
The Principle is stated as fact; these words declare the principle of the ethic: awry, bankrupt, empty;
-then-
One individual at a time is caught in imperfections and miscommunications and errors, then the ethic is labeled over them, declared as proven by their example
I note that the principle of the "GES ethic" being applied to individuals, and visa versa, is a circular argument.
For instance:
"How do you know that one guy was intending to evade and plagiarize?"
"Because all of them have lost their moral and ethical compass."
"How do you know they have all lost their moral and ethical compass?"
"Because that one guy evaded and didn't cite his sources."
[1] All information in this portion of my comment is sourced from the comments at Dr. Lybrand's blog.
SEPARATING A THEOLOGICAL MISSION FROM AN ETHICAL MISSION
If any opponents to the promise-only gospel have sought out GES people to conscribe them back into their God-given ethical righteousness, then they would be demonstrating that they did not receive as a benefit, what I am convinced is stereotype of the ethics of the GES in the last year or more.
Here is what we know of the theological mission of those opposed to the promise-only gospel:
-GES are termites within the church [2]
-GES takes unsuspecting and harms them [2]
-No one in FGA is any longer holding hands with the Promise-Only Gospel [2]
-Want to perhaps write into their new FGA amendments, help to effectually sort the people [1]
-FGA had to say not associated with GES because of inquiries of concern on gospel content [1], [2]
-FGA says that GES is not a part of FG [2], [1]
-claim that they are excluded by theology on the gospel from being considered FG [2]
-Want to prevent unsuspecting from opportunity to be in contact with GES [2]
Here is what we know of the ethical mission of some opposed to the promise-only gospel:
-GES is morally bankrupt [1]
-GES is ethically bankrupt [1]
-GES is missing an ethical compass [1]
-GES is missing a moral compass [1]
For one-to-two years there has been active "broad"-casting of a list of specific sins of others. The broadcasting is fact. Yet the appropriateness in their being blameworthy has yet to be proven (see previous comment). Is this broadcast advancing the cessation of promise-only conversions? It is in practicality, helpful, toward achieving the end of GES gospel teaching. This is my reasoning, though perhaps it has not been said entirely explicitly, that a depiction of GES as lacking sufficient ethics has its purpose in being public, in that it further protects the unaware from error by giving additional reason to stay away. Now in the case that either the broadcasting of those specific sins of some individuals is unfair (because of repentance, simple misunderstanding, etc.), or, in the case that the broadcasting of the GES ethic as poor is also unfairly characterized, what the community will need more and more are the opponents to the promise-only gospel upholding the biblical privileges of GES people. These brothers who oppose the theology of the promise-only gospel can reverse this unfair extra advancement of their own theological mission by means of changing the tone and direction of their ethical mission to the GES. Instead of stereotyping and dismissing the GES ethic, they can actively serve the restoration of the ethic by the power of the Spirit indwelling GES advocates. Specifics ways to do so include dismissing the unfair future broadcast of sock puppetry or plagiarism, and forgiving and accepting them (without of course declaring a prerequisite of such treatment contingent on surrender of their different beliefs).
This is my logic considering the things I have seen and heard. If it is flawed or lacks sufficient information, I will apologize and make correction. I want these three conversation-pieces to be regrettably but necessarily painful in the moment, and beneficial to the long-term.
[1] Information sourced in Dr. Lybrand's blog/open letter
[2] Information sourced in LM's blog
This is the third and concluding of three points which I thought necessary even though understandably sensitive.
A SPREADING ETHIC: MORE REASONING WHY THE STEREOTYPE IS INAPPROPRIATE
The lack of ethics has been alleged as additional grounds to dismiss promise-only advocates and the whole GES membership. But that is not the end of dismissals from fellowship, communication and participation. The moral bankruptcy of the GES is somehow infectious. It affects people who have not yet formed their theological opinion on the gospel. Students are not safe from being assessed as ethically awry. Nor are those safe, who after searching the scriptures dutifully to decide on one gospel or another, cannot find the case conclusive or cannot be persuaded to join either gospel. How is anyone safe from being assessed as ethically flawed? And the GES is blamed as the influence over all these people.
How are these in-between sorts of FG people, those students and unconverted persons, proven to share in the GES' lack of an ethical and moral compass? "Bad theology makes bad character," doesn't apply here, for these persons could never have been corrupted in ethic if the GES theology on the gospel was never owned. How then can someone dismiss them on the grounds of ethics as well, on even less doctrinal data? Whether it makes sense or not, it is done through claiming that the GES ethic is magically spread, to be possessed by more than just GES people.
A non-GES person can be decided as corrupt in ethics, without owning any theology on the gospel, and through the same short record of interaction... on the internet no less. There seems to be the same rush to apply the principle to the individual and the individual to the principle just as much for these in-between people... though the logic in doing so is even less reasonable, at least to my current comprehension.
Summary
What is the GES ethic? It is described as morally and ethically bankrupt. The ethic's practical manifestations are displayed through links frequently broadcast, such as sock puppeteering and plagiarism. There is no evidence from some brothers that being a sock puppeteer or plagiarizer and meanwhile expressing theological disagreement is a minor or forgiveable matter. If no one steps in and says and changes something in regard to this, this unfair categorization of the ethics of others is unnaturally advancing their theological mission which is to see the end of erroneous teaching on the gospel.
And to finish it off, yes, I do believe that measuring outward performance as the criterion for inclusion with or exclusion from the Spiritual Body is legalism.
Hi Michele,
I’ve been blessed in reading your post and comments these past months and I appreciate your sweet spirit in most all of your conversation.
I think you’ve offered an excellent perspective here from which we would all do well to assess ourselves and ask the simple question, “what am I doing and why am I doing it?” It does seem to me that for many the criteria for maintaining, not only fellowship, but also common decency is to “judge who I judge or be judged”. I pray your effort here will help foster a better understanding of the situation and a resolution.
kc
Hi KC,
Thanks for confirming that my senses can't be too far gone.... It's nice to have that sort of thing. I think you think like I think.... Though I don't know you very well yet. Either way it is very nice to meet you.
:D Michele
Hi Readers,
If it's not legalism, then what is it? This is what I want to discover. I don't care if I lack readership for these comments because to me at least I finally said aloud the burden I've been seeing and probably I'm not alone.
I believe we have an either-or situation here. Either we believe the scriptures, that we are sanctified by faith alone, in fellowship with Christ by walking with the Spirit alone, and forgiven and cleansed from all unrighteousness by confession alone...
Or we're not.
What business does my brother have in denying me his fellowship if God does not deny me His?
Are we not restored by these things in fellowship, communication and participation of any "God's Free Grace" community... forgiven and loved like 1 Cor 13 describes? Our goal, as proferrers of this free grace, is to hope that the lost and saved alike would take hold of that grace more and more and our mission is to help them reach it.
?
Readers,
In my reading, in nearly every text where the New Testament commands separation from false teaching it is specifically referencing in context those who are systematizing legalism. This is because legalism amongst believers actually causes people to live fleshly lives, not godly ones. And legalism eventually attacks the absolutely critical doctrine of grace through faith which stands alone as our true hope of bringing unity and brotherly love to any church. In fact, the entire New Testament has a running theme of anger, disdain and judgment for legalism, by the teachings of Jesus, Peter & Paul to my recollection but there are more I think. It is a clear source of trouble within the body of believers, where we ought to be one and unified but the doctrine of sanctification by faith alone has gone under attack. In a few cases, the specific doctrine, the specific source of legalism being taught, is stated in those texts. There are an endless variety of doctrines which systematize legalism. But even in the absence of a doctrine explaining why and how, the admonishment is the same. It'd be a bonus to know how legalism has come about, but even without it must be warned of and rebuked.
See that in Acts 15 the code of conduct changed. It got longer. Did you notice that? This is what happens in legalistic environments. No matter how much appeasement and conformity is achieved, there is always this perpetual disdain they possess, and they will never consciously free you from their critical inspection. They want to boast in your flesh (outward performance). They want to boast that you change to become more godly because of their own influence, not because of Christ's. The appetite is pride and it is never satisfied.
Look at the code. It is meant to conceal with a "good cause" their desire for leading the flock. The Judiazers couldn't have chosen a more traditional, more reasonable set of rules: get circumcised. Oh, and later they added: obey the Ten Commandments, too. Beautiful in outward appearance, but hiding the motivation underneath.
Long ago somehow the most repeated message coming from the Free Grace internet realm changed from being a doctrine concerning God's grace & mercy, drowned... by a vying message for anti- sock-puppets and plagiarism.
I've written all these things long before today; I have thought them through.
Readers,
I do not believe Free Grace will remain satisfied with this. Did they get a good exchange?
Some of the proclamations in the name of Free Grace has turned to a message of ethics on genteel and nearly inconsequential code of laws. Every time it is linked, every time it is posted on a blog somewhere, our good theological name and reputation is effectually falling away from the grace of God.
What do you do if you encounter a legalist? I'll share the little I use.
When you are in the environment or especially are direct target of the derision of a legalist, either way boiling down to their message or presence making you think, "Oh, dang, I did something wrong," and you get that sinking feeling, here's what you can remember, three things:
1 - Matt 18. They aren't supposed to wham you with anything publicly. If they have the gall to judge you in their thoughts then they should relieve themselves of that violation of their conscience by bringing it to you and working it through with you privately, before talking to anyone else. If they do not follow Matt 18, that's their violation, not yours.
2 - Consider that it might be better to NOT CONFORM / OBEY. As I shared in a testimony this month, it is better to be assured of God's grace, and really know it, than lose your sense for Christ by following a rule expounder in the heat of the moment.
3 - In soaking into that place of grace, where you start to learn to go around with boldness, saying, "Look at me, I don't conform quite yet but by the grace of God I'll get there some day!" enjoy every moment. You are modeling for others the truth of Christ crucified (gal 2:17-3:1), and it will spread like wildfire, I think. Our community needs people who are full of joy in Christ; it is His fragrance drawing unto us the lost, and the LS-types, too.
It's not much, but I give what I've been given. (comfort others with the comfort we've received)
Michele
Readers,
May I share with you the testimony I shared before? I like ways of illustrating the sort of difference in outward obedience, like the kind Paul used in denying circumcision in one case and performing it in another.
Thank you for reading all these comments I've been making. Here is a testimony I shared this month:
I'm recalling my exposure to legalistic baptism. The parallels were so amazing, for me, when reading on the OT version of the same issue of baptism, which is circumcision. It was because of baptism that I began studying how I could know I was truly saved.
I hear in my mind the jerusalem council in Acts 15 as I recount this testimony with you....
The essential struggle going on inside of me was to know and defend the gospel of God's grace for my self. I WOULD RATHER NOT BE BAPTIZED IN WATER, I decided. Note now, what I meant in that context. I was not excusing myself from obeying. Rather I was saying that by me allowing them to baptize me according to their pressure and skillful use of scripture, to "throw me into confusion," to possibly convince me I needed it - for my own righteousness, was to put God's own righteousness, in me, my awareness of it, my assurance of it, my faith, at risk.
What single command is worth it? What single command is worth obeying if it causes me to cramp my reliance in the sufficiency of the work of Christ on the cross on my behalf? He declared it was finished. Do I need to add my own works to fill up the remaining gap, or, was it finished? Do I need to add my own tryings to gain an extra dose of approval on the part of God, upon that which Christ had done? No - He declared, "It is finished."
The righteousness we have in union with Christ by faith, is under assault, when we give ear to the commands preached by the legalists. I would rather not obey any single popularly made point of subtle disdain from amongst the brethren, than surrender my assurance that Christ has made me meet by faith alone.
This is what Paul was arguing for when he said, be careful not to take any yoke upon you, for Christ set you free to remain so. I do not set aside the righteousness of God, for if righteousness could be had by human tryings, Christ died in vain! Grace is no longer grace if by works.
These are the extreme all-or-nothing characteristics Paul left for us to read about from his time learning the gospel from Christ Himself, in the grace we have all received in our salvation.
Let the offense of the cross, its total sufficiency which is so repugnant to the willful flesh of man, stand with all integrity - and don't obey even scriptural commands from those legalists who pressure you with everything that sounds, right now, so very necessary to obey to be alright.
Obey the command later! Later; when it is born out of your own faith in God and love for Him. Separate it, in your mind, and be truly convinced of his grace, first. "Compelled" is what happens inside us when we appease the rules which men extoll and abandon the cross of Christ!
"Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves." Galatians 2:3-4
This is my cult-fighter number one scripture:
"A man is not a jew if he is only one outwardly; nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No; a man is a jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men but from God." Romans 2:28-29
No codes. No schisms. Thank-you very much. We're not looking for the praises of men!
God bless you for sharing and encouraging!
Post a Comment