I am convinced there are two sorts of participants in the FG hot topics around the blogs. They jump in the conversation according to what they feel is most important.
Type 1 in this conversation prioritize (rank in importance) the FG hot topics like this:
1 - COSF (most important)
2 - purity in speech/conduct
Type 2 in this conversation prioritize topics inversely:
1 - purity in speech/conduct (most important)
2 - COSF
Neither Type 1 or Type 2 are wrong; they're just different to stress one over the other but I assume both Type 1 and Type 2 esteem COSF and purity. (Perhaps the difference in emphasis is due to different gifts or parts of the body?) I'm a Type 2. I think there are several who are Type 2 in the blogosphere and I believe the ranks are growing, converting and displacing a few Type 1s. There are many reasons to be a Type 2. Here's some my feeble mind has thought it could notice:
-- One could be hard-core (how shall we label these COSF doctrines?) FGA, GES, or Glorious gospel, but are so disenchanted through seeing ungraciousness that being dogmatic just isn't spiritually worth the cost anymore
-- One could have started off being either FGA or GES and may still believe that COSF is the most important thing, but because there is no pragmatic difference in what is being preached to the lost, or perhaps because one has been convinced by scripture there really is not much difference in the theology between the two, the result is the COSF "debate" doesn't really need to be "debated" like once believed
-- One has studied the COSF debate and does not believe the correct answer is any of those (three) COSF doctrines, but a fourth. And it was when these ones had to sit around on their hands for three years to even get a chance to share their mind they noticed and appreciated grace, and will stay on the cause for purity in speech and conduct because it is still worthwhile to have it as priority
-- One is a student who knows they can't even begin to know the answer to COSF, but one thing they can know for sure right now, which is what purity ought to look and sound like
Are there more?
Dr. Lybrand mentioned in a comment at his blog here (on October 12, 2009 at 5:56 am) how he believes he is observing a variety of people from different backgrounds and values. It is possible this is part of what he meant through acknowledging such. I would be happy to learn more on his thoughts. I noticed "ad hominem" and its purpose to discount the COSF views being contended, and, I saw how Kev wrote on his blog post that "pointing out the [weak points] of another man is plainly silly" if its not related back in to the issue of who should be persuaded by which doctrine. However - I disagree, and that's where I've been for a year and a half. I hope that makes sense. I think purity is its own important issue.
Type 1 in this conversation prioritize (rank in importance) the FG hot topics like this:
1 - COSF (most important)
2 - purity in speech/conduct
Type 2 in this conversation prioritize topics inversely:
1 - purity in speech/conduct (most important)
2 - COSF
Neither Type 1 or Type 2 are wrong; they're just different to stress one over the other but I assume both Type 1 and Type 2 esteem COSF and purity. (Perhaps the difference in emphasis is due to different gifts or parts of the body?) I'm a Type 2. I think there are several who are Type 2 in the blogosphere and I believe the ranks are growing, converting and displacing a few Type 1s. There are many reasons to be a Type 2. Here's some my feeble mind has thought it could notice:
-- One could be hard-core (how shall we label these COSF doctrines?) FGA, GES, or Glorious gospel, but are so disenchanted through seeing ungraciousness that being dogmatic just isn't spiritually worth the cost anymore
-- One could have started off being either FGA or GES and may still believe that COSF is the most important thing, but because there is no pragmatic difference in what is being preached to the lost, or perhaps because one has been convinced by scripture there really is not much difference in the theology between the two, the result is the COSF "debate" doesn't really need to be "debated" like once believed
-- One has studied the COSF debate and does not believe the correct answer is any of those (three) COSF doctrines, but a fourth. And it was when these ones had to sit around on their hands for three years to even get a chance to share their mind they noticed and appreciated grace, and will stay on the cause for purity in speech and conduct because it is still worthwhile to have it as priority
-- One is a student who knows they can't even begin to know the answer to COSF, but one thing they can know for sure right now, which is what purity ought to look and sound like
Are there more?
Dr. Lybrand mentioned in a comment at his blog here (on October 12, 2009 at 5:56 am) how he believes he is observing a variety of people from different backgrounds and values. It is possible this is part of what he meant through acknowledging such. I would be happy to learn more on his thoughts. I noticed "ad hominem" and its purpose to discount the COSF views being contended, and, I saw how Kev wrote on his blog post that "pointing out the [weak points] of another man is plainly silly" if its not related back in to the issue of who should be persuaded by which doctrine. However - I disagree, and that's where I've been for a year and a half. I hope that makes sense. I think purity is its own important issue.
Read this post written over a year ago, sharing my own Type 2 priority which is unchanged:
My Own Conference Soundbytes
I suppose it's possible that one's reason for being a Type 2 is because they love ecumenism, and they choose blind "unity" at the expense of truth. I just don't know if that's anyone around here like we're being told?
How are we supposed to have real dialogue with any person who does "90% contending" when there are all these unique reasons to be a Type 2?
23 comments:
There are many "Type 1s" who are kind, gracious.
Just in case it needs to be said yet another time, I'm really not talking about the COSF debate, but interacting with those in the debate... about purity. The times I do talk about my COSF opinions is because I desire to be in right relationship to the Word and other believers, and this demands that I release an occasional comment or a post explaining what it is I think about the COSF, as others knowingly or unknowingly invest in to me good teaching of every sort.
It really is that simple.
Now I know its presumptuous to "stand up" as some "morally evolved" person as if my own purity and example are stupendous. I know that and God has been putting up His mirror since I started "participating." However everyone has a "greatest" priority, and purity is a passion for many believers. So why not anticipate that - and the rest of the Type 2s. The old blogger's code chaps get this. They all care deeply and passionately about purity in speech and conduct.
Probably none of those passionate about purity are themselves completely pure in conduct and speech. But that's not the total qualification (which is a kindness for me, since I am prospectively the most immature in the faith who desires to be a part of the conversation). The qualification is at least partially, ongoing personal obedience to God, so as not to be a hypocrite. Purity comes by pressing into the presence of Christ.
Just wanted to say, to all the other Type 2s and most Type 1s, I do see Christ through you. I can see that relationship. The Jews could tell that the Apostles had been in the presence of Jesus, and it is truly wonderful to recognize the One I know in people I've never seen face to face!
Thanks for living Christ through your lives. The rote gospel means so much more to me because of the way you engage in this blogging community. You've been living it out here in the threads going back years, long before I took the time to notice...
Hi Michele,
I like this. I'm gonna chew on it some and figure out just where I think I fit in here. I've gone through some changes in my perspective in the past couple of months. You've made a few statements that really stand out and hit home with me. Let me think about this some and I'll get back with you with my 2 cents. :D
Gary
Hi Gary,
Look forward to the mashed bits! :) Maybe there's a Type 3 & Type 4 - who knows?
Just trying to sic a few brain cells on it, and I know what I said is extremely simplistic.
It's just that I've noticed this trend, and it is a trend that concerns me, that whenever anyone talks about issues of purity, there are some people who interpret it as mere ecumenism. They are very different.
Michele,
Well said. I used to be a type 1 and worse -- in practice, correct doctrine covered a multitude of sins, back then. Now, I'm a hardcore type 2, and I don't believe it's just a matter of gifting. Godliness is the qualification for entry into the conversation; a man must first live his theology, and only then is he ready to speak it.
1 John says that if a man hates his brother, he does not know God. If a man's speech (or writing) exhibits hatred for his brother, then Scripture compels us to say that he does not know God. If he does not know God, then no one should listen to what he has to say about God.
Which is to say that a man who is neither free nor gracious has no right to claim the title "free grace."
Hey Michele, there's a new dog on the block! I saw him goin down the road!
http://easygoer1.blogspot.com/2009/10/old-friends-different-kind-of-dog_9354.html
Hey Gary!
Really cool video!
I'm trying to type this one handed while my jack russel, Lillie, chews on my hand. If you zoom in on my picture she's the one on my shoulder praying while I nap. No, seriously, I'm napping. She's a very spiritual dog; although, as you can see on her face, she has a dark side too. One of her knick-names is "roughian" 'cause for a little dog, her bark is really "ruff".
Dogs would make great people. Dogs were created to act like animals. People aren't supposed to; especially our own kin.
Love ya'll
Duane
Hi Duane,
I checked out that picture on your profile. You need to hang on to that because you'll always treasure it. It's funny that you have a Jack Russell terrier like ole Skip. I had a Shelty for 12 yrs kind of like the other dog on the video wearing the Harley bandanna. Mine looked almost just like a little Lassie. I don't have a dog right now, but they sure are man's best friend alright.
Those Jack Russell terriers look like fun dogs to have. I wouldn't let Lillie drive your car though if I were you. Just tell her to pray while YOU drive!
Gary :D
Hi Michele, Hi Gary!
Yeah, Shelties are sweet dogs too!
We dog sat one for a few days about 10 years ago. "Daisy" was a Lassie type. Her person was as big as a barn.
Ever since Lillie got in the road and came home abruptly with an 18 wheeler chasing her, horn blasting, she has an aversion to big trucks. She hides under the dash board and prays when ever we're on the highway. She drives on the byways. My wife demands full disclosure: Lillie is "her dog". Can I help it if she likes me (Lillie that is)? She's an awesome fetcher.
Lillie says, when we go before the Throne of Grace, (should be at least as often as our dog comes to us) we should be as excited and enthralled with our Lord as doggie is when we get home from work.
"Oh Master! Your Here! Your Here!
I am so excited to see you! Please spend time with me!
Lord, please make me into such a worshipper.
This blog has gone to the dogs.
Thanks Michele.
Duane,
Your comment about what Lillie tells you about going to the throne of grace reminded me of another video I saw. You might like it. The woman who wrote the song has a website where she comments on the lyrics of the song. She's a Christian and her comments are pretty good. Here's the youtube link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H17edn_RZoY
Hi Michele! :D
Michele,
I am of the opinion that if I can't at least be decent to people, why should anyone care what I believe or have to say?
What type does that make me?
type 1 or type 2? I think doctrine is important. I also think the ABCs are important... but I can't teach my kid the ABCs if I yell at him and freak him out all day long. I need to be kind, understanding, creative and graciously cajoling him to learn, eh? So to me, it isn't either/or -relating skills (and other speech/conduct issues) come first and then discussions of doctrine will have fertile ground on which to blossom.
... or am I missing your point?
Rose/All:
This morning I was pondering this verse and came to a conclusion, which follows.
“For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God,” (1 Peter :20).
My conclusion is that to have posted here at this time was not in the best interest of the cause of Christ, was not “acceptable with God.” I apologize for having come to this blog.
I offer no apology for or retraction of any of the fact based comments I posted here. They just should not have been posted here at this time.
LM
PS: I’ve posted the following at Rose’s blog. I’ve posted it at some of your personal blogs in the event Rose deletes and thereby does not allow you to see my comments above that I just posted at her blog.
Lou,
I'm going to leave your comment posted (on my blog) because I agree with you. I, too, offer no apology for believing in what you have labeled as "The Crossless Gospel" or "Promise-Only Gospel". I never will offer any apologies or retract my conviction before God that what I believe is not "heresy" or a "false gospel" as you claim and advertise everywhere. You have a right to your own convictions too. The problem is that you will not be allowed to advertise on my blog. I have always honored the ban you imposed on me at your blog over a year ago and I would have appreciated you doing the same here, as I'm sure some other bloggers would have as well.
I accept your apology and respect you for making it. It still grieves me that you refuse to have fellowship with me and others because of your conviction that we are heretics, but there is obviously nothing I can do about that. It grieves me even more that you have also labeled some who ARE willing to have fellowship with me as a being a heretic themselves.
Apparently the only option we are left with is to mutually "avoid" one another according to our own convictions as we are told to do in Rom. 16:17,18. While that is not an option that brings me any joy it does seem to be the only one possible.
I do take consolation in my belief that there is coming a time when you and I will have joy and fellowship together when we see Christ face to face. I assume that you know you are born again and have assurance of your salvation. What I think you don't yet realize for some reason is that there would be no way for you or anyone else to know that apart from the promise of Jesus Christ that whosoever believes in Him has everlasting life. That is the only way that the meaning and purpose of Christ's death and resurrection has been communicated to us by God (e.g. Jn. 1:12; 3:16, 5:24, 6:47; 11:25-27; 11:25-27; 20:31; 1 Jn 5:1; 5:9-13 etc). None of us would know or understand why He came, died, and rose again if Jesus Himself had not told us. None of us would know or understand what it is He wants to do for us and give us if He had not told us. None of us would know or understand what Jesus told the woman at the well that she needed to know (Jn. 4:10) It was Jesus who told us this even before Paul, and when Paul himself was saved it was this same simple message of Jesus that he first believed. The Lord taught him the rest of it later, just as He also had done with the disciples.
If we knew everything in scripture, but didn't know about the promise of Jesus, none of it would make any sense to us. If we knew and even believed that someone named Jesus Who claimed to be the "Christ" had died for our sins and rose from the grave three days later, it would not make any sense or have any meaning unless we also knew that this same Jesus promised us that if we simply believed in Him we have everlasting life. And we can only "believe in Him" in that sense by believing His words, since that is the only way it was originally communicated to us:
"Most assuredly , I say to you, he who hears My word and believes Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgement, but has passed from death into life." Jn 5:24
Now you know something Lou? I refuse to waste any more time arguing with any person who claims to have assurance of their salvation about the so-called "Promise-Only Gospel." You know why? Because, it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to know they are saved any other way. Anyone who KNOWS they are saved or have eternal life has believed the promise of Jesus Christ at some point in their life whether they realize it or not. If they hadn't done that they could not know they were saved. Whether they believed His promise straight from the Gospel of John or it was communicated to them some other way, they have believed it. And it was only when they believed His promise that they understood the meaning and purpose of any other biblical truths they might have also believed at the time they were born again.
You have rightly acknowledged that even we "Crossless heretics" believe, teach, and preach the death, resurrection, etc etc. In fact we believe in preaching all of scripture to people. Jesus commanded us to go and make DISCIPLES of all the nations. That clearly means that we are commanded to teach them EVERYTHING we know about Jesus Christ. The claim of some people that the "Promise-Only Gospel" will eventually lead to the other important historical facts about Christ not being preached is absurd, I don't care how many Dr's that person has stuck before his name. The very idea that the historical Jesus who is called the Christ could ever be successfully separated from scripture is preposterous, especially since Jesus Himself promised that not one jot nor tittle of scripture would ever pass away until all be fulfilled. And why would any believer even consider doing such a thing?
No, my days of arguing with people who know they are saved about something so obvious as this are over. There is a whole world out there who doesn't know about Jesus Christ, what He has done for them, and the free gift he wants to give them, to even debate something as ridiculous as this any longer. And there is no excuse for it either.
“For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God,” (1 Peter :20).
I have been blogging for about a year now and I don't know that I can go back and sort through everything I've said or written. But Lou, if I have wrongfully hurt or offended you or anyone else during this time, and I don't doubt that I have, I ask you to forgive me.
God bless you Lou and I'll see you in heaven.
Easygoer is now closed
Hi Tim,
Apologies for not commenting in reply for such duration!
Thanks for leaving your affirming comment. I appreciated the rebuke you've made in your latest post as well. Grateful for all of it. Just hope my eyes are open wide enough to see something is talking about me... when it does! :)
Would love to hear a little theology on how grace produces purity, or however it should be worded?
Michele
Duane,
Thanks so much for visiting and inspiring me today with these reflections.
"Lillie says, when we go before the Throne of Grace, (should be at least as often as our dog comes to us) we should be as excited and enthralled with our Lord as doggie is when we get home from work.
"Oh Master! Your Here! Your Here!
I am so excited to see you! Please spend time with me!
Lord, please make me into such a worshipper."
I'm glad you've visited, you've graced my space!
Michele
Hi Gary,
Sorry it took so long to reply! I saw pics of your sheltie, remember? She is sweet. I have a german shepherd and maybe if I didn't have kids, she and I would be a lot more close. But I have an affectionate nickname for "Penny" my dog. I call her "3500," after the number of dollars we've spent on her many medical accidents.
Herding group dogs are so intent on working for their task they don't even notice when they've stabbed themselves with a tree trunk. I had to find blood all over the house the next day, but she had hurt herself much earlier the day before yet kept at it so I could not tell anything was wrong.
:( She's a good pup. :)
Rose,
I'm glad you got my point after wading through my poor concepts/language.
Michele,
I am of the opinion that if I can't at least be decent to people, why should anyone care what I believe or have to say?
What type does that make me?
Umm, seriously hard core type 2?
As in, you've been convicted it's a big deal to be what you believe.
Thanks for leaving your thoughts. I smiled when I saw you had left some.
Gary,
Just wanted to thank you for leaving a reaction to this certain individual. I confess it is not the first but unfortunately the last reaction that comes to mind, but, "love does not rejoice in evil but in the truth" and I too am glad that this person has changed his mind. Unconditionally it is good.
I don't mistake a movement on the surface for any difference in the heart, though. It has now been... eight months since I have spoken any word to this person. I don't see yet any sign to reopen or reinvite him, because the sign I am looking for is that he would allow me to be my own person, independent of his estimations and explanations, and actually talk to me. I am the resident expert on my motivations and my beliefs, not anyone else. If those are not terms that are acceptable, then there has been no reparation toward me and I cannot offer any toward him.
That's all I will say on the topic.
Thanks for hearin' me out too bro.
Michele,
I'd hit it thus: Grace is personified in Christ. Purity/truth is also personified in Christ.
When a person is "all truth, no grace" he is in fact neither gracious nor truthful.
This is because truth must reflect the nature of God, as must grace. So to say the person is truthful, but not gracious, is to say that he reflects Christ, but he doesn't.
It doesn't work. The putatively "truthful" words might pass a comparison with a good doctrinal statement, but the incarnation of them, the living-out, is still off. What that guy means by them is wrong. What throws us is that we think something can be true because it passes the doctrinal statement test. But no. Really, the situation just exposes the weakness of that test. The real test, the only one that ultimately matters, was always conformity with Christ, and in Christ grace and truth converge.
So a person is either walking with Christ, or he's not. If he is, then grace and purity go hand in hand. If not, then he'll try to fake aspects of Christ, but we shouldn't confuse the form of godliness with the Power.
Post a Comment