Paul uses a term to describe this "one body" theme in marriage and the church; it is a mystery. This mystery has been revealed by doctrine given to Paul from Jesus Himself (Eph. 3:2-4), and that doctrine is written in the letter and is concurrently being manifested by the church to an unsaved world. Eph. 5:30-32
For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
ONE BODY: The Promises
It was a single man, one body: Abraham, who received the promises of God. The first speech God ever made to Abram was
Get out of your country, from your family and from your father's house, to a land I will show you. I will make you a great nation; I will bless you and make your name great; and you shall be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who curses you; and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.
It is amazing that God promised Abram offspring as plentiful as the dust of the earth. As of chapter fifteen of Genesis, the LORD had mentioned this promise three times to him, but who would be considered his descendant? He had no children of his own flesh and blood. There was a child born in his home who would be his heir. Abram inquired of God, and He answers. The promise, God explains, will come through a yet unborn child.
It was a single child, one body: Isaac, who became the manifestation of God's promise. Ishmael and all the concubines' children were sent by the patriarch far away from Isaac in a land to the East, and Isaac inherited everything (Gen. 25:5-6). This process was a source of persecution for the heir and a heart-issue grounded in familial love when Abraham chose to exclude his first son (Gen. 21:11).
It was a single individual, one body: Christ, who is the Seed confirming Abraham's covenant. "Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, 'And to seeds,' as of many, but as of one, 'And to your Seed,' who is Christ" (Gal. 3:16).
ONE BODY: The Separations
Abram dwelled with unbelievers in Ur. God wanted to bless Abram, but departure was the condition in which He would accomplish the blessing. The scriptures teach in the New Testament not to keep accord with unbelievers, 2 Cor. 6:16-18
'I will dwell in them
And walk among them.
I will be their God,
And they shall be my people.'
Therefore
'Come out from among them
And be separate, says the Lord.
Do not touch what is unclean,
And I will receive you.
I will be a Father to you,
And you shall be my sons and daughters,
Says the LORD Almighty.'
But it was not just with the unbelieving quality of his house, family and country from which God wanted to separate Abram. The fact that Terah, Abram's father, and nephew Lot, tagged along with Abram as he followed God's leading, demonstrates a certain amount of faith by his relatives. In fact, Lot was judged righteous and spared from the destruction of Sodom later on in Genesis evidencing that he was a man who most likely believed in the promise given by God to Abram (and therefore was justified, a true brother in the faith as well as the flesh).
It was from family altogether that God desired Abram to separate.
After Abram takes his first trip to Egypt he returns to the original altar he built and calls on the name of the LORD (Gen. 13:4). But the LORD did not respond to his call till after he deals a final separation from his nephew. Afterward God speaks affirmation to Abram. Abram had to say to Lot in 13:9
"Please separate from me."
Much later in life, when seeking a suitable wife for his son Isaac from amongst his relatives, Abraham commands his servant who will bring back this wife in Gen. 24:6-8 saying,
Beware that you do not take my son back there. The LORD God of heaven, who took me from my father's house and from the land of my family, and who spoke to me and swore to me, saying, 'To your descendants I give this land,' He will send His angel before you, and you shall take a wife from my son from there. And if the woman is not willing to follow you, then you will be released from this oath; only do not take my son back there.
God puts a premium on an everlasting sever of orientation with the family of origin. In the New Testament, separation from relatives and family is still the essential test of discipleship to the LORD. Luke 9:57-62
Now it happened as they journeyed on the road, that someone said to Him, “Lord, I will follow You wherever You go.”
And Jesus said to him, “Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head.” Then He said to another, “Follow Me.”
But he said, “Lord, let me first go and bury my father.”
Jesus said to him, “Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and preach the kingdom of God.”
And another also said, “Lord, I will follow You, but let me first go and bid them farewell who are at my house.”
But Jesus said to him, “No one, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.”
Here we can see the double call to put faith in Jesus. First for salvation - these two men both call Him Lord, having already believed in Him for eternal life as a free gift, which is not attained by commitment. But the second call to faith is for discipleship. The choice is theirs. The cost is personal; the cost comes at the expense of family accord. This is not the only scripture juxtaposing commitment to the LORD and the connectedness to relatives. Matt. 10:34-39
Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’; and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.’ He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it.
Leaving all to follow Christ explicitly targets the family of origin as an influence to forsake. Luke 14:25-33
Now great multitudes went with Him. And He turned and said to them, “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple. And whoever does not bear his cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple. For which of you, intending to build a tower, does not sit down first and count the cost, whether he has enough to finish it—lest, after he has laid the foundation, and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish’? Or what king, going to make war against another king, does not sit down first and consider whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? Or else, while the other is still a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks conditions of peace. So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple.
Jesus is making a family marked by faith. He passionately recognizes those of the faith and no longer acknowledges the family of the flesh. Indeed it is interesting in these passages that Jesus recognizes His family as those believers who obey Him. Matt. 12:46-50
While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you."
He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."
ONE BODY: The Alliances
Paul speaks to the Ephesian believers just as God spoke to Abram calling that which was dead truly alive. Our justification positionally moves us out from our deserved fate and grafts us in to another fate. Romans 4:16-22 describes the circumstances of death turned to justification:
Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all (as it is written, “I have made you a father of many nations”) in the presence of Him whom he believed—God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did; who, contrary to hope, in hope believed, so that he became the father of many nations, according to what was spoken, “So shall your descendants be.” And not being weak in faith, he did not consider his own body, already dead (since he was about a hundred years old), and the deadness of Sarah’s womb. He did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God, and being fully convinced that what He had promised He was also able to perform. And therefore “it was accounted to him for righteousness.”
We were also spiritually dead dwelling with unbelievers, but raised to life in Him if we believe. Ephesians 2:1-7
And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.
But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.
Genesis 2:24 is the first time marriage is given revelation. Adam and Eve's directive has two parts; the "leaving," and the "cleaving." The "leaving" seems a little easier to understand. The "cleaving" is a little more difficult. In this cleaving faith-family there are a few categories of two former representative parties who are reckoned now as one. In fact, the representative sorts (below) comprise many millions of individuals who are considered by God as unified. The five categories of alliance are:
- The Gentiles and the Jews. In Christ, they are no longer opponents but made one body from the two. Ephesians 2:11-18
Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands—that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity. And He came and preached peace to you who were afar off and to those who were near. For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father.
God has a plan for increasing the descendants of that small nuclear family of Abraham, Sarah and Isaac. His will is to reach back into that wealth of relatives and families of unbelievers in all the world and call them to faith in God through the gospel of Christ. The enmity in our own household can become peace if its members believe and choose to follow Christ. The peace is ours by position, by justification. However peace is not realized, experienced, or made manifest in experience without fellowship in Christ as we walk in the footsteps of faith like our father Abraham. There is a double call to faith in the LORD. This is why Paul immediately introduces discipleship beyond this positional teaching of justification. He begins by asking the Ephesian believers to reckon on the mystery. Eph. 3:8-4:1
To me, who am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ; to the intent that now the manifold wisdom of God might be made known by the church to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places, according to the eternal purpose which He accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord, in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through faith in Him. Therefore I ask that you do not lose heart at my tribulations for you, which is your glory.
For this reason I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with might through His Spirit in the inner man, that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the width and length and depth and height—to know the love of Christ which passes knowledge; that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.
Now to Him who is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us, to Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever. Amen. I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you to walk worthy of the calling for which you were called....
- A husband and his wife. In truth, two individuals are reckoned as one body. Eph. 5:28
So husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself.
- Jesus Christ and the Church. In truth, they are reckoned as one body. Eph. 1:22-23 & 1 Cor. 12:12
And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.
For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ.
- Jesus Christ and the Father. They are two persons, yet one being. John 17:11 & 17:20-23
Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are.
I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.
- Heaven and earth. Two realms presently governed by two opposing principalities will one day have total annexation under God's reign. Eph. 1:7-12
In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace which He made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence, having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth—in Him. In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory.
"In Him" and "In Him also" denote the double calls to faith; one justifying for the gift of eternal life, and the other a choice to follow in Abraham's walk of discipleship, and by doing so becoming the blessing that God wanted to make of him.
Heaven kisses earth and God dwells forever with His people when all enmity has been destroyed - what a stark reminder that there is a real place called hell reserved for unbelief and there will be judgment for our walk beginning with the house of God. It is through our guarded commitment to only orient ourselves in Him and His promises that we will be a blessing to the world and fulfill God's purpose on earth. It is through marriage and the church of Christ that God is depicting His eternal redemptive purposes.
309 comments:
1 – 200 of 309 Newer› Newest»Not too shabby, girl!
(This is an example of the figure of speech, litotes.)
:)
Thanks for the comment; learning new things is not burdensome ;)
Lately in church there was one who made the comment that "rewards" in Christ were pursued because of a motivation of "pride." I find myself hearing that frequently and while I understand this first impression many take to the doctrine, there is a better way to understand motives and the teaching. Abraham came to me as an illustration of how attaining rewards had nothing to do with pride.
As I was reading I happened to notice that the first directive given to Abraham and the first directive given to Adam and Eve were an exact match. Both were told to "leave." This was crazy interesting!
Sometimes Christians know what they believe because they read the commentary first, but if we read the scripture first, then we can talk about it together and discover in humility which missing pieces have been overlooked.
I think you would agree with me Jim as much time as you spent at that one forum who mostly discuss the reformers.
Whoa!!! . . . you left the best for an afterthought (the "leaving" analogy between Abraham and Adam)!
You have forced me to reread the post and even look up some Hebrew! I have a few observations:
* In the interests of aesthetics and academic propriety, you should use that avatar only when speaking to or spoken to by GOE :-)
* The Hebrew for "leave" in Gen 2:24 (for Adam) is different from "leave" in 12:1 (for Abram). In the second case, the verb is very emphatic, "move yourself from . . . ," as if the entry of sin into the world after 2:24 had resulted in some kind of "inertia," making it more difficult to move in response to the voice of God. Kind of reminiscent of the language we sometimes use to "motivate" reluctant children to do what they need to do. (Often involves terminology about the "inertia" of rear ends?) :-)
* What you have done with this piece is exactly the kind of theological development we need in the FG movement to make progress within the larger community of the "One Body" of which you speak. Hermeneutically speaking, this kind of "spade work" takes into immediate consideration both the narrative of God's intended relationship with his people and the canonical flow of God's direction for his people. Just what we need in a fractious and (to some) ostensibly aimless theological movement looking for both unity and direction.
* May I humbly suggest that it would help your readers to grasp your argument on rewards if you revised the title to "telescope" the connection you intend to make between rewards and the call to "oneness"?
* Along these lines, could you add the connection between Abraham and Adam as your first observation? This would really set up your point about the consistency of God in dealing with His people as both one body and chosen agents of His redeeming work on earth and the intended heirs of present and future "rest". (to "piggyback" on the themes of the April GES conference)
* The longer you (Michele) "cook" your stuff, the better it gets . . . you are a "crock-pot" theologian. :-) (We already have more than enough of the "other" kind!)
This "crock-pot"-ing so to speak is a wild adventure in prayer, the Word and my life... God shows up, just like many times when Jesus was both teaching and performing a healing at the same time.
So the directives are not the same for Adam and Abram.
The Hebrew for "leave" in Gen 2:24 (for Adam) is different from "leave" in 12:1 (for Abram). In the second case, the verb is very emphatic, "move yourself from . . . ," as if the entry of sin into the world after 2:24 had resulted in some kind of "inertia," making it more difficult to move in response to the voice of God.
God uttered a litotes - it was "not good" for Adam to be alone. ;) I'm wondering how "not good" it really was? Please tell me that the reason for which woman came into being was something significantly more than cataloging creation. It takes a lot of energy to make a woman "from" the man's body and then tell them that they are now again "one flesh" and should aim to cleave. Sounds like a lot of silly theological nonsense.
For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. eph 5:30-32
Abram's calling uses a different word "leave," but, with the way in which he left everyone else and cleaved unto the promises in Isaac, how different is that from the marriage in Ephesians 5 or Genesis 2?
if you revised the title to "telescope" the connection you intend to make between rewards and the call to "oneness"?
I don't know how strong it will be, but that was the next post. I had to write this one first. I can't tie the two posts together into one. It's too much brain work at this time. I bet you're already writing it in your head, probably better than I, but that's alright I'll do it anyway.
:D
Michele,
What Jim said.
The Adam/Abraham parallel you drew out was just breathtaking. Thank you, a lot. It's gonna be interesting to cash that out further -- the leaving from and the leaving for.
Jim's right about you as a "crock pot" theologian, too. It's a pleasure to know you.
Actually, Michele, I think you make a sound argument that the two directives are the same. My point about the two different verbs is that even though God has not changed the directive, when sin leads to inertia, he just graciously adapts his speaking to human need in order to continue inviting them into his redemptive activity on earth.
In response to your comment about the "purpose" of a woman, and the "silly theological nonsense" of creating her out of man only to tell them to cleave back again, I would say that one God in three persons would seem to many to amount to the same theological nonsense . . . and some of them come right out and say so. But I think there's a whole lot more interconnectedness to the unity depicted in marriage, the Trinity, and the Body of Christ than may first meet the eye.
I have no intention of finishing what you started, Michele. I was impressed by the logic and cohesiveness of your argument, and I wait with baited breath to see what you're going to do with this, now that you're doing such winsome theology. :-)
Jim, when it comes to aesthetics and academic propriety I think I'm pretty much a lost cause. At some point in the FG debacle I found myself being so overcome with cynicism that I wonder if I'll ever recover. I wish I could, but it seems I just can't lay it aside for very long these days.
Good article Michele. Keep up the good work!
Ah, the walls continue to have ears.
Gary, my friend, I wouldn't change a thing about you. I keep half expecting to hear "Wiiilbuur . . ." come out of that horse's mouth. (A horse is a horse, of course, of course, and nothing can come from a horse of course, unless that horse . . . You can finish the theme song :-)
Your heart beats for FG and it will make a difference.
:-)
OK, folks, my bad . . . before Gary aesthetically and properly chastises me:
The theme song goes ". . . and no one can talk to a horse, of course . . .
Now you're talkin Jim. Here it is:
"Hello, I'm Mister Ed
A horse is a horse, of course of course,
and no one can talk to a horse of course,
that is of course, unless the horse,
Is the famous Mister Ed!
Go right to the source and ask the horse.
He'll give you the answer that you'll endorse.
He's always on a steady course.
Talk to Mister Ed.
People yak-it-ti-yak a streak
and waste your time of day,
but Mister Ed will never speak,
unless he has something to say...
A horse is a horse, of course of course,
And this one will talk 'til his voice is hoarse.
You never heard of a talking horse?
Well, listen to this...
'I am Mr Ed' "
I'm just having a hard time getting back on a "steady course" of serious discussion about anything these days. But I still enjoy reading one every now and then.
Jim, nothing CAN come from a horse, of course, you're singing it in truth - Unless of course you're GOE - I agree!
:D
Gary I will patiently wait for a steady course to return; a season for everything. When you come back with a message, it will be as useful as all our conversations... which seem to never be long enough!
Thanks Michele. My well feels kind of dry right now. Maybe I just need to eat some good oats for awhile to get kickin again. : )
I don't care what they say, you guys all rock . . .
Gosh, I miss 50's and 60's television; all we need now is for Miss Kitty to make an appearance.
What Jim said, again. Our triune God is extravagant beyond imagining. Did we really need butterflies? Even if we did, did they absolutely have to come from caterpillars? Did rocks have to be so many colors? Why couldn't they all just be a uniform grey? After all, they're just rocks...
But of course it's necessary. Yahweh is extravagant, beautiful, mysterious. Allah might have made all the rocks grey, but Yahweh...Yahweh makes a rainbow riot, frozen in stone.
Allah might have been satisfied with just a man, or just men, on the earth. He certainly seems to have designed heaven with only men in mind. But Yahweh? Yahweh is extravagant, beautiful, mysterious. Of course He makes woman, and brings her to man, and the dance begins. How better to reflect Him in us?
Woman is not just necessary as an assistant animal counter; she is necessary because all the gods of the nations are idols, but Yahweh made the heavens and the earth.
Michele,
I am amazed at how you are still doing this deep thinking, writing and posting. After all the terrorism from "nationals", I am feeling more like GOE in regards to blogging theology.
God bless you.
-Miss Kitty
This is my first time on this blog, I feel I've come home! Anyplace one can have these kinds of doctrinal discussions AND and learn all the verses to the theme of Mr Ed is a good place to be. Count me in.
Hi Tim!
I'm sorry I didn't speak right away to your two comments. The pleasure is mine. This is an exciting time for you to be exactly who you are, that's clear to me. Your session was very, very good and that analogy that the LORD gave you was absolutely brilliant. In thirty seconds and your walking from one side of the stage to the other, you nailed it, after like two years of my life spent throwing feathers at the thing.
If you don't mind, I'm just going to quote it forever from this point forward. May I? You know which analogy I am talking about, right? Would you say it again please?
Yahweh is extravagant, beautiful, mysterious.
That helps a bit with saturation for the next post. Thanks for the input, always.
Michele
Rose I am so glad you stopped in again :D
The conference really energized things. The topic, and especially the spirit. Sharon Wilkin is my new role model. I want to be like her when I grow up.
Bob was giving his last lecture session on the last day, and I tell you, these two have the most awesome relationship. So Bob is getting to the end of his session and he is just getting to the last sentence of his last point, hasn't even summarized it yet and Sharon... knows... he is essentially done talking now and starts walking up on stage. Bob breaks immediately out of teaching and turns to her and says, "What?? I thought you were agreed not to come up here?"
"I know but I really have something to say," she says kind of hovering.
And Bob just says, "Well..." and then picks up his papers and lets her over to the podium. So sweet!!
So Sharon shares her heart with the people and how this has been a hard year for them and how much she has appreciated all the prayers. That she feels like we (those present) are her family, and she considers them family, she loves everyone so very much. And then she sang a song.
Why not, we are all singing songs too?
Can you guess which one?
"The Sun Will Come Out, Tomorrow"
The rest of the meeting joined in with her to finish it out, and then dismissal.
Love that. If this is what heaven is like, I can't wait.
So wish, wish you might have been able to come. Maybe one day. Hope you are enjoying your kids and husband where you are.
Love, Michele
Jenny,
Free Grace Theology is becoming a better and better place to make a home :D Glad to meet you and I look forward to replying here in a little bit!
Michele
Michele,
Don't sell yourself short. I've seen your work, and you're not throwing feathers. Besides, I've got better taste in friends than that...
On the analogy: Am happy to oblige, but a little confused. Are you talking about the heaven scene or something else? (Sorry; I'm sure I should know right away, but I'm not really firing on all thrusters right now. Been an...interesting...week.)
Hi Tim,
I was speaking about the analogy of sweeping under the rug "this aspect" and standing upon it claiming unity, and the reverse as well... Remember you said you remember exactly when it came to you?
Sorry so slow -- been moving.
With most people, we have agreements and disagreements. One crowd wants to sweep all the disagreements under the rug of a few things that we agree on. This is a violation of the ninth commandment; it dishonors God and cheapens His Word to us.
The other crowd, however, wants to sweep the agreements under the rug of the disagreements. This is also a violation of the ninth commandment, and it dishonors God by paying no heed to the very real points of unity with which He has blessed us.
What we need, more than anything, is honesty about the whole thing: where we agree, where we disagree, and the implications of both. On one hand, disagreement on something like commitment salvation is a Big Deal. On the other hand, agreement on, say, the contents of the Nicene Creed is also a Big Deal, and gets us very far together.
In our camp, the temptation is doctrinal perfectionism. But God is not a perfectionist; He is patient with our flaws and His kindness leads us to repentance. If only we were like Him!
Biblically speaking, we become like what we worship. So now the question is: what are we worshipping, that we are so unlike Yahweh?
Michele,
And it's amazing what all the riches there are in that letter to the Ephesians!
Appreciated your thoughts.
Todd
Hi Todd,
Thanks for leaving a comment! There is so much to learn....
Michele
Hi Tim,
Glad things are literally settling. Thanks for coming back to answer. It was really a great observation and you've even improved or added to those thoughts in your response; great to read! As I said I think I'll be quoting that from now on giving you credit.
In your session I believe you used the word "stand." Which was great because it represented taking a role or a position in the conversation. Can I try and add that one aspect of yours back into it and then have you correct me? "They sweep the differences under the rug and take a stand upon what we have in common. Or, they sweep under the rug what are common beliefs, and stand upon the rug representing all the aspects we disagree about."
In order to take a position, certain things have to be minimized, and others maximized. I wonder do I take a "stand" - and minimize or maximize things that deserve simple honesty, as you said?
If I could attempt to summarize the opinion of some.... They may agree that the degree by which FG doctrine variates within, is very, very small indeed. But it is because they are convinced that this degree in the COSF (biblical content of saving faith) between the GES (Grace Evangelical Society) and the various FG Biblical Synthesis gospels crosses a line into heresy, that it must change their whole response. They have found disagreement in the gospel for the lost - how can that matter be reduced? They are convinced the other cannot be supported by the scriptures, and that leaves them with no option for tolerance. I have to think, if my closest neighbor in the faith took a turn outside of the truth, what sort of response would God call for me to take?
This is not an easy set of circumstances for them I would assume, and I respect them for doing what they believe is best even when it has been painful to observe, meaning among those who have been gracious.
Both sides have felt called to responsibility in this because whatever is outside of what the scriptures say, deserves no tolerance. Such a difficult circumstance.
Michele
I bet you're glad I didn't submit that on a 3x5 notecard after your presentation. I saved trouble for another day ;) I'd like to see what response you could give to that, even if it's to repeat or emphasize some of the things you've already been saying.
Michele,
"No option for tolerance" is exactly the problem.
If these folks were right about the gospel, and if they were right that GES is perverting the gospel, and if they were right that such a perversion justified the way they are behaving, then of course they would be right.
But -- pardon my candor -- so what? If pigs had wings, we could fly them to market.
We have to deal with what's before us which is that they're wrong about the gospel, and in precisely the same way that GES is -- there is no Saving Proposition; eternal life is a Person, not a proposition. Moreover, some fellow believer getting the gospel wrong doesn't justify the way they're behaving, either -- note the pattern in Acts 15, in which Paul and Barnabas travel to Jerusalem to have the hard conversations rather than splitting the church and refusing to sort the issues out, and keep at it until it's done. (And again, in fairness, this is the way the whole FG movement has typically behaved, including GES a lot of the time. So it's not just them. But that doesn't make it right.)
The zero-tolerance approach is a perfectionistic and sub-christian approach that does not reflect the way that God deals with us. He refines us a bit at a time, and we all have critical failings that go on for years. His kindness leads us to repentance.
Zero tolerance for perceived error makes it impossible to fulfill Jesus' prayer in John 17. And it should not escape our notice that the unity and love for which Jesus prayed is meant to be evidence of the truth of the gospel before a watching world. When we behave in a way that makes a mockery of what Jesus prayed for, we are getting the gospel wrong just as surely as if we espoused salvation by works.
So if it's not okay to insist on propositional correctness at the expense of love and practical, visible unity, and it's not okay to insist on visible unity at the expense of correctness, then what are we to do?
Well, what did Paul do in Acts 15?
Hi Tim,
Paul started off in Acts 15 being open, reasonable and tolerant, but eventually he began warning the churches (and I don't know the timeline of the writings of his epistles)
"Watch out for those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh." phil 3
and
"For there are many rebellious people, mere talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision group. They must be silenced, because they are ruining whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain." titus 1:10-11
How much does it matter that Paul hashed it out together with them in the beginning? Eventually he came to know them for what they were for and that they weren't about to change their minds.
What if the council represented an earlier stage of exploration into the differences?
Do you think that with a little experience with those teachers, Paul began to feel the inevitability that there would be this type of doctrinal deviancy in the church? Did he give up on them and push them away altogether?
Or, is it possibly not fair to use these passages (these ones depicting continued brokenness with the group in Acts 15), because they are of the Pharisaical type, which Jesus had to fight from the inception of his own earthly ministry (those He called at that time, "children of the devil")?
Is there a difference in the handling of Christians who suffer from inappropriately trusting in works-righteousness and the handling of Christians who suffer from other doctrinal error (well, COSF-gospel error)? Both are teachers in these two categories.
I'm totally being "devil's advocate" and thanks.
Hi Tim,
Does "addition" to the gospel demand the same response as "subtraction"? We think about that in terms of Lordship Salvation teaching (as adding) and some sort of quasi-universalism (as subtracting), of which some have assessed the GES (promise-only gospel). But how about you and I and others who happen to be in the middle between the FG gospels, believing that it is not a "content" that saves but the Person that saves and the content is tailored to the individual.... On one side of where I stand, one FG position looks to be subtraction and the other, addition.
Do you think it is possible that there are FG people who are gracious as all-get-out but, think that one or the other gospel in this debate is "addition" or "subtraction"? I think there might be a few at least who've got their orthopraxy right. What about "those guys"? The problem in FG has been a lack of grace, yes, but it is also how to explore and endure the doctrinal gap. Does John 17 give us the protocol we're needing?
I remember one of the questions on the last day of the Oct 2008 FGA conference was a 3x5 card which asked, "How long should the timeline be in deciding and discussing, till you separate?"
I might be mistaken but if memory serves, one on the panel said "Paul had the authority, to define what the gospel was as he was told directly by Christ. Last I checked I was not given the same authority. So I have to be more humble about deciding the answer that affects others."
Still "devil's" advocating here. And I have a scripture in my head.
"Now John answered and said, 'Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow with us.'
But Jesus said to him, 'Do not forbid him, for he who is not against us is on our side.'" luke 9:49-50
Michele,
Thanks for the quick response and the devil's-advocating. I think you're raising important questions there.
The council is earlier than Titus, but not earlier than Galatians. Paul did not start off by being open and tolerant as we would generally use those terms. When the Acts 15 issue arose in Antioch, Paul and Barnabas had "no small dissension and dispute" with them. Paul wrote Galatians before going up to Jerusalem, so he was saying hard things right from the jump -- and none of what he says later is any harder than what he says in Galatians.
I see no conflict between the hard things being said and the actions of Acts 15 -- even to the point of silencing someone. There are people in this debate -- on both sides -- who could best minister to the Christian community by shutting up. Sometimes the best thing is for the person to be quiet, learn, and grow in wisdom for a season. Bad wines taste terrible no matter what, but great wines taste terrible too, right after they're fermented; they need a long period of seasoning in a cool, dark place. This happens to all of us at times, and nobody likes being told that it's his turn in the barrel. But in the life of the body, sometimes that's the right message, and it needs to be delivered. For a number of people in this debate, that's the case, and the elders of their churches are very much to be blamed for not stepping up. We who operate on a more national level can certainly persuade, censure, etc., but we haven't got the clout that a local church has -- that's the first and best line of defense, if only it were working.
I don't see that our present problem is any different in principle from Paul's. Less serious, perhaps, because (as I've said repeatedly) the cause for argument mostly disappears when we stop talking minutiae of soteriology amongst ourselves and start sharing the gospel with the lost. Whether it's JP, Lou, Rokser, Niemela, Wilkin, Hodges, or whoever, the same things will get said if you give them 5 minutes to lay it out. They're fighting about what you can leave out if you've only got 5 seconds, and that's just silly. Trivial.
How they're behaving is a much more important point. Believers who think they are dealing with a serious departure from the gospel ought to be following the example the apostles set, and for the most part, that's not happening. If the diagnosis of "preaching a different gospel" were actually correct, much of what's happening would still be sin. The fact that they're crying wolf on top of it just adds to their guilt.
--MORE--
--CONTINUED--
And this is the point at which John 17 enters in. When believers thwart the unity of Christ's church because of their own idolatrous doctrinal perfectionism, they are not proclaiming the gospel. They may get everything right with their mouths, but their actions say that Christ has not united His people with each other. We recognize this concept clearly enough when it's a politician preaching against sleaze and vice, and then someone catches him in flagrante with a prostitute. His words say something, and his life says something else. Why is it so hard to recognize the same conflict when the hypocrisy is about the gospel? If a watching world can't see Christ uniting us with each other, then why should they believe us when we say that He unites us to God?
As you know, I have no quarrel with saying hard things, and have done so myself on a number of occasions. That's compatible with moving toward people. You go and meet them, say what you really think, hear what they really think, and have it out. The people who are doing this are the ones who've got their orthopraxy right.
I am not talking about young guys whose desire to serve Christ is also tangled up with their romantic and self-serving vision of making a name for themselves as sparkling defenders of the faith. (And some of these, sadly, are not so young.) I'm talking about the really humble ones. When you meet them in person, the fact that they are worshipping Christ and not just a doctrinal statement comes through clearly.
That's part of the reason it's so important to meet. When we come together before the Lord and worship together and serve Him together and have our disagreements in that context, we see each other for who we really are. That's essential, and we won't have unity without it.
Hi Michele and Tim,
I love this discussion, especially the last few comments. I've really been struggling with these issues the past few months so I appreciate the thoughts of both of you about it.
Tim, you said: "We have to deal with what's before us which is that they're wrong about the gospel, and in precisely the same way that GES is -- there is no Saving Proposition; eternal life is a Person, not a proposition."
I have read some of the discussions that you and Jim have had about this idea that "there is no Saving Proposition", but I'm really struggling to understand what you mean by this. As much as I've tried, I just can't seem to grasp it. We all might disagree about what the saving proposition(s) is, but how is it possible to believe in Jesus Christ without believing at least one true proposition about Him? Even the words "Jesus Christ" is an expression of a proposition, i.e. Jesus is the Christ. I agree that eternal life is a Person, but, how does it follow that a disjunction can be made between Him and propositional revelation about Him when it comes to our conscious belief in this Person? And if we try to make such a disjunction, how is that different from the neo-orthodoxy of men such as Karl Barth and Emil Brunner, which denied that revelation is propositional? Is "believing in Jesus" just a Kierkegaardian existential encounter or commitment to this "Jesus"?
I'm not saying you are wrong. At this point, I'm just trying to understand what you and Jim mean by this. It might be that what you are saying is a beautiful thing, I don't know. Can you explain it to me in laymen's terms?
Gary
e.g.--It's impossible to even know and believe that "eternal life is a Person" apart from propositional revelation. The statement itself is a proposition.
How can you even explain what you mean by this without using propositions?
I'm confused, I know, but if you will bear with me maybe I'll get it.
I probably should have added the words "subjective" and "mystical" to my question, as in: " Is "believing in Jesus" just a Kierkegaardian existential encounter or commitment to a subjective and mystical "Jesus"?
it would seem that if you separate faith in Jesus Christ from any propositional content all you are left with is a "subjective and mystical Jesus" as the object of faith.
Alright Tim, I've reviewed a few things and I think I've got a better handle on your position now. I was just confused about a few things. As I said, the main point of my question had to do with this comment of yours:
"But -- pardon my candor -- so what? If pigs had wings, we could fly them to market.
We have to deal with what's before us which is that they're wrong about the gospel, and in precisely the same way that GES is -- there is no Saving Proposition; eternal life is a Person, not a proposition."
Instead of the word "proposition", what if we were to use the word "testimony" instead, as in:
"We have to deal with what's before us which is that they're wrong about the gospel, and in precisely the same way that GES is -- there is no Saving Testimony; eternal life is a Person, not a testimony."
Then, compare what you say with what God's word says:
"If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater; for the testimony of God is this, that He has testified concerning His Son.
The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son.
And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.
He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.
These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life." 1 Jn. 5:9-13
In other words, believing the testimony that God has given concerning His Son is what if means to believe that Jesus is the Christ, and no one can be born again and know they have eternal life without believing that testimony. It's impossible to believe in the living Word without believing God's testimony about His Son. As John says, everyone who believes this testimony "has the testimony in himself". There are different ways of articulating this testimony , but the essence of it must be believed. It should be obvious that no one can believe in Jesus Christ unless they believe that Jesus is the Christ. Saving faith is believing in Jesus for eternal life--believing He is great teacher, while true, or believing His genealogy in Matthew, is not saving faith. Not all facts about God (or Jesus) are saving facts. But to believe that Jesus is the Christ--in John's sense of that term--is to believe saving truth. I don't know, but it sure sounds like a proposition to me.
Anyway, I know you've heard all this before and, except for that one comment of yours, I think I agree with most of what you've said and I highly recommend anyone to carefully read your comments and take them to heart. It just seems a little odd to me that a featured speaker at the 2010 GES Conference would turn around and then make a public statement that the GES is wrong about the gospel, that's all. That's a serious charge because, as Michele correctly noted above, the truth of the gospel is a weighty issue--and should be for all of us.
I have a great deal of respect for you and I know your heart's in the right place, but as you've said so often, it's all about truth and love--fair and balanced--right brother? I think most all of us have made our share of mistakes throughout this long ordeal--I know I have for sure.
So, since doubt I would be any match for you in any kind of debate, I suppose I best take my leave. No harm, no foul. Accordingly, I trust that you will (as you said to Michele) "pardon my candor."
Correction in my last paragraph:
"So, since I doubt..."
P.S.--I like what you say here:
"I see no conflict between the hard things being said and the actions of Acts 15 -- even to the point of silencing someone. There are people in this debate -- on both sides -- who could best minister to the Christian community by shutting up. Sometimes the best thing is for the person to be quiet, learn, and grow in wisdom for a season. Bad wines taste terrible no matter what, but great wines taste terrible too, right after they're fermented; they need a long period of seasoning in a cool, dark place. This happens to all of us at times, and nobody likes being told that it's his turn in the barrel. But in the life of the body, sometimes that's the right message, and it needs to be delivered."
I think it's now my "turn in the barrel."
Grace and peace to you.
Hi Gary, there are graduation ceremonies going on this weekend so I am missing this great chance to read and meditate on your questions. I'm sorry! I'm so glad that you asked Tim to converse on it because I want to understand it. I'm so thankful that you are reaching out as kindly as you do, it's refreshing to my heart.
Hi Tim, I'm sorry I haven't replied yet; soon :) Thanks for your patience.....
Gary,
I anxiously await Tim's reply. I regard your questions and comments as well thought out and supremely worthy of a considered response. It will be a critical test of Tim and my abilities to communicate clearly, so for the present I defer to Tim but am deeply invested in continuing the exchange.
Thanks for your determination to pursue clarity on this critical issue.
Jim
Gary,
Let me begin by assuring you that I'm not going neo-orthodox.
The propositions are important and necessary, but they are not ends in themselves. They are means, the end of which is relationship with Christ. To illustrate the decoupling of propositions and relationship I'm trying to make here, let me spin out three scenarios:
1. Suppose a man claims to be married to a certain woman, but upon inquiry, he can't tell us how tall she is, the color of her eyes or hair, what she eats for breakfast, or anything else at all about her. He can, in fact, affirm no propositions at all about this woman. This is a clear indication that there's no relationship there.
2. In a second case, suppose the man can give a general account of e woman he claims as his wife. He can tell us what she looks like, her mother's maiden name, how they met, and so on. In fact, he even knows things about her for which he has no corresponding experience, e.g., by his own admission they met in college, but he knows the name of her high school and can recount stories of her experiences there. He knows these things, he says, because she told him. However, upon closer questioning, we discover that he does not know the color of her toothbrush, and when we investigate further, we discover that the amusing tale of Mrs. Peabody the 10th-grade math teacher was true, except that Mrs. Peabody was an English teacher. On that basis, are we justified in claiming that he doesn't know the woman at all? Of course not.
3. To take a third case, consider a stalker pursuing some well-known actress. The stalker may know reams of facts about this woman; he may know surprisingly intimate details; he may even break into her house to learn more about her. He can tell you what color her toothbrush is, which side of the sink she keeps it on, whether she keeps her jeans in a drawer or hangs them in a closet, and so on. He has been in her bathroom; perhaps he has even been in her bedroom and watched her sleep. Does he have a relationship with her? No, he does not. He thinks he does, but he has insisted on constructing a fantasy 'relationship' entirely on his own terms, and quite apart from her involvement -- which is to say, it is not a relationship at all. In fact, if he should meet her and she (understandably) acts like she doesn't know him, he may fly into a rage and kill her for endangering his fantasy.
I want to suggest that we encounter all three types of people with respect to relationship with Jesus. Does this help to answer your question?
ps. With respect to the 'testimony' thing -- If you want to know what I think, ask me, and then wait for a response. When have I ever refused to answer you? I didn't, and wouldn't have, said the words that you put in my mouth there. You've made the conversation a lot more difficult by presuming something you shouldn't have; proposition and testimony are not equivalent terms.
With respect to a plenary speaker at GES saying that GES is wrong about the gospel -- to the extent that 'saving-proposition-ism' has taken hold at GES, GES is wrong about the gospel. This is nothing I haven't said before; see my several previous blog posts on the subject. They still asked me to speak, and I still did, because they, and I, have a sense of proportion about the extent of the disagreement. Would that others had also (NOT a dig at you -- I'm just sayin').
Wow Tim--thanks! I'm almost speechless.
When have you ever refused to answer me you ask? Never-- because until now I have never asked you a question have I? This the first time isn't it? But I did ask, I did wait, and now I see that I only get a stinging rebuke for an answer.
Well thank you very much brother. I commend you for your wonderful "sense of proportion". Your orthopraxy is truly something beautiful to behold. I once was blind, but now I see!
You ask me if you've helped to answer my question. Now Tim, you don't honestly think that deserves an answer do you? I'm just sayin'. :)
Well, brother, I'm genuinely sorry I stung you. I meant quite seriously to take issue with you putting words in my mouth, especially words I wouldn't have put there, and I maintain that's a valid concern. You oughtn't to have done it. However, I did not mean to hurt you, as I apparently have, and I am sorry for that.
I accept your rebuke re. sense of proportion in my response to you, and I humbly ask your forgiveness.
I was looking forward to the conversation, and I hope we can still have it. In the first part of my post, I was seeking to engage your question, and if you're willing to continue, I would like to know if that helps to answer it.
Gary, I was moved by your opening vulnerability in light of all the FG blood baths we have endured. I did wince at your good-faith attempt to solve what might be Tim's intent in using "proposition," but I can only express my gratitude that Tim is owning his "disproportionate response" and wants to continue dialog. Your comments about orthopraxy were right on target and I too accept your rebuke.
Would you permit me to try to clarify the distinction between proposition, promise, and testimony?
First, a proposition, as we have been defining it, is essentially a truth-claim. But a promise in its simplest form is an offer made by one person to another person; an example would be a marriage proposal, "Will you marry me?" Translated into the form of a promise, this proposal would be "If you are willing, I will marry you."
Second, while a promise can be described and specified by propositions, they are not the same as the promise itself: "This specific man vows to marry that specific woman, if she is willing." If the woman to whom the promise is made believes the proposition, she is acknowledging the validity of the implied promise but has obviously not yet accepted his offer of marriage. Is she willing?
Now, why should anyone believe the proposition? All we have to go on is whatever has been provided as "testimony" or "witness" that the man will make good on his promise. Maybe he made a huge down-payment on a diamond ring or divorced his first wife for the express purpose of marrying the woman, but that testimony is not the same as the proposition describing the offer.
Depending on our background and culture, a given testimony that a proposition or "truth-claim" is valid may have greater or lesser persuasiveness. If that woman is willing to marry ("accept") this man, then all she needs is to be persuaded that it is a valid offer. But if she doesn't want to marry him, she can still be persuaded of the validity of the offer without agreeing to accept it.
Now, let's see if these same concepts work with John 3:16: Strictly speaking, this verse is a proposition, "Whoever believes in [is willing to receive, cf. 1:12] God's gift of His Son will have life everlasting." Just as anyone who hears of a marriage proposal may believe the truth-claim, so anyone can believe the truth-claim of John 3:16---as specified by other propositions in context---that God will make good on the promise to "whoever" implied by the proposition. But "whoever"---just like the woman in the marriage proposal---must also be willing to accept the offer itself, not just believe the propositions about the promised gift.
God has left sufficient testimony that he would make good on the promise described. As I developed in my blog posts on John 3:16, the "testimony" consists of John's allusions to God's sacrificial provision of skins in the Garden and the ram for Abraham on Moriah, as governed by the analogy of the "snake-on-a-stick" incident (John 3:14-15).
If we never heard the truth-claims of Gen 3:15 or John 3:16, then we don't even realize a promise has been made. If we hear but don't believe the truth-claim, then the promise is moot. If we hear and are persuaded by the weight of the testimony, we must still be willing to accept the promised gift in order to have life everlasting; i.e., we can still believe the truth-claim (i.e., that "the offer is valid") without accepting the offer, entrusting ourselves to God for the promised gift. There is no relationship until we accept the gift. The truth-claims about the gift are critical in specifying the nature and purpose of the gift; the testimony attests the reliability of the promise made.
Our main testimony in the present, of course, is the Resurrection.
I read something today that is impressive for the wisdom it contains. I think it is something that all of us in the FG movement need to hear--I know I did. I get the feeling that the man who wrote this has been doing a lot of earnest praying.
----------------------------
I want to stress that Zane, or anybody else who challenges long-held traditional views, makes themselves vulnerable to being misunderstood and misrepresented. Zane’s bottom-line from the beginning, as well as that of GES, is that vigilant, prayerful inductive study of the Word of God is constantly needed in order to more clearly represent the Biblical teaching about salvation because Satan is at work 24x7 to confuse all the issues. Because false traditional views of Theology are so ingrained in the minds of Christians today, any view based upon vigilant inductive study will inevitably conflict with traditional views. Conflict is to be expected as further refinements are made in terminology, and Christian love is called for every step of the way. We need to agree to disagree with not only those outside of GES circles, but also within our own camp. Let’s not lose sight of our goal, that more people get born again, NOT that we agree in every detail.
I want to encourage careful discussion of our differences in private and off of the public forums. There is no need to publicly spread differences and disagreements all over the internet and fracture the entire Grace movement. It may be too late to get everyone to work together again. The arguments and emotions have been so intense that there may be no way for some individuals to listen to reason anymore. The wells have been poisoned, and people are entrenched in their views. People from time to time have advocated a plan that we need to talk together in private, and come up with carefully worded statements for public consumption, to show our agreement on the major issues, and to demonstrate charity with our disagreement on the finer details.
It never used to be necessary for everyone in the Grace camp to agree on every detail. I want us to see the value of agreeing on the Free Grace hermeneutical assumptions Zane so clearly practiced, insisting on better definition of terms, agreeing to disagree on minor points, and working together in a way similar to the way the Reformed/Calvinists like MacArthur, Mohler, Dever, Sproul and Mahaney work together. As Dr. James Scudder stated, “The Lordshippers don’t separate.
I want to encourage the value of not burning bridges with those who have left GES for whatever reason. We should have open arms to welcome people back, ESPECIALLY if they have been misled by some of the more blatant misrepresentations of Zane and GES. The Grace Movement would be much stronger if people would stop fighting, agree to disagree, and work together again.
Lastly, and most importantly, I want to encourage those of us in GES to be careful how we word things, and to try our best to define terms in such a way that others will not misrepresent us. Nobody should agree with everything Zane or Bob or GES speakers have taught. Grace people have always managed to work together in spite of their disagreements, because we agree on the goal of NOT complicating the clear message of salvation by faith alone, in the person of Christ alone, for eternal life.
------------------------------
Tim, you're right, I did put a few words in your mouth. But it was because you were putting some words into the mouth of the GES as well. The GES has never said that eternal life was not a Person, and they have never said that eternal life was a proposition--yet you said that was "precisely" why they are wrong about the gospel. I will explain myself further if you would like, but I would prefer to do it privately by e-mail.
You, Jim, and Michele are some good people!
Gary,
We continue to disagree, as brothers are sometimes wont to do. I don't accept your characterization of what I was doing vis-a-vis GES. But we do agree that the matter of putting words in mouths can be hashed out in private. Let's do that, and return this comment thread to the issues at hand.
To which end: I really do want to know if my three examples about proposition & relationship helped to answer your concerns over creeping neo-orthodoxy. It's an analogy I haven't tried before, and while it makes good sense to me, that doesn't mean it makes good sense to anyone else.
I was wondering, would you be open to publicly providing some highlights of this discussion afterward? I lift you three up in deciding what you believe best.
This might be a proper moment for lighthearted jesting complete with Kung Fu action!
here
Tim,
Then we are going to disagree, because I can't see any other way to characterize what you said. Since I made it clear that was the main point of my questions to you from the start, if you can re-characterize it for me, please do. And no, your analogy doesn't come close to answering my concerns, because just as the GES has always affirmed that eternal life is a person, and just as they have never affirmed that eternal life is a proposition, they have likewise always affirmed that having eternal life is a relationship. As for your prefacing statement that "propositions are important and necessary, but they are not ends in themselves. They are means, the end of which is relationship with Christ"--since the GES would also strongly agree with every word of this I don't see the point of the three scenarios to begin with. So other than your rebuke of me, there doesn't appear to be much left of your entire comment that is even remotely relevant to the GES and their view of the gospel. It appears to me you need to find yet another "precise" reason why you said they are wrong about the gospel. Giving me some direct, straightforward answers would be much more helpful than dragging me down rabbit trails of homespun parables about relationship, marriage, and stalkers. If you want to give me direct answers about why the GES is wrong about the gospel, then please do. If not, you are under no obligation to do so.
As for my remark about "neo-orthodoxy", that was only intended as a probing question. I wasn't accusing you of that. I admitted that I was confused about your comment to Michele about the GES, and still am.
Okay Tim, I see that you have sent me a private e-mail which appears to be a much more direct attempt at answering my question. Thank you. I wasn't aware of it until after I posted my comments. Give me some time to think read it and think on it some. If you want to respond to anything I've said here feel free. I never was interested in getting into an extended discussion about this as I stated before. My main concern has always been that your comment about the GES wasn't at all clear. The only thing that was "precisely" clear about it was that you think the GES gospel is wrong, not your reasons for thinking they are wrong.
Lou,
You run a blog very well. I trust that the two books you've published are useful resources. However Jim or Tim, etc., & I, we are not your enemies.
You need to go away. I've got nothing to say if I cannot help you understand that I am not your enemy. Go figure it out how this is true. You need to do this on your own. I cannot help you.
Tim,
Thanks for the e-mail you sent. I appreciate especially what you said here:
"Please also know that I understand that we may never agree on this incident this side of heaven, and I am prepared to move forward by your side as a brother whether we come to see eye-to-eye about this incident or not. It's a small thing, and if we don't work it out to mutual satisfaction, then we'll leave it with the Lord and move on -- together."
Amen brother! We will work it out because like you said, it's a small thing. I totally agree.
God bless you,
Gary
May God bless you too, Lou. I agree with Michele. Seriously, we are not your enemies and never have been.
Gary
Michele,
I apologize for 'feeding the troll,' but this needs to be said.
Lou,
I wasn't saying anything here that I haven't already said, publicly, for months -- in fact, something I said in my GES plenary session a few months ago. I took the discussion private because the offense between Gary and me was not fodder for public discussion. I had anticipated a simple "Hey! Knock it off" "-Oh, whoops. Sorry." kinda exchange, and if it had been, there would've been no problem with doing it right there on the blog. When it turned into something more complicated than that, it was appropriate to settle it someplace where there were no ill-mannered onlookers throwing popcorn and yelling "Fight! "Fight!" at the top of their lungs. Conflict resolution is not a strength for you, so I see how you could fail to understand this -- but it is a basic point of Christian ethics, and you need to learn. Repent!
I appreciate the sentiment Michele and Gary are expressing: they are not trying to be your enemies. At a personal level, I agree with them, but sadly there's more to it than that. I have nothing against you, Lou, except that you're a savage wolf that preys upon Christ's sheep, and by so doing, you've made yourself an enemy of God. I love Him and care for His people, and until you repent I am very much your enemy, as are all faithful shepherds in His flock. Repent!
Michele,
Since Gary doesn't mind, and since my analogy didn't work for him anyhow, and since you've asked, I'll put up a portion of what I sent him having to do with my comments about who is wrong about the gospel.
Here it is:
There are those in GES who -- with no exaggeration -- worship their doctrinal statements. It has gotten to the point that agreement on the minutiae of the doctrinal statement is more important than living relationship with Jesus Christ -- again, for some, not for all.
In the area of the gospel, this tendency finds a comfortable home in the COSF/'saving proposition' language, and the fight becomes about "What is the [minimum] saving proposition?" Any disagreement whatever is taken as heresy and a need to divide, and this from people we know to be our brothers. Which is to say that we believe the ground of our unity is on paper, and not seated at teh right hand of God the Father. I understand that nobody would say that out loud. But their lives say it clearly enough, no matter what their mouths say, and that is the issue.
To my great shame, I participated in a number of such fights some years ago, and I have observed many more, right down to the present. So I know whereof I speak here. It was to combat this error that I gave my plenary session this year at GES, and I continue to fight it.
So when I say "GES is wrong about the gospel" this is what I'm talking about. When preoccupation with the Saving Proposition has, in actual practice, overshadowed preoccupation with the Person who really saves us, then we are wrong about the gospel, no matter how correct our propositions may be. I contend that a significant minority, at least, of GES falls into this category, including some of our leaders, at least at times. I've seen the battles and been part of them.
So I don't see that as putting words in the mouth of GES, but rather putting words to the deeds of GES -- quite a different thing. To illustrate: Suppose there's a preacher who preaches blistering sermons against adultery, but he himself cheats constantly on his wife. If I say that he is really in favor of adultery, I am not putting words in his mouth; I am describing his life. Same thing with this issue.
Of course, this is a common temptation amongst theological conservatives. There are a dizzying number of folks not in GES who also worship their doctrinal statements, and they reveal themselves by similarly fractious conduct. But it is bad spiritual practice to hate the other guy's sins more than one's own; reform begins at home. GES is where I am, so that's who I speak to most.
Gary,
In light of my second attempt at explanation, let me try to describe how the earlier analogy fits in. One can, like the stalker, affirm a great number of correct propositions, and yet have no relationship with the person. When the Person is God, this is a culpable error, because He is stretching out His hands to all men. If there is no relationship, it's not His fault.
When someone is stalking God, all the correct propositions become tools to shore up a false relationship with God -- which is really an attempt to hold God at bay rather than embrace Him. Again, as with the stalker, the more correct the propositions are, the more easily the model holds together.
Of course, a stalker will affirm that it's important to have real relationship with the object of his affections; He will express great concern about stalkers who are trying to get close to her without really knowing her. "Those guys are just creepy. But us--we've got something special that they will never understand."
Likewise, those who worship their doctrinal statements can affirm all the right things. "Of course I believe that saving relationship with Christ that's important! I've got it right here, in point #3 of my doctrinal statement!"
Heh. The Pharisees had "no gods before Yahweh" as point #1 of their doctrinal statement, and look what they did. It's not just what you affirm; it's what you actually do.
I couldn't agree more with the first two of Tim's last three posts. And the third simply needs fleshing out---the "stalking" analogy may create images that interfere with what Tim is trying to illustrate, though I see where he is going with it.
On Tim's first response, the biblical image of wolves among sheep fits quite well in the case of this vicious, self-proclaimed "public guardian of FG doctrine and soteriological censor." He has, perhaps inadvertently, turned himself into a poster child for the kind of error openly vilified by Paul in Galatians 5:13-15. His postings I have read over the last 2 years or so bear witness only to the fruit of the flesh. I truly fear for someone who slings around recommendations for how others should respond to the Spirit of God when he himself bears no overt fruit and has so utterly tarnished God's reputation as compassionate, merciful, and longsuffering (Ex 34:6f). On the blogs, at least, LM is a "master of judgment" but an infant in mercy (James 2:13).
My hope for LM is that he first "Go and learn mercy" and then he will be properly prepared to repent, like Scrooge in Dickens' A Christmas Story. I pray there are some within his fellowship who are familiar with mercy and have the courage to serve as his Mirror, as Michele initially suggested in this string.
As to the second of Tim's last three posts, the issue of starting with one's own "house" is critical, in my estimation, and I would also confirm that GES is not a totally homogeneous flock of "birds of a[n identical] feather." Thanks, Tim, for the clarification of your stance. May we first "seek the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these [doctrinal] things shall be added unto us"---at least the ones we really need.
. . . A Christmas Carol
Dear Friends,
I want first to say "hi" to Michele and my other free grace friends here who I met at the GES Conference... at least some of you.
:-)
I wasn't planning on saying anything here, but I'm compelled to just share my heart.
I thank God for GES~!!! I thank God for Bob Wilkin and all that he's done for me personally in teaching me God's Word. Because of his teaching and others at GES, I've grown to love my Savior more than ever before. The reason for that is because I've gained understanding about Him. The language they use to teach us helps clarify truths that have been unclear to so many for so long.
The word "proposition" has wonderfully helped me to distinguish truths that I was blinded to before I had that help. Words are just that.... words. And they're for the purpose of opening up truth to the one who is open to receiving that truth.
I see nothing but clarity in the way they teach, and for me..... it has changed my life. Both my husband and I have grown so much closer to the Lord because we understand His Word better. We can't get enough of it!!! The more I learn, the more I want to keep learning. And it's all about my Savior, the One who loved me and gave Himself for me~!!!
To Him alone be praise and glory forever.
In Jesus' love,
Diane
:-)
Thanks Diane for sharing that. I wanted to hear your impression and understanding so I'm glad you commented. I really appreciate your focus on what is true and your testimony with it.
:) Michele
Well said Diane!
One of the best quotes I've seen about Zane Hodges:
"Zane Hodges ignored centuries of confusion over the relation between faith, works and eternal life and brought a clarity from heaven. He showed that saving faith is simply responding with 'yes, I believe' to Jesus' offer of eternal life." Jn. 11:25-27
No need to unnecessarily complicate things the way so many do. A little common sense is actually a good thing in theology!
Lou,
Yes, I'm familiar with the writings of the man you quoted Lou. He might be a fine lawyer, but when it comes to theology he obviously doesn't have a clue. Some of the shabbiest stuff I've read. Almost as shabby as John MacArthur, if that's even possible. :)
That article is laughable for the arrogance of it's presumptions-pure drivel.
The article also reflects a serious lack of integrity in it's presumptions and empty assertions as well.
There will be no help or hope for you if you keep filling your mind with trash like that Lou.
Why? Because Bob is a wise man, obviously.
"Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you also be like him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes." Prov. 26:4,5
Accordingly, this conversation is now over Lou.
Diane,
Thank you for sharing your perspective here. I too thank God for Bob, Zane, Charlie Bing, and our other past and present leading lights in GES. The terminology and way of explaining things that we presently have is certainly an improvement over what we've had previously.
Sixteen hundred years ago, the church settled the issue of the full deity of Christ, which was a big breakthrough for soteriology.
Five hundred years ago, the early Protestants clarified that justification is through faith alone in Christ alone, and not by a patchwork quilt of the merits of Christ, the prayers of various saints, and our own good works.
Both of those were great strides forward. Both of those produced terminology and ways of explaining things that were, and are, a real help and comfort to Christ's sheep. But neither of them produced theological perfection, and both have been added to and (in some ways) improved upon since.
In that vein, Lewis Sperry Chafer in Grace and his other works expounded a recognizably Free Grace position, but it was still amalgamated with Calvinism and other things. In spite of what we would see today as major flaws, Dr. Chafer's teaching, preaching and evangelism was mightily used by God to free many people from bondage and release them into the freedom of Christ's grace.
As Dr. Chafer was an improvement on the Reformers, so Zane Hodges represented a significant improvement on Dr. Chafer's position. Others yet again will stand on his shoulders -- present company certainly included.
If God is kind to us, the next generation's version of Dr. Chafer or Zane -- whoever he may turn out to be -- will make similar improvements, to be similarly improved upon in his turn by succeeding generations.
I don't criticize the term "saving proposition" because I think it is a regress back into something less than what we've already attained, but because I think we can do better still.
Every time we pick a non-biblical term like this -- which we must do; there's no avoiding it -- the term shapes our thinking. This is deliberate; it is supposed to shape our thinking in a helpful direction, and this term does. But it also has some unsavory consequences
On the good side of the balance, "Saving Proposition" points out that there is a specific message that an unbeliever must hear and believe; saving faith has actual content. On the bad side, a couple of points.
1. Strictly speaking, propositions do not save; Jesus does. No proposition ever bore our sin on the cross; no proposition rose from the dead and ascended to the Father's right hand; identification with a proposition won't save anyone. I know this seems like a cheap shot, but in my pastoral judgment this basic point often gets forgotten in the fights about the content of the saving proposition. When people begin dividing fellowship over minute differences in a proposition -- all of which are true; the only disagreement is whether an unbeliever must believe them to be saved -- then those people have begun to serve themselves and their propositions instead of their Savior. How do I know? Because Romans 16:17-18 tells me so. So I keep feeling compelled to remind people.
2. The content of the message is not really best described as a proposition, but a story, or a promise, or both (depending on which side of the present argument you're on). The story is, in any case, the necessary context within which any proposition/promise must be heard in order to make sense and be understood the way God meant it. So the message is a story, which of course contains propositions, and is made of propositions, but is not reducible to propositions -- just as propositions are not reducible to their constituent words.
Through GES you've discovered the simplicity that is in Christ, and I respect that greatly. Please be assured I would take nothing away from that. In fact, it is that simplicity that I am seeking to protect. Pressed to its logical limits, the quest for the precise saving proposition is a thoroughly unbiblical pursuit, and because it insists upon asking the wrong question, it generates a variety of wrong answers. I believe we can do better than that.
Wow, I was wondering if there was any Free Grace blogs left; like the good ole' days of Rose, UoG, Antonio, HK Flynn, et al. I have frequented Michele's blog here; but until this thread haven't seen this kind of FG interaction in awhile (it even brought Rose out, hey Rose).
I would just want to affirm both Tim and Jim's points in general. Ultimately the Gospel is God's life revealed in Jesus Christ (Jn 1:18) --- in other words, a Person. One of the more clear passages that illustrate how the Gospel is a "Person v. Prop." is Jn 14:6: . . . I am the way, and the truth, and the life. Here we have a proposition that gives way or bears witness to the Person --- Jesus Christ (if anyone desires to do a biblical theology of the "Way" in the Bible you will quickly realize that this is another way to speak about the Gospel). And then Jesus in Jn 5:39 says that the scriptures bear witness to Him (full of narrative, poetry, and discourse lit.); I would say this is the prime example of how Jesus even sees assertions about Him as distinct from Him --- or the Gospel --- they give way to or bear witness to the Gospel, Jesus Christ.
Propositionalism comes out of a particular historical context of rationalism and logical positivism; clearly not biblical, and thus I think there are surely better ways to articulate and emphasize what scripture emphasizes about eternal life --- again that emphasis being upon God's life of superabundant life amongst Himself which has graciously overflowed to us in the "Person" of Jesus Christ (Jn 1:18).
Great to see all you guys chatting again. :-)
And how are you and yours, Bro?
Great examples, Bobby.
Good to see you around, too.
Well now, if'n dis dont be be like dejer-vu all over agin...it aint posible ta talk cuz dere be too meny peeples talkin!...Well by golly...I jext got dis ta say fellers... hear me now!...if'n it ain't broke don'tcha be tryin ta fix it!...Jesus jext say ta berlieve hiz wuid an ya got whatin He wants ta give ya!..dat what He be sayin ta lil chirrens in John 5 and 24... Now dat be a proper zition fer ya!...in theory dere be no differants tween theory an practice but in practice dere is!...chew on dat cud fer a spell ya ornery hoofed varmints! ....You fellers gots ta be careful cuz if'n ya don't know where ya goin ya might not git dere...you boys gonna come ta a fork in da road and take it if'n ya aint purty careful...but ya kin shore nuff see alot by watchin... so what if I be ugly?...I aint n'er seen nobody theologizin wid hiz face nohow!!!...put dat in yore fancy car an take a ride wid it to yer Universnity!!!
Hi Jim,
We are doing okay. I'm just doing follow up chemo now, the surgery was a complete success (clean margins, surrounding lymphnodes totally clean, and the tumor itself had shrunk from softball size to golf ball and it was 95% or more dead). We just thank you all for your prayers; they have been and are working.
Michele,
Thanks for this post, and thank you for asking for prayer for me in your sidebar (that is awesome).
Tim,
I was trying to think of simple/striaghtforward passages of scripture that make your guys' point totally clear . . . no theologizing necessary :-). I really like this discussion though; anything that causes us to reflect upon the Triune nature of our God and how that impinges upon and shapes salvation in Christ is an awesome worshipful exercise, and worthy of our careful thought and articulation!
Dear Bre'r Gary,
De ordun hairy folks ain't got de same dizeezes what dese Yoonervarsity varmints cotch. Leastways, long as you ain't let none un um batchyuh. You doan wan no truck wid nunner dat, fo sho'ly nuff. Ef'n you ain't broke, ah ain't trahn t'stick renches in yore years, nosuh.
But summer dese year fellers is des as broke up ez you please, en ah declare few un um bin steerin at de moon too long. De proper zition be lak de winder, en dey spose ter look thoo it et Jesus. But seem lak dey so takin up wid de spots on de glass dey cain't see wat de winder dere fore no mo. Plain en simple, dat rat der is whar dey drap dere water-million.
Ah iz trahn t'git dem to hev a proper look thoo de winder, but ah 'low sum un um des ain't de lisnin tahp, an dat's de nachrul truth.
Hay Bad,
Ah coont ha sed it iny better, lak mah brer Tim dun, wid all 'is lernin n all. Yassir, Bad, yer winders so clean u got birds flyin inter it, seem lak ever day. Jes tel us whin yer goin ridin, u varmint, Ahm proudta ride posse wid u.
Bobby,
Our prayers are with you.
"Many are the afflictions of the righteous,
But the Lord delivers him out of them all.
He guards all his bones;
Not one of them is broken."
Ps. 34:19,20
Bruder Tim,
Dat sound like sum strate shootin of yer intinchins ....why did'int ya say so frum da beginnin of da sit down?... I knewed dat sum of dese fellers steerin at da moon...sum of dem even be howlin at da moon an throwin mud on da winders so da lil chirrens caint see da Lawd...affer we fine tune da articerlation of da gospel fer da lil chirren den we be redy fer a pronouncerment of canon law on da matter at hand....I knewed you had a good bean on yer sholders fer chewin da cud of theoligy an articerlation...affer we know what be canon law of da gospel den we be redy fer better proclermation to da lil chirrens.
Bruder agent fer him,
Do dat mean ya let me ride in yer fancy car wid my face so ugly it scere a dawg outta da butcher shop?
Thanks Gary.
Brer Gary,
U mus be tinkin I dun got sum kinda nest egg. Naw, ah aint got no fansy car on acounta ahm ree-tired n mah car needsta be. Mah fore bicircles set me bak moren mah car.
Ah tink ahm gonna git me a mule, lak ugly. An hes got dem hi-falutin watchercallit rollin-blades, too.
Gary,
Intentions: thought I did.
Canon law, etc.: Other way round, and let the theologians catch up -- lex orandi, lex credendi and all that. The argument's never been about what to say to the kids; we all pretty much agree on that. My project is getting the theologians caught up in a way that doesn't damage the simple message we give the kids -- that's the hard part. Theologians are a dangerous lot.
It's always been that way. The early church councils are all about protecting the simple biblical promise that we human beings can be partakers of the divine nature. Everybody pretty much agreed on the promise -- it's right there in Peter -- but getting the theology behind it worked out in a way that wouldn't do violence to the promise itself took some work. Same deal here.
Bobby,
I love clean margins, my man! That sounds wonderful.
Here's to a theology with clear windows!
Hi Tim and my other friends,
I wanted to specifically respond to something you said.
You said.... "....propositions do not save; Jesus does. No proposition ever bore our sin on the cross; no proposition rose from the dead and ascended to the Father's right hand; identification with a proposition won't save anyone."
Please forgive me, but that makes no sense to me??? I don't mean that in a disrespectful way. I'm sure you mean well. But the first time I heard Bob Wilkin teach on believing different propositions was a wonderful eye opener for me. I "got it~!!!" I remember how helpful it was to understand that truth. Then he went on to teach that my faith would grow as I learned more and more truths about Jesus (different propositions). But I wasn't believing MORE in Him to save me. That was impossible because I already believed in Him for eternal life. I couldn't believe MORE in Him for eternal life. But I could believe more and more truths (propositions) ABOUT Him which would strengthen me in my walk with Christ. I would grow to trust in Him more in life as I learned more and more about Him. That's what it means to believe in more and more propositions. You're believing more and more truths about Jesus. It was a "teaching word" to help explain this truth, and it did help me understand that eternal life was just simply believing in Jesus for it. It was believing THAT truth.... that proposition that brought me from death to life. There was no growing in that belief. That was settled the moment I first believed.
:-)
Dear friend, you said..... "When people begin dividing fellowship over minute differences in a proposition -- all of which are true; the only disagreement is whether an unbeliever must believe them to be saved -- then those people have begun to serve themselves and their propositions instead of their Savior.*
I don't understand your statement here. It's not a minute difference if someone has not yet believed in the message of life that brings salvation. If a person misses the meaning of that one saving TRUTH (proposition), then they are not saved. That's serious. I know that my friends at GES care about people and about their eternal well being. They want to make sure that lost people know what the saving message is so that they can believe in Jesus.
Believe in Jesus for eternal life, and you will have it. That's the message of life. That's the truth (proposition) that must be believed in order to be saved. Then we go on to learn lots and lots more propositions..... truths about Jesus. It's ALL ABOUT HIM~!!!
Thank you for letting me share my heart again. Together we can grow in Him.
God's best to you all my friends,
Diane
:-)
Tim, I was only joking about your intentions, canon law, and da lil chirrens. When I use that vernacular, I don't mean everything I say, and what I do mean usually only I know for certain... sometimes not even me. It's probably best understood as a manifestation of deep-seated psychosis and schizophrenia. :)
By the way Jim, Ugly said he has a mule to sell you. The only problem is that he says the mule stinks so bad it has to sneak up on water to get a drink. Interested?
Amen, Jim! Very exciting news, thank you (now just got to get past the follow up chemo, and some side effects). Thanks for the prayer, my brother!
Praying for you right now, Bobby, and for good results from your chemo.
Diane
:-)
Hi Diane,
Nah, you're not rude... don't worry about it. I'm glad once again that you are a part of this conversation. Your testimony sticks in my mind how propositions give clarity for illuminating faith in Jesus as the only condition to receive eternal life. One of the things I noticed with CEF's wordless book rendition of the gospel is that there is this glazed look at the end of a ten minute gospel presentation. So I appreciate your point of view and look forward to hearing what Jim or Tim might say.
:) Michele
Hi Bobby,
It's an honor to participate with God in prayer in the glory He's working through your experiences. I am sorry that you are at a low so I lift you up. Thanks for the encouragements and greetings all around. I am trying to push life away in chunks of time to finish a second post on Abraham. It seems huge to me because I am realizing how little I understand of scripture and I wish I knew it. I pray a lot just to hold it all in my mind... and it is very exciting.
Thanks for your comment about proposition vs. Person.
Diane,
I'll let Tim speak for himself, but I honestly don't think you are hearing what Tim is saying.
Most of my life as a believer has been spent teaching truths ABOUT Jesus, but that alone never made me or any of my students trust Him more---in fact it wasn't until I faced major crisis. This is one thing you said that simply doesn't match Scripture or experience:
...I could believe more and more truths (propositions) ABOUT Him which would strengthen me in my walk with Christ. I would grow to trust in Him more in life as I learned more and more about Him. That's what it means to believe in more and more propositions. You're believing more and more truths about Jesus.
The fact is that we "grow to trust in Him more in life," NOT by "learning more and more about him" but by enduring trials and suffering in Him with proven character. Secondly, while some "truths" are propositions, others are nonpropositional; the most important truth (Jesus Himself) is not a proposition.
This is the repeated testimony of Scripture. Almost everyone is familiar with these well-known passages by three separate NT authors: Romans 5:1-5; James 1:2-4; 2 Peter 1:2-8.
The last of these starts with a shared "knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord" that begins with basic faith and it then offers a list of character attributes that we are to add to that basic faith, which in turn lead to fruitfulness "in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ." "Knowledge" in this passage is not primarily propositional but relational knowledge that begins with faith, to which we than add character by obeying more consistently, and that's how our faith in Him grows. If learning more propositions ABOUT Jesus enabled us to trust him more, then Sunday School would be all we need. Need I say more about that?
There is a huge difference between believing a proposition about Jesus (you either do or you don't, which is consistent with Bob Wilkin's teaching) and trusting HIM more (the phrase itself implicitly attests to different "amounts" or "levels" of faith).
Bottom line: We trust Him more whenever we choose to obey Him at whatever level of propositional knowledge we have about Him. This means that the uneducated, the mentally retarded, some who belong to a heretical denomination, those persecuted in places where there is no Bible, etc., can all have just as much or (more likely) more trust in Him than we do. We learn more of Him by [non-propositionally] abiding in and thereby experiencing Him in trials.
I didn't mean to suggest that we aren't also to abide propositionally in Him; for that is certainly also taught in Scripture: 1 John 2:24 (cf. 1:1-3)
Well, gang, I guess I don't understand what Tim is saying either,because I have been pondering this and was glad to see Diane's comments. She says things so much better than I do.
Keep talking, 'cause I'm gonna stay tuned.
Hi Peggie :)
Hi Jim,
I have to confess I still catch myself thinking this way, truly. Now and then I make truth the quintessentially glorious aspect in which I might suffer for Christ. That way of thinking eventually leads to no shame over brawling arguments.
When Paul was being taken on by false teachers and he wrote a letter to reestablish his authority and credentials against their claims, he (foolishly) boasted in all sorts of general sufferings, not just the sufferings that come from firmly standing for accuracy in knowledge of the truth. 2 Cor 11:22 through 12:12. His summarizing statement is,
"Truly the signs of an apostle were accomplished among you with all perseverance, in signs and wonders and mighty deeds."
Jim,
You said: "There is a huge difference between believing a proposition about Jesus (you either do or you don't, which is consistent with Bob Wilkin's teaching)..."
When Bob is speaking in these terms he is speaking of the initial faith in Jesus Christ for eternal life when a person is born again. One either believes like Martha did (Yes, Lord. I believe THAT...), or they don't. The kind of experiential growth in faith you are speaking of is sanctification truth for the believer, not justification truth for the unbeliever. Anyone who reads Zane's commentary on James, for example, can easily see that he understood and taught the kind of experiential and relational growth in faith you are speaking of. What you are saying is nothing new. The GES has been teaching it for years. Have they FOCUSED on sanctification truth as much as justification truth? No, because the main purpose of the GES has always been to combat the error of Lordship Salvation's view about the conditions for justification and being born again.
When it comes to what an unbeliever must do to be born again, Bob is absolutely correct in what he says about either believing or not believing--there are no degrees. There is not anything else an unbeliever CAN do beyond simply believing in Jesus for eternal life or not believing. One either believes that Jesus is the Christ (in John's sense of that) or they do not. Once a person understands the offer, they either believe it or they don't. After one has been born again, then you are correct, there is more to growing and experiencing eternal life than simply believing truth about Jesus--we must also obey and persevere trial and difficulties as Jesus clearly taught in the the Upper Room discourse. But again, the GES has always taught that.
--CONTINUED--
But of course it does get deeper in other senses. As you come to know Jesus more, the friendship grows richer, and He's not just the one who will take you to heaven when you die. He's also the one who delivers you day by day from your present sin; He's the one who comforts you in trial; He's the one who never leaves you, who lives His life through you. And so on -- His promises extend much further than heaven, and you trust Him for far more than heaven.
Proposition language excels at making the distinction we're both talking about. If you come from a fuzzy background where salvation supposedly depends on how great your faith is, proposition-speak will clear that problem right up--and praise God for that. However, it comes with baggage that isn't biblical. I believe the relational way of describing things reflects the biblical message much more clearly, without the unbiblical baggage of propositionalism.
Re. "minute differences" -- I'm sorry to drag in some names here, but it will help if I'm clear. As far as I can tell, when Tom Stegall evangelizes an unbeliever, he doesn't tell any lies about Jesus. When Bob Wilkin evangelizes an unbeliever, he doesn't tell any lies about Jesus either. And as far as I can tell, neither man thinks the other is telling unbelievers lies about Jesus. Their differences lie in their difference of opinion as to which truths about Jesus an unbeliever must know before he is saved. With respect to the content they give, they are preaching the same message, and arguing only about which part comes first, and which parts can be dropped out if you're in a hurry. That, I submit, qualifies for "minute differences" -- and certainly is not enough of a difference to justify dividing fellowship.
Diane,
It's an honor to have you in the discussion, and to my knowledge you've never said a disrespectful thing to anyone online; certainly not to me. Please don't worry about that.
I want to begin by agreeing with practically everything you've said -- but I want to recast it a little into relational terms. Back in my single days, I once had the experience of a young lady trying very hard to be my girlfriend when I didn't want that relationship with her. I was sincerely offering friendship, but she insisted on keeping me in the role of potential boyfriend, and then trying to get me to respond by 'bribing' me with thoughts of how good we would be together. In her zeal for having the relationship entirely on her terms, she did a pretty good job of wrecking the friendship.
Likewise in relationship with Jesus. Above all, Jesus wants to save us. That's the sort of relationship He's offering. He doesn't want to be a disapproving judge that slams people into hell; He did not come to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. When a person approaches Jesus intent on keeping Him in that role of condemning judge, and then trying to buy Him off with good works or whatever, that person may know many facts about Jesus, but he is not entering into the offered relationship. When this person hears/understands/believes the promise of life that Jesus is offering, then he enters into the relationship.
In a sense, he can't get any more into the relationship than that. Relationship can be described in in/out terms: Barack Obama and I are not friends. I don't dislike him, particularly; I just don't know him at all. I've never offered him friendship, nor has he ever offered me friendship. If I tried to befriend him without his consent, I would become a person of some interest to the Secret Service -- because we are not friends. There was a time when the same thing was true of me and Jim Reitman. I didn't know him; he didn't know me; neither of us had offered friendship to the other. But we met and talked a little, then got re-acquainted online; implicit offers of friendship were proffered and accepted -- we're friends. Could Jim be more my friend than he is now? In one sense, no -- he wasn't my friend, and now he is; it's a binary issue. In another sense, there is always additional depth and dimension that can be added to the friendship.
With Jesus, once you trust His promise to save you, you have entered into that Savior-saved relationship. You weren't in it, and now you are. Ten seconds before, had you died, you'd have gone to hell. Ten seconds after, had you died, you'd have gone to heaven. You can't get any more going-to-heaven than you were the second you believed, right? So it is, in that sense, a binary issue; it gets no deeper...in that sense.
--MORE--
Gary,
I certainly don't disagree with any of your points about GES, Zane, etc. I have read Zane's James commentary backwards and forwards and cited it as my main source in my final paper on James for 4th semester Greek at Denver Seminary---much to the chagrin of my Reformed professors, although they still had to give me an A.
But Diane was also talking about "sanctification truth," and her remarks about Bob's teaching were in relation to believing propositions about Jesus that we can know as believers to increase our trust in Him. Like Diane, I too have heard Bob mention that propositions about Jesus can be believed or not in connection with believers.
Can you help me see where you and I got cross-wise on this?
Hi Jim,
Nice to visit with you again here.
You said....
"Most of my life as a believer has been spent teaching truths ABOUT Jesus, but that alone never made me or any of my students trust Him more---in fact it wasn't until I faced major crisis. This is one thing you said that simply doesn't match Scripture or experience"
I agree that learning Bible doesn't MAKE us trust Him more. It's when we abide in Him (His Word) by obeying Him that we grow spiritually. I think you and I agree on this.
But before Christians can grow in Christ, they need to first believe in Him for eternal life. To believe in Jesus alone for eternal life is one truth believed. Now we go on and learn more and more truths about Him. Growing in the Christian life means obeying Him. It means to believe Him when He says something like...... "I will never leave your or forsake you."* But believing that truth is different than believing in Him for eternal life. That's what Bob means by believing different propositions.
It's so important that people know what exactly they must believe to be saved.
We need to make that crystal clear.
How would my friends here answer that question?
Jim, you said....
The fact is that we "grow to trust in Him more in life," NOT by "learning more and more about him" but by enduring trials and suffering in Him with proven character. Secondly, while some "truths" are propositions, others are nonpropositional; the most important truth (Jesus Himself) is not a proposition.
The only way we can trust in Him more in life is to know Him through His Word. As we go through trials, we believe what He has told us in His Word about Himself. It takes knowing the Word of God to be able to trust Him as we go through the trials of life. Yes, we grow as we trust Him in our trials. But our trust in Him is founded upon His sure Word. Apart from His Word, we can only presume on God. Some people go through illnesses and believe that God is going to heal them. Yet where does it say that? It doesn't. So if their expectation of healing by God doesn't happen, their faith collapses. They need to know the Word of God to grow in Him. We know that the Bible says God causes all things to work together for good to those who love Him and are called according to His good purpose. Romans 8 tells us that. That's absolutely true. We can count on it. We grow in grace as we believe God in that statement. We may not know exactly how He's going to work in our trial, but we know for sure that He is conforming us to the image of His Son as we trust Him, and that He will never leave us or forsake us. Knowing that truth is one way in which we grow in Him. Yes, it's all about Jesus~!!! We grow in Him as we apply His Word (believing it) to life's situations. It's a daily walk with Him.
I hope I'm not sounding argumentative. I sure don't mean it that way. Your questions are good ones. I'm not doing a very good job of explaining myself, but I thought I'd try.
BTW.... I just read Gary's comment written June 22, 3:29pm and thought it was well said. I agree.
:-)
I'm thankful for all my brothers and sisters here in the Lord.
Your friend because of Jesus,
Diane
:-)
Hi Peggie,
It's good to see you here. It's been a while since I've visited my friend's blogging site, so was glad to see your name here, too.
I know that you are enjoying the Lord each day.
Diane
:-)
Jim, you and Tim are just as entitled to your views about the gospel and COSF issue as anyone else. The problem is that we keep hearing what the gospel is NOT, complete with implicit, and not so implicit, distortions of what the GES teaches, but we never can seem to get to the bottom of what you and Tim think it IS. Fred Lybrand couldn't do it (as far as I know) and I haven't been able to do it. But I think the light just came on for me--finally. Yes, we have been "cross-wise", but I think we're about to get un-cross-wise if you will just kindly answer one question for me (deja-vu all over again?). Tim still seems reluctant to give a direct answer, but maybe you will. You said this to Diane:
"There is a huge difference between believing a proposition about Jesus (you either do or you don't, which is consistent with Bob Wilkin's teaching) and trusting HIM more (the phrase itself implicitly attests to different "amounts" or "levels" of faith). Bottom line: We trust Him more whenever we choose to obey Him at whatever level of propositional knowledge we have about Him. This means that the uneducated, the mentally retarded, some who belong to a heretical denomination, those persecuted in places where there is no Bible, etc., can all have just as much or (more likely) more trust in Him than we do. We learn more of Him by [non-propositionally] abiding in and thereby experiencing Him in trials."
--------------------------
Now, my question to you is this: Your "bottom line" is the same for both sanctification AND justification, is it not? In other words, do you believe that a person is born again "whenever (they) choose to obey Him at whatever level of propositional knowledge (they) have about Him" ?
No one's going to burn you at the stake and no one is going to be angry with you-- at least I'm certainly not. We wouldn't want anymore "fractious conduct" from proposition worshippers, now would we? I'm just asking a simple question, like I did in the beginning with Tim. I'm actually feeling relieved that my long struggle to at least understand you might finally be over. I can't speak for anyone else, but for me this is major breakthrough in communication. I think our signals are finally un-crossed!
Jim,
Here is what Diane said in her comment at June 21, 2010 11:39 PM:
Hi Tim and my other friends, I wanted to specifically respond to something you said.
You said.... "....propositions do not save; Jesus does. No proposition ever bore our sin on the cross; no proposition rose from the dead and ascended to the Father's right hand; identification with a proposition won't save anyone."
Dear friend, you said..... "When people begin dividing fellowship over minute differences in a proposition -- all of which are true; the only disagreement is whether an unbeliever must believe them to be saved -- then those people have begun to serve themselves and their propositions instead of their Savior.*"
---------------------------
Diane was specifically responding to comments Tim made about what an unbeliever must believe to be saved. Yes, she then went on to say that learning more truth about Jesus from scripture is important to our spiritual health and growth as well-- and she is 100% right about that. But she NEVER said, nor implied, that sanctification is merely a matter of learning more propositions. Yet your answer to her DID imply that she was saying that. Here is what you said:
"Diane, I'll let Tim speak for himself, but I honestly don't think you are hearing what Tim is saying."
No Jim, she heard Tim PERFECTLY well, just like I heard Tim perfectly well when I first entered this thread. Now, after all the diversions about the bad behavior and "fractious conduct" of the "proposition worshipper" GES'ers, we've come fill circle again to the real issue haven't we? Just like I knew we would.
You asked me this: "Can you help me see where you and I got cross-wise on this?"
Here it is: You were clearly implying that Diane was advocating a proposition-only sanctification, (which, of course, comes from the GES right!?--NOT!)--and needed instruction on the "relational aspect" of sanctification. I was just trying to set the record straight on the insinuation ( again!) you were making not only about her, but the GES as well (see the quote below about Bob Wilkin). It seems I've had my hands full from the beginning of this thread trying to straighten out one false insinuation after another about the GES--not only the implied misrepresentations of their teaching about the gospel (doctrine) and "fractious conduct", but now their teaching on "propositional" sanctification.
Diane,
As is our custom, I will let Jim speak for himself, but a couple of things leapt out at me in your response to him, and I'd like to comment on them.
First, in your response to the second place you quoted him, you said, "We grow in Him as we apply His Word (believing it) to life's situations. It's a daily walk with Him." I agree, but as you certainly know, believing and applying are not equivalent terms, and I see this as going to the heart of your difference with Jim. Knowledge is important, and nobody here is opposed to it. But a believer can know all the right things and still live a rampantly disobedient life. Such a person's growth in knowledge and belief deepens his relationship with God not a whit, because he won't apply it. Knowledge can't be applied if you don't have it, but just having it won't cause you to grow -- the growth comes in the application, in the actual doing of it.
No amount of learning propositions will substitute for the experience of doing it. Experience is non-propositional, and this (I think) is Jim's point. We know God not just through hearing the things He says (propositions in His Word) but also through His acts in our lives as we walk with Him. He makes a promise, we believe it, and that's one level of knowledge, perhaps. But when we have occasion to rely on that promise, and He delivers, that deepens the relationship, does it not? That's not a matter of learning propositions, but gaining shared experience.
**
Second, you asked, "It's so important that people know what exactly they must believe to be saved.
We need to make that crystal clear.
How would my friends here answer that question?"
I would answer it with a question. Where does the Bible say that people need to know the exact content they must believe to be saved? Where is there ever a verse, anywhere in the Bible, that answers that question?
Certainly people need to hear the gospel message, but suppose someone reads John's Gospel and just believes the whole thing? Does he really need to know how little of it he could have believed and still be saved? Where does the Bible answer that question?
I find myself seeing the strengths in all the comments from the four in this conversation. I am delighting that there are two for each side because if one overlooks something, another is there to pick up on it. Which is really something in the greater sense. I believe I need others because I am weak. The GES has been the recipient of a good deal of ill thoughts and wishes and I hope it will one day be a thing of the past. I love the spirit there, it caught me off guard, and took down my guard, when I attended the first time last year - and it is the reason why Lord willing I will always feel joy in returning. I experienced forgiveness there and I want their Spirit to spread. God bless them.
I don't want to speak for Tim or Jim and if I'm wrong, will you extend some more of that forgiveness for wrongly interjecting? I can't be a part of this conversation for lots of reasons, but I do believe that Tim can show you the scriptures to answer exactly what one must believe to be saved. He's going to do it differently than Tom Stegall or someone from GES would. They have in common that they make their case for COSF positively from scripture, just by quoting a passage or two or three. Tim is going to make a negative case from scripture why those uses of content cannot be used with all rigidity; he is going to open the scriptures to show how the COSF is a little noticeably less propositional.
How did I do? Did I make a mess of things? Let me know... :)
Dear Friends,
John 3:16... For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whoever BELIEVES in Him shall not perish but HAVE everlasting life.
FACT~!!!
My friends....... don't you see it? It's so simple and so wonderful. Believe in Jesus and you will HAVE everlasting life.
It MEANS believe in Jesus FOR everlasting life.
Example... "Believe in President Obama and you will HAVE better and cheaper health care."*
OK, I admit it. I do NOT believe that. But IF I did believe THAT STATEMENT it would mean that I believed that President Obama was going to give me better and cheaper health care. I could count on it~!!!
My friends..... believe John 3:16..... THAT proposition..... THAT promise, and you will HAVE everlasting life. Halaluia~!!!!!
Jesus said to Martha..... "Do you believe THIS?" (John 11:25) FACT~!*
For those who are still having questions about "propositions," please read...
"Should We Rethink The Idea Of Degrees Of Faith" by Bob Wilkin.
It's printed in the GES Journal, Volume 19, Autumn 2006, Number 37.
You can read it at this link.
http://www.faithalone.org/journal/2006ii/01%20Wilkin%20-%20great%20faith.pdf
Enjoy Him through His Word and prayer.
He loves you with an everlasting love,
Diane
:-)
Gary,
Re. "Tim still seems reluctant to give a direct answer..."
See, this kinda ticks me off.
You can't give straight answers to crooked questions. The propositional/COSF question is an understandable question. I once asked it myself. BUT THE BIBLE NEVER ANSWERS IT, and that's kinda important. Go ahead, cite even one passage that tells us exactly what propositional content an unbeliever must believe to be saved. You'd be the first...
Either the Holy Spirit somehow neglected to give us the most important piece of information ever, or we're asking the wrong question. Confronted with this conundrum, I did what any sound-thinking Christian ought to do -- I repented of the question and went to Scripture looking for the question I ought to have asked instead...
...And found a few other questions, chief among them this: "What am I obligated to present to an unbeliever?" See, I'm not working the door in Heaven, and neither are you. It's not our job to determine with maximal precision the exact point in time that a person becomes regenerate, or what they believed at that moment; it's our job to be obedient and faithful in presenting the message God gave us. God's not going to leave that poor unbeliever hanging; surely the message God called me to present includes whatever that unbeliever needs to know to be saved -- whether it's propositions or commands or promises or stories or whatever.
Which leads to a second question: what is the message? Well, if the biblical precedents are to be trusted, then it's the story of Jesus. As told by John, sure. Or as told by Paul on Mars' Hill -- that's fine too. Or, for an observant Jewish audience, as told by Peter in Acts 2 or 3.
So the reason I don't give a direct answer to the saving proposition/COSF question is that the question doesn't call for a direct answer, it calls for a hearty rebuke -- which I have given repeatedly, loudly, and with a right good will. I haven't been in any way hesitant or indirect about it.
And for this I am characterized as unwilling or unable to give a simple, direct answer to a 'simple' question. I gotta tell you, I understand that it's a misunderstanding and not a deliberate slander, but I still kinda resent it.
So that's where I stand; is this direct enough for you, or do I need to start cussin' and throwing 2x4s?
I think you know it's a real struggle. All can believe the best about one another and all overlook and accept to one another, but at some point along the way, history becomes important to one, so they bring it up, and then history is brought up by the other, and then you're stuck repeating and defending your own past.
I think there is a lot of healing in order needed for everyone. I need it. As I listen, just like the rest I have hot buttons. When they are pressed, the fingers fly. I think there is a limitless amount of time for us to give to one another to make sure we are able to hear one another - which I think most of the time is less of the problem. The biggest problem seems to be how long it takes to say well what you see in the scriptures. Bob Wilkin has spent years on it. Tom Stegall has too. Time makes them ahead on this curve. Give us ten years, or something similar and then check back in :) It's one of the reasons why I blog - because I hear the scriptures and they are in my heart, but expressing that to someone else isn't always a smooth operation. A work in progress in every way. I am sure too that Wilkin and Stegall did not come to make their doctrine without the critical but friendly comments and opinions of others along that journey.
Did anyone intend for this to turn into a negative encounter? Could we start afresh? Tim has a few scriptures to start with, from what I hear him saying. Does anyone have a thought on those passages on the gospel?
(throw a few tomatoes if I'm not being helpful - really)
Michele,
I'd balk a little at "I do believe that Tim can show you the scriptures to answer exactly what one must believe to be saved," but in the later way you characterized my strategy as a negative case, I agree. You're right on track.
As long as a person insists on asking "So what's the saving proposition?" my response looks fuzzy and sloppy at best, inconsistent or downright evasive at worst. I know this; I used to ask that question, and I haven't forgotten what it was like.
But the Bible never answers the question; in answers different questions. And from where I now stand, it's easy to see that the poor answers we're getting to the 'saving proposition' question all have the common flaw of trying to answer a bad question.
Thanks Diane for the link, I'm reading that now.
FYI Tim has been writing about this content of saving faith (COSF) for only about a year at his blog.
Love to each, grateful for you...
Tim, could I request to see how the bible doesn't answer it? It would be a good thing to meditate on some of His Word as it was laying out in a comment here.
"So the reason I don't give a direct answer to the saving proposition/COSF question is that the question doesn't call for a direct answer, it calls for a hearty rebuke -- which I have given repeatedly, loudly, and with a right good will. I haven't been in any way hesitant or indirect about it."
Then give your hearty rebuke to the Apostle John brother Tim. He wrote a whole book for the purpose of giving us the answer. You might want to file a complaint with God while your at it if it makes you feel better.
Jn. 20:31
Here is some of Tim's content,
"Which leads to a second question: what is the message? Well, if the biblical precedents are to be trusted, then it's the story of Jesus. As told by John, sure. Or as told by Paul on Mars' Hill -- that's fine too. Or, for an observant Jewish audience, as told by Peter in Acts 2 or 3."
I'm praying for each as I've said privately, and I believe that you can do this.
I feel like I need to admit I'm not above any of this, one time having lunch with Diane I got flustered, I admit it. I am sorry about that. I want to have a thorough answer, and I also want to be encouraging to her, and oftentimes it's beyond me. I wish I had a better example to give away, but I need more of Him in so many areas.
Grace, Michele
Gary,
Outstanding, brother! Beautiful! That's the only possible response when someone says "The Bible doesn't ever say..." -- "Yes it does, and here's the reference."
Thank you. This is exactly the discussion I want to have. I've got to get up from the computer and go herd middle school kids for 4 hours or so, so my contribution will have to wait until tomorrow at this point, but I'm really looking forward to it.
Tomorrow, I will do my best to explain why the "saving proposition" view of John 20:31 is hopelessly inadequate, and why the passage actually turns out to support my position, not undermine it. See y'all then.
Michele,
You understand me well indeed, and those passages I referred to in the above quote are ideal test cases. At a story level, all the same. At a 'promise' level, pretty much the same as well. At a proposition level...not so much. What they have in common is a common story.
Note:
Tim's comment above is in part to a comment I deleted, but will repost below in a better fashion,
Tim taught me once to lead everyone to grapple for themselves with the texts. Just bring them to the scriptures, that's all we are required to do.
He's already written about this on his blog, and I can reference it. All one has to prove is that the content can both save the lost and yet be variant, by cutting and pasting scriptures proving it. Especially if one can prove it in the gospel of John.
Tim,
Why don't you just go have that discussion with Bob Wilkin or John Niemela. I'm really not interested in wasting my time with a hot-head. If Zane didn't convince you and if the Gospel of John itself doesn't convince you...well, little ole me don't stand a chance now do I?
One thing I know for sure: if no sine-qua-non has been revealed to us in scripture assurance of salvation is IMPOSSIBLE. But it has been revealed--thank you Jesus.
Gary,
Do you think I'm not having that conversation with Niemela/Wilkin/etc.? I've been doing that for a couple of years. But I know those guys in person, so we hash out our disagreements in person or by phone, not online.
As to continuing: I said I'll post it, and I've got to do it. Man of my word and all that -- especially since I'm fighting an uphill battle against unjust charges of being 'reluctant' to say what I think. If you don't want to respond to it, brother, I can't make you. But I hope you'll hang in there with me. We've jumped through an awful lot of hoops in this thread just to get to the point in the discussion where we're talking a little Bible.
So -- no obligation on your part, of course, but here it is:
If one had to pick a minimal Saving Proposition from Scripture, John 20:31 would seem to be the way to go: "...but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you might have life in His name."
We can say with confidence that in order to be saved, a person need believe nothing more than that "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God" (the way that John means that). So there's the minimal proposition, right?
But what are the definitions of the terms? Exactly how much does a person need to know before he understands "Jesus" as John means that word in 20:31? Any verse tell us that? How about "Christ"? "Son of God"?
Nope. So there's no answer to the question there.
Give that "Saving Proposition" to someone who knows nothing of the Bible, and see how far it gets you. Take the proposition by itself, and "Jesus" could be Hay-zoos, the cook down at the roach coach; no telling what "Christ" means; "Son of God" need only mean that Hay-zoos' granddaddy had a blasphemously wierd sense of humor.
Gary, you unwittingly said it very well when you said that John "wrote a whole book for the purpose of giving us the answer." Indeed. That's my point. The proposition has no meaning without reference to the story of which it is a part -- which is to say that it's no accident that it's at the end of the twentieth chapter. John has supplied some vital context, and we must communicate that as well.
A person who believes John's message as he reads through the book will certainly understand the proposition when he gets to 20:31. But that, again, is my point: the Johannine message is a story, not just a proposition. And the minimal boundaries of the story are not clearly drawn anywhere in John.
That ought not to be surprising. John is not interested in his reader believing the least he can about Jesus and still go to heaven. John wants his reader to believe everything. So should we.
You don't have to know the exact moment the sun crossed the horizon to know that it's up now. You don't have to know the exact moment of your conversion to know that you're God's child now. And you don't have to know the exact minimal COSF to know that you now believe in Jesus, the way John means it.
What would you do with the bare-minimum information if you had it? Stop there? But where in the Bible do you find any support for that idea? God wants us to keep going anyhow, and tell them even more about Jesus.
Tim, I have to say that I'm somewhat astonished. Maybe you HAVE been having a conversation with Wilkin/Niemela/etc., but apparently it's been an entirely one-sided conversation, because they would agree with about 99% of everything you just said. And that's supposed to be your rationale for why there is no sine-qua-non for saving faith? What continues to bother me the most about your comments on this thread is that you persist (!) in implying that the GES position is something that it ISN'T. Yet again, you insinuate that they would not agree with almost all of what you just said--and that's just not the truth, is it Tim? That sort of distortion and misrepresentation has been going on for several years now, and it truly disappoints me that it's now coming from you.
We are not going to get very far with this, Tim, because I'm not going to continue "jumping through your hoops" any longer.
Sorry Tim, I left out one thing. I said that the GES would agree with almost everything you said. So what would they disagree with? It lies right here:
"And you don't have to know the exact minimal COSF to know that you now believe in Jesus, the way John means it."
That's where you're wrong, Tim. While it is true that the "story" provides the context for the sine-qua-non, and while it is also true that we should give people as much of that "story" as possible or necessary, the whole point of John giving the "story" is so people will "believe in Jesus the way he means it." The way he means it is precisely the sine-qua-non that John is trying to illuminate for the reader. His whole point is that, until such illumination occurs, they have NOT "believed in Jesus the way he means it." And without that sine-qua-non, the whole story is meaningless for the reader.
After reading your comment, I can't help but wonder if you've really "heard" anything that Hodges, Wilkin, Niemela-- and most all, Jesus and the Apostle John-- have said.
Jn. 11:25-27
I'd like to know I have your approval to be "hovering" - which is an endearing term in my family. :) I want to support each one of you and I do. I will share with you my value and my vision, which is that there would be equal care to talk theology as to care for speaking value and encouragement to those in the conversation. That's what I am aiming for and it would be a lot more difficult if I was actually engaged on presenting a "side" which I am not - trust me I understand how simplistic it is to be an observer.
In this "hovering" bit, if you will bear with it, I had another thought today. It is good to laugh and I have laughed with each of you and you also all with one another. I wish I was gracious enough to have learned in God's grace how to laugh at how much a sinner I really am. This is a goal I have for myself and honestly, it feels like pulling teeth inside my soul. My flesh dies hard. It wants to keep up this deception that I'm awesome.
The theory set before me in my mind is: I sin a lot, I am forgiven a lot, so I ought to also laugh at myself a lot.
One day.
I experience it over and over that when I am trying to ground myself in my own response, two things happen:
1 - I rely on my own hot buttons as Captain directing my interpretation and material to share with others
2 - I get so grounded in my own material that my hearing is worse than usual, so I read things into comments or do not understand things that are being handed to me. I become a slow hearer because I am being pressed for answers. Remember when I missed Alvin's comments on 1 John 1:9?? That was way beneath my own standards.
(#1 causes me to get short-fused, and honestly, defensive, and offensive, because I do have something worthwhile to contribute and I want it to all work out instantaneously.)
Thanks for participating Diane, Gary, Jim and Tim. If you are done for now or whatever natural resting point you may have arrived at, I was able to hear a few interesting points here and a few more in emails.
And on the "hovering," the last thing I want is to be patting myself on the back, either for having some vision or for making interrupting comments - both are a detriment to you in many ways because I know you share the vision, and, I know I am interrupting. However I don't know how else to carry out a responsibility to honor Him, other than saying nothing, which I would also do in love. Please bear with me for coming across without the full measure of respect you each deserve.
Michele,
Hover away -- it's your house. I welcome your calming influence.
Gary,
Jesus once took some folks to task for encouraging violations of the fifth commandment (Mark 7:9-13). These were all people who, naturally, would have loudly and pointedly agreed that the fifth commandment must be upheld. Jesus didn't take them to task because they argued against the fifth commandment in any straightforward way; He took them to task because they ignored it when it actually mattered, and then heaped up verbiage to legitimate and conceal the crime.
In similar fashion, we all agree that in the end, a proposition didn't die on the cross; it is the Person who saves. We will all agree that the sine qua non is the living Christ; Scripture reveals Him (Jn. 5:39), and He is the ground of assurance. We all -- apparently -- agree that the overall story is necessary and must be told in order for statements like John 20:31 to make sense. When pressed, we find ourselves forced to admit that John 11:25-27 does not unequivocally and clearly give a definite minimum definition for "the Christ, the Son of God." (Or maybe you wouldn't admit that; you and I have never talked about it. But everybody I have talked to has admitted it.)
And then something strange happens. All that gets ignored, and people start talking about a Saving Proposition. They start talking about minimum propositional content, having already admitted they can't establish the boundaries of the thing biblically. They teach people to evangelize based on a sine qua non statement like "Believe on Jesus for eternal life" or "Jesus is the grantor of eternal life to everyone who believes on Him for it" -- and even though they've already admitted that you need waaay more content than that, they start acting like that's all you really need. And they call it Johannine even though those sentences don't occur in John.
(And don't tell me these things don't happen. They do. I've seen them, and some years ago, I was part of them, under the approving gaze of my FG mentors.)
That's serious error. On paper, everything's fine, maybe, but in real life where it matters, central truths are being de-emphasized, distorted, ignored. In the beginning it seems a subtle thing, but the results are anything but.
To pick just one obvious example, FG men break fellowship with each other, because they have slightly different constructions of the Saving Proposition. No matter what they say, such men have forgotten that propositions don't save. They have forgotten that it is the living Christ that unites them. Nobody will actually say that the paperwork is more important than real relationship with the living Christ -- but when they divide over the paperwork, and won't stay together for Jesus' sake, well...you tell me what's more important to them.
As for me supposedly distorting anyone's position: The actions are what they are. I am bringing to bear the doctrine that critiques those actions. You are protesting that nobody really disagrees with most of the doctrine I'm citing. That may be true, but it's kinda beside the point when the actions don't match.
Michele, you asked if we are done?
I certainly hope not, but I could understand, if you wanted us to be done...it's kind of uncomfortable at this point.
We all naturally want to have our points heard (and our positions vindicated), and yes, when we speak out of a defensive posture we all too quickly lose our sense of hearing. But I think the core issue here is a basic lack of trust, perhaps aggravated by raw nerves. Gary doesn't trust Tim to have the best interests of GES at heart, and Tim doesn't trust Gary to give him the benefit of the doubt before jumping to conclusions. Diane doesn't trust Tim or me to "get it" the way she wants us to "get it."
I've dialogued with both Tim and Gary long enough to trust them both---at the deepest level---to seek truth, even though it may not appear so to the other. Because I know how potent my own flesh is when I'm trying to make my points, and I see a lot of myself in both of them.
I don't see any way around taking a Biblical approach to reconciliation here with the goal of coming to "the same mind" (Phil 2:1-5), which doesn't mean identical positions on every point of FG theology. I appeal to Tim and I appeal to Gary to both consider the admonition of James 1:19 after an appropriate cooling off period. We have too many current enemies of grace and reconciliation to be alienating one another for what I consider to be continuing areas of misconstrued communication on all sides. If it were easy, we'd all have one denomination after 2,000 years of church history.
Hi Michele,
Sounds like you may be done with this post. I perfectly understand if you choose not to post what I'm intending to put on here now. As I read some of the debate, I just thought about what I had posted on Anotnio's blog a couple years ago (??) and thought it might be helpful to repost it here. It's my understanding of the Gospel of John. It's too long to post in one comment, so I'll post it in a couple of comments or more. But if you choose not to put it on, that's fine. I'm not trying to be argumentative with any of my friends here... just share my findings and understanding again.
Thanks for always being so gracious whether you post it or not.
In Jesus' love,
Diane
:-)
Dear Friends,
Everybody here would have to admit that in the gospel of John people got saved BEFORE they understood about the cross and resurrection of Christ. Right?
So then it comes down to the debate about progressive revelation, and has the content to be believed changed in this dispensation?
Some of you say yes, and some no. John holds the key.
If John is to be used TODAY for it's STATED purpose, then we must conclude that the content has not changed in this dispensation.
If the content HAS changed, then the book is nothing more than a history book with some good content for believers to grow by.
That's a HUGE conclusion to come to..... to say that John is primarily a history book which doesn't apply to us today as far as what we must believe to have eternal life.
Don't you think that this is really something important enough that you should check out?
I've been studying this book for the last couple years and have been thoroughly convinced of its purpose being evangelistic.
(continued below.....)
(continued from above.....)
Purpose of the book of John...
"...these **SIGNS** are written that you may BELIEVE that Jesus is the CHRIST, the Son of God, and that believing you may have LIFE in his name" (John 20:31)
To believe that Jesus is the Christ is to believe that He is the giver of eternal life.
(John 11:25-27)
EIGHT SIGNS recorded under inspiration of the Holy Spirit to prove that Jesus is the Christ (the giver of eternal life).
ALL the discourses and narratives are built around these signs and serves the purpose (as described by Zane Hodges) of either preparing for OR illuminating the meaning of the 8 signs around which the book is structured. I checked this out. That's exactly what God is opening my eyes to see so clearly. Even the reactions by the believing and unbelieving Jews show this to be true. Exciting!
1st sign........Water to wine
2nd sign......The royal officer's son healed
3rd sign.......The man at the pool of Bethesda healed
4th sign....... Feeding the multitude
5th sign....... Walking on water through the storm
6th sign....... Healing the man born blind
7th sign....... The raising of Lazarus from the dead
8th sign....... Jesus death and resurrection
Each one of the discourses or narratives that follow or precede the signs explain the signs. Sometimes there is an overlap in the discussion illuminating the meaning of more than one sign.
An example of this is in the middle of the 6th and 7th signs. Both of these signs emphasize the blindness of unbelief. We see the reaction of those who refuse to believe and those who do believe.
In John 2 Jesus made a whip of cords and drove out all the money changers. So the Jews said to Him in vs. 18... "What SIGN do You show to us, since You do these things?" Then in vs. 19 Jesus answered... "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." The Jews thought He was speaking of the literal Temple, but of course He was speaking of his death and resurrection.
Now notice vs. 22....
"Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples REMEMBERED that He had said this to them; and they believed in Him." My friends, do you see the 8th sign here? The purpose statement in John 20:30,31 says these SIGNS were written that you may BELIEVE that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.
The way I understand this is that the cross and the resurrection is the 8th sign which is the greatest of all REASONS to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the giver of eternal life....
John 11:25-27.
The book of John was given to show us how to have eternal life. And once we believe, there is great material in John to grow by... (the abundance of eternal life for the disciple). But FIRST we must receive the gift freely by grace through faith in Jesus, and THEN we can enjoy eternal life experientially as we grow in Christ. This book is telling us how to receive it. Once we have LIFE we're told how we can enjoy it . All the other books in the Bible are primarily discipleship books. They do contain the saving message, but the purpose of those books are not evangelistic. Paul and John are in total agreement. All the authors of the Bible are in total agreement. It's just that their purpose is different.
(continued below.....)
(continued from above.....)
Friends, if you really want to be convinced what the saving content is today, you need to learn the purpose for the Gospel of John. I don't expect you to take my word for it. But you owe it to yourself to find out. God will show you if you ask Him in all honesty. He is in the business of being the revealor of truth to those who seek it...... seek Him.
The KEY to this debate and understanding what the saving content is for TODAY and always is understanding the purpose for the book of John.
Dear Friends, I don't mean to push this understanding on any of you. This is just what I studied and it all came together for me. I "see it." But I'm sharing it here with you AGAIN just for you to examine to see if what I'm seeing is so.
I hope that's what we all want here... to be a Berean and search the scriptures.
Thank you to all my friends.
May Jesus Christ be glorified in all our words and deeds.
Until He comes,
Diane
:-)
Thank you Diane, Tim and Jim for deferring your interests for mine - that's exactly what I wanted for you. If the profit seems to dry up for one, then there's probably wisdom in hearing so for everyone else. Waiting for a friend is an easy enough task.
Hi Michele. Thanks for moderating this. It's caused me to do a lot of thinking. I've been following it pretty closely and I think I'm finally beginning to understand where Tim and Jim are coming from. And whether I end up agreeing with them or not, understanding obviously has to come first. So whether you end this now or not, it has been profitable for me and I hope it will pick up again in some venue sometime in the future.
Hi Gary, I know you're wrestling with an internet connection, so perhaps in a little while you can give some response. I am thinking about your comments.
We wouldn't want anymore "fractious conduct" from proposition worshippers, now would we?
You're on to something. Fractious conduct is in the eye of the beholder, is it not? That's a big, powerful & ugly question I realize. I want the GES to be supported and valued for what it is doing - so there's room to evaluate whether my questions and comments are lining up accordingly.
I get the impression it all feels the same. I'm hoping that there is some evidence to discern what makes these questions and these conversations with these people different (better). Either way I appreciate the grace you gave when you said to Jim,
Jim, you and Tim are just as entitled to your views about the gospel and COSF issue as anyone else.
I want to hear you right, let me know how I did....
Hi Tim,
Thanks for the permission to hover. As I read your comments, and think about the difference between thinking you know and believe the propositions and missing the Person in them, I do think you are on to something and I look forward to hearing the extent of it.
I have a slight advantage having been following your blog all this year, to let it sink in. Also on your blog you have been talking on how we are members of one another; if one part suffers, the rest suffers with it. I am so utterly thankful for that theme you've been running. That doesn't mean we can't sin, or even endlessly make mistakes. God is working His will and His strength is what counts to carry it out. I'm teaching myself this by stopping all the proposition-engaging at intervals and focus on Him - just like you're teaching about COSF. I'm trying. I don't focus on Him enough though. That's me... I thought I would testify on how real your teaching is.
Your sis, Michele
Hi Jim,
You said,
But I think the core issue here is a basic lack of trust, perhaps aggravated by raw nerves.
Raw... yes. I dare any other theological movement to produce a set of circumstances more unnerving than what we've seen around here.
Trust... you are so right. I presume I know how you feel, you want to create a safe place for FG people to disagree.
I'm considering it.... I think the enemies without are still there, but in effect have been nullified especially with this last aid of comment moderation on this blog.
Now, the place to look for the enemy may be, within. We are safe from 'stink bombing' from outsiders as Gary calls it, but my friends won't ever be safe from the wiles of my own sinful nature. Jesus Christ is going to have to loom more and more so that I can treat others as more important, or better, than myself.
It must be difficult for you, because you have such a big heart for reconciliation and peace. But you also have something to contribute theologically. From time to time I believe you must feel led to proportionally focus on one or the other, and I think it might lead others to be confused or perhaps to even feel like you've compromised integrity in having more than one role. But if I think about it Jesus did both in both realms; He came to share doctrine and to encourage and enable peace; and in my eyes participating in both makes all you do authentic. ...Even if I can't say I understand every bit of theology you would teach... which as you say is less of the point of what is called "being of the same mind."
Thank you for not giving up.
Hi Diane,
I have been looking forward to talking to you... possibly because propositions require less intentionality on my part to interact with than people require? But I suppose that's Tim's point making a lot of sense for me today.
I am so glad that you laid out a quick overview of the signs in John. I was asking about that at the conference. I do not think I have any FG books describing what they are or what they mean. Thanks so much!
This was a huge comment in my mind,
If John is to be used TODAY for it's STATED purpose, then we must conclude that the content has not changed in this dispensation.
If the content HAS changed, then the book is nothing more than a history book with some good content for believers to grow by.
That's a HUGE conclusion to come to..... to say that John is primarily a history book which doesn't apply to us today as far as what we must believe to have eternal life.
Yes that's really disturbing to me that we should not or especially could not use the words of Jesus Himself as Antonio pointed out. In fact the few times I have shared the gospel this week I have began by asking strangers, "Has anyone ever told you, that you can have eternal life in Jesus simply by believing in Him for it?" All three efforts have failed, because they either want to ignore God (romans 1) or were already believers (a backloaded gospel for sanctification which inevitably causes a fracture in understanding a gracious salvation).
Great point to wrestle with. I don't know the answer, I'd have to spend time looking at it for myself as you said.
This is what I had been waiting for....
ALL the discourses and narratives are built around these signs and serves the purpose (as described by Zane Hodges) of either preparing for OR illuminating the meaning of the 8 signs around which the book is structured. I checked this out. That's exactly what God is opening my eyes to see so clearly. Even the reactions by the believing and unbelieving Jews show this to be true. Exciting!
1st sign........Water to wine
2nd sign......The royal officer's son healed
3rd sign.......The man at the pool of Bethesda healed
4th sign....... Feeding the multitude
5th sign....... Walking on water through the storm
6th sign....... Healing the man born blind
7th sign....... The raising of Lazarus from the dead
8th sign....... Jesus death and resurrection
So it sounds as if content is the sine qua non in all eight climactic points in the story.
Okay... I'm contemplating. Thanks again. I appreciate you saying "I see it!!"
Hi David,
I'm so glad you left the comment above. Yes as I was saying, I would have enjoyed hearing your input at the conference but somehow it did not come about. Please share any other reactions or opinions especially if something gets overlooked.
Thanks so much, it is encouraging.
Yes, Michele, it would have been good to enter into some conversations with you guys but, truth be known, I'm a little "socially challenged." Regardless, it was nice meeting the gang.
In the current divide, I fall more in line with FGA thinking than GES, as much as I've been indebted to the teachings of Zane Hodges over the years. I'm still trying to weigh it all and have started Stegall's book and will carefully read Wilkin's review when it comes out.
But there have been some things that have been bothering me over the past few years and especially in the past year or two. And these are some of the very things that Tim has addressed here.
I've been a "propositional" person since reading Gordon Clark's Faith and Saving Faith, referenced more than once by Hodges. But when I read it over ten years ago, these words stuck out and have been bothering me ever since:
Is there any passage in Scripture that identifies, in a scale of decreasing knowledge, the very minimum by which someone can still be justified?
To which he answered:
But even if a minimum of propositions could be listed [implying it can't], it would still be the wrong question with a perverted outlook.
The problem I have with the GES position is the very same thing that Tim talked about when commenting on John 20:31: "Jesus" in a contextual vacuum means nothing. But the "FGA" (for lack of a better label) position has the same problem. For example, if I must believe that Jesus is God, mustn't I need to know something about God? Must I be able to distinguish Yahweh from Allah? What is the minimum I must know about Yahweh for the proposition "Jesus is God" to be saving?
So it has made me wonder if it is truly possible to know the bare minimum, or if it's even right to go that direction. And look how much division it has caused!
--more--
--continued--
I have to say that I've been fairly skeptical of the "story" approach that Tim and Jim have been advocating. I'll have to re-read Jim's series again when I have a lot of time but I didn't understand a lot of what he was saying and some of it seemed as far fetched as allegorical interpretation (sorry Jim!).
But something clicked as I was reading Tim's statement:
The story is, in any case, the necessary context within which any proposition/promise must be heard in order to make sense and be understood the way God meant it.
I occasionally get newsletters from the Jesus Film project and there can be no doubt that God is using it in a very powerful way in Muslim countries right now. Now, the Campus Crusade gospel message has bothered me for some time, and that has caused some tension in my mind. But as I was reading Tim's words it occurred to me that the channel of God's power is in the STORY. The people aren't responding to some propositions in a tract but the the story they are watching and hearing.
Anyway, I'm still gnawing on this stuff, but it's good. Another issue I need to think about in relation to what Tim and Jim are saying is the nature of faith. Is it passive or active? How does John use "believe"?
Anyway, thanks Michele, and I appreciate everyone's thinking here.
Diane and Michele,
Thank you for the prayers. Sorry I bowed out here, I wanted to participate more but had more chemo. The thread has certainly enlarged since I visited last :-).
I think Jim and Tim are good voices for the FG (i.e. as its scholars or theologians). In fact, Michele, I think your voice is very good too; you bring a good balance to this mix, that I think is needed (in fact all the voices ae needed, as sure as we are one body).
Hopefully I'll be able to contribute more to this discussion soon; I'm kind've at a low point (normal after chemo) right now. I suppose I'm a bit of an outsider to this discussion --- I wouldn't declare myself to be FG (a la Zane's style), but maybe FG of a different stripe (more historically oriented, more "Reformed" even ;-). Actually I really like the "label" of "Evangelical," not with its contemporary connoations intact of course (again more historically oriented, but really, and hopefully "Christ-centered" --- which I'm sure is all of our goal).
I'm rambling, it's the chemo; bye :-).
In re. to David's comment,
There is a term in theology called redemptive hi[s]-tory which I think is a good one. All cultures and societies communicate through grand-scheme stories or what has been called "meta-narratives;" the way the Lord communicates in the Bible is the story of His life disclosed first through the history of Israel and then coming to fruition in Jesus which is THE story for all the nations.
Anyway, I think what Tim and Jim are saying is that even propositions and the more didactic (teaching) parts of scripture (like the epistles) are wrapped in the garment of God's story (previously framed by what we read in the OT); so that what we are confronted with is the very life of God in very relational or story like terms (i.e. story "invites" people to participate within the narrative itself).
Don't know if that helps, but I thought I would take a jab.
re Bobby: What he said...
David,
Your appeal for us to continue the dialogue and your personal reflections on the dialogue so far and the central role of story in Scripture offer an important object lesson on the critical importance of hearing the other well. Your feedback was more encouraging to me personally than you might know.
My own articles at KC's were an attempt to try to weave John 3:16 (one of those "bare minimum" propositions) back into its native "story"---and you are one of the "bare minimum" number of people to have finally responded. :-) I knew I was pushing the envelope for a FG audience, but John's imagery and even use of terms is highly metaphorical (and one definition of allegory is extended metaphor). When we approach John with a "bare minimum" goal for evangelism and assurance, then my attempt to honor John's own literary genre and style will come across as jarring, at least, and heretical, at worst.
Thanks for standing up to your "socially challenged" condition and venturing into the dialogue!
Jim, "far fetched" probably wasn't a wise choice of terms in a venue such as this. That's just the way some of it hit me (some of the parts I thought I could understand) but I won't reject your general thrust until I feel I understand you better. I've just had a lot of caution flags pop up in my mind.
It seems that you, Tim, and Bobby all speak a different language at times than most of the rest of us and I'm trying to understand it a little better. My point was that Tim seems to be getting through my thick skull a little bit.
Well, Michele, is there any possible way for me to even answer you without being accused of being a "proposition worshipper" who is guilty of "fractious conduct" ? I don't think so. But the answer to your question is obviously, yes, "fractious conduct" is in the eye of the beholder--especially if that "beholder" doesn't believe there is any rational and propositional content to saving faith in Jesus Christ specified to us anywhere in scripture (sine-qua-non). Apparently, for some people, anyone who even so much as ASKS "the saving proposition/COSF question" is IPSO FACTO guilty of "fractious conduct", and deserves a "hearty rebuke... given repeatedly, loudly, and with a right good will." Yeah, well, I think I need some ear-plugs!
My only reason for entering this thread to start with was to find out what Tim meant in making public statements that the GES is "wrong about the gospel", and that there "is no saving proposition".
The answer is now loud and clear.
I do hope, however, that everyone realizes that none of us even has the slightest clue whether we are saved or not-- if, in fact, no understandable, rational, and propositional sine-qua-non for saving faith has been revealed to us in God's word.
Oh, but I forgot... that's the "WRONG QUESTION"--and a "CROOKED QUESTION".
But it has been revealed...thank you, Jesus, for telling us.
"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes 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
Do we believe what Jesus says here--yes or no? (Jn 11:27)
If yes, then what does Jesus say we have?
----------------------------
Proposition-- a verbal statement that is either true or false; it is a rational declaration capable of being either believed, doubted or denied.
When that verbal statement consists of the very words of Jesus Christ Himself, well...then you got yourself quite a proposition! ( Jn. 3:16; 5:24; 6:47; 11:25-27; 20:31; 1 Jn 5:1; 5:9-13)
One of my favorite all-time quotes from Zane Hodges:
"Let it be clearly stated here that the English words like to 'believe, or 'faith' function as fully adequate equivalents to their Greek counterparts. there is not some hidden residue of meaning the Greek words that is not conveyed by the their NORMAL English renderings. Although some have affirmed that there is, this claim betrays an inadequate or misguided view of biblical linguistics. It follows that a Greek reader who met the words "he who believes in Me has everlasting life," would understand the word 'believe' exactly as we do...Surely it is one of the conceits of modern theology to suppose that we can define away simple terms like 'belief' and 'unbelief' and replace their obvious meanings with complicated elaborations. The confusion produced but this sort of process has a pervasive influence in the church today. The solution, however, it to return to the plain meaning of the biblical texts."
Gary,
I don't think anyone is denying that propositions are certainly part of scripture, and how we understand the Gospel. I think the point is, is that the Gospel is more than (not less than or equal to) propositions. Propositions make assertions about something, or in our case someONE; and I believe what Tim and Jim are wanting to emphasize is that the Gospel is personal and grounded in God's very life revealed in Jesus Christ (Jn 1:18). For example: Jesus says in Jn 11:25,26,
. . . I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies. 26. and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?
Propositionally I can read that and assent to it as true; I can know it's true; but neither one of these appropriates what is true about this. What Jesus is doing is calling folks to participate in His life by simply trusting in Him (i.e. actually sitting down in the chair, and not just knowing or assenting to certain properties related to a chair). It is union with Christ's life (to borrow some of Paul's "in Christ" theology) that is the salvation.
So instead of "proposition," I think what the Bible calls for in salvation (beyond the proposition) is participation in Christ's life. It's not the "proposition" that saves, it is the person of Jesus Christ that saves as we "participate" in His life through simple trust and belief in Him.
Just a shot . . . :-)
To all,
Michele had to take her little boy to the ER and has requested prayer. We are praying Michele!
Bobby,
Thanks for your comment brother. I would like to respond but it might take awhile. I'll get back to you as soon as I can.
Hope you are feeling well.
God bless you in His care.
Gary
Sorry, I just noticed that I misquoted Jn 5:24:
"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
I'm praying, Michele!
Thank you, Gary.
Thanks, Gary, for relaying the prayer need...I am praying for Michele and her boy.
John 5:24 is a wonderful promise of the gift God sent (3:16), and when the promise is appropriated ("accepted") by the hearer of his "Word" (which includes all the propositions that specify the identity or "name" of the gift) it is full of assurance. I believe that "appropriate," as defined in John 1:11-12, is the same as believe in His name and is equivalent to believes Him who sent Me (5:25); it does not contradict what Zane affirmed about the nature of believing.
And thanks for not giving up on us!
Thank you so much Gary for taking that up, and thank you all for praying. Right now he is looking so well comparatively. He's been a rag doll for more than a day but he's propped up and coloring. I don't know if it is good that they didn't do an IV, but then I'd rather it be less invasive as possible and thinking about how you are all praying I realize that he is going to pull out of it much faster even though he's still upchucking. Now my middle child just did the same, so at least I can say for sure it's viral.
God bless you all....
Jim,
I hope you know that I love and respect you, but this is not good.
First of all, I've made it clear several times on this thread that I'm not interested in yet another long public debate about things that have already been argued ad infinitum on these blogs for months and years--and always the same few people doing the arguing. I found out what I wanted to know here and see no useful purpose in dragging this out any longer. I'm not here to convince you of the GES (or Zane's) understanding of the gospel. And I feel it only honest to tell you that you aren't going to convince me of your view. Which leads me to my second point.
You said: "I believe that "appropriate," as defined in John 1:11-12, is the same as believe in His name and is equivalent to believes Him who sent Me (5:25); it does not contradict what Zane affirmed about the nature of believing."
You and I have already covered this issue of what it means to "believe" to the point of exasperation--and the truth is, you do NOT agree with Zane's view of the nature of believing. Is that not correct? In fact, you have made the exact same charge against Zane's view as the LS advocates are so well known for--i.e., that Zane's view of "belief" is nothing but "mere intellectual assent to propositions or facts." Zane totally rejected the "volitional view" (receive--appropriate) that you advocate. So, let's just be clear about that, okay? Your view DOES contradict Zane's view, else why would you criticize his view as "mere intellectual assent..."? Of course, you and I also know that you espouse an exegetical view of Jn 1:12 that Zane totally disagreed with. For Zane, the word "receive" is not intended to define "believe" in 1:12. Just the opposite--"believe in His name" defines what it means to "receive Him", as Jn. 2:11,23; 3:18: 20:31 make clear.
Now Jim, let's be honest. You have made it perfectly clear to me in the past that you do NOT agree with the statement of Zane's I quoted above about the Greek word "pisteuo." In fact, Zane would have considered your view as just one example of the many "complicated elaborations" he mentions. I use to hold your view myself for many years, and now I thoroughly reject it after 40 some odd years of focused study on that one issue. You are not going to convince me otherwise. Why should we cover this again, especially when you begin by trying to deny what you have made so obvious in past discussions?
Lastly, not only do I not want to extend my involvement in this thread much longer, I'm certainly not going to try and engage more than one person at a time. That is both unfair and a sure recipe for chaos and confusion, as we've both witnessed many times in the past. I've wasted many hours in the past doing that and I'm not interested in doing it again. Bobby responded to me first and I like the way he framed his question, so I'm going to try and address it as best I can. Please note carefully that Bobby is not trying to hide the fact that his view of "belief" is different than Zane's. Thank you, Bobby, for being straightforward and honest from the get go. Since his comment is a fair reflection of your views on this, in answering him I will also be answering you. Kill two birds with one stone, so to speak. Not that I expect to convince him or you, but why address the same issue(s) with two people when one will do?
Thank you for your interest anyway.
Bobby, if you will be patient, I'll try to respond to your comment. As you can see, I got a little sidetracked with Jim and this has already been a hectic day for me. I'll get back with you as soon as possible. My response to you will require a little more time and care, so I thought I would respond to Jim first.
P.S. to Jim,
I read your 3-D articles and noted the fact that you reject John's Gospel as being written primarily for an evangelistic purpose. So you see, our different thinking on the gospel is based upon two entirely different premises. As Diane has already noted, the failure to recognize the unique evangelistic purpose of John's Gospel lies at the heart of all the controversy and confusion, not only within the FG movement, but with LS people as well. If we can't even agree on that, we aren't going to agree on a lot of other things. But I still consider you my brother and respect your opinion.
Chinese Doctor Q & A
Q: Doctor, I've heard that cardiovascular exercise can prolong life. Is this true? A: Heart only good for so many beats, and that it.. Don't waste on exercise. Everything wear out eventually. Speed up heart not make live longer; that like say you can extend life of car by driving faster. Want live longer? Take nap. Q: Should I cut down on meat and eat more fruits and vegetables? A: You must grasp logistical efficiencies. What does cow eat? Hay and corn. What are these? Vegetables. So, steak nothing more than efficient mechanism of delivering vegetables to system. Need grain? Eat chicken. Beef also good source of field grass (green leafy vegetable). And pork chop can give 100% recommended daily allowance of vegetable products. Q: Should I reduce my alcohol intake? A: No, not at all. Wine made from fruit. Brandy is distilled wine. That means they take water out of fruity bit; get even more of goodness that way. Beer also made out of grain.. Bottoms up! Q: How can I calculate my body/fat ratio? A: If you have body and you have fat, ratio is one to one. If you have two bodies, ratio is two to one, etc. Q: What are some of the advantages of participating in a regular exercise program? A: Cannot think of single one, sorry. My philosophy: No Pain...Good! Q: Aren't fried foods bad for you? A: YOU NOT LISTENING!!! .... Foods fried in vegetable oil. How getting more vegetables be bad for you? Q: Will sit-ups help prevent me from getting a little soft around the middle? A: Definitely not! When you exercise muscle, it get bigger. You should only do sit-ups if want bigger stomach. Q: Is chocolate bad for me? A: You crazy? HELLO Cocoa beans! Vegetable!!! Cocoa beans best feel-good food around! Q: Is swimming good for your figure? A: If swimming good for figure, explain whales to me. Q: Is getting in-shape important for my lifestyle? A: Hey! 'Round' is shape! Well, I hope this has cleared up any misconceptions you may have had about food and diets. AND.....For those of you who watch what you eat, here's the final word on nutrition and health. It's a relief to know the truth after all those conflicting nutritional studies: 1. The Japanese eat very little fatAnd suffer fewer heart attacks than Americans. 2. The Mexicans eat a lot of fat And suffer fewer heart attacks than Americans.3.. The Chinese drink very little red wine And suffer fewer heart attacks than Americans.4. The Italians drink a lot of red wine And suffer fewer heart attacks than Americans.5. The Germans drink a lot of beer and eat lots of sausages and fats And suffer fewer heart attacks than Americans. CONCLUSION Eat and drink what like. Speaking English is apparently what kills you.
Michele,
I'm a little late on this, having been away from computer for a day and a half, but I continue to pray for your kids. How are they doing?
Bobby,
You and I have terminology problems from time to time, and we may be having one here. I'm pretty sure I would endorse the way you're explaining my position, but the "participation in Christ's life" language makes me nervous. Would you be willing to elaborate a little what you mean by that?
Gary,
I must confess I was really disappointed that you didn't want to continue the discussion of John 20:31, but it now seems to me that I had misunderstood your purposes in being involved in the thread to start with. It was clear to me that you were seeking to understand my position more clearly. I now understand (if I'm reading you correctly) that you didn't want to engage the position at all, but only to clarify what I was saying. I'm sorry I misunderstood you; if I hadn't made that mistake, it might have made things easier on both of us.
David,
Thank you for chiming in. It's a blessing to know that this stuff is registering with someone.
I too started out with Gordon Clark's Faith and Saving Faith, and followed that line of thinking religiously for many years -- and like many of our brothers, I missed the caveats that Clark himself provided. What eventually turned me away from that line of thinking was a further investigation into Clark's philosophy. He is, in the final analysis, a died-in-the-wool rationalist, very committed to that epistemology. He did his level best to craft a Christian rationalism that was fully submitted to the Scriptures, and God be thanked that in those efforts, he was a better Christian than he was a philosopher. But the project ultimately fails because rationalism itself just doesn't fit well with the Bible. Clark's rationalism, like all rationalism, needs propositions as raw material to work with, and can't handle anything else. It has to reduce everything to a proposition in order to get a handle on it, and the world God actually made is just a lot richer than that. Clark fails to grasp non-propositional truths because he has the rationalist's blinders on, and if it can't be propositionalized, he can't see it. So in the end, F&SF turns out to be an appropriate acronym on a couple of levels.
Re. the 'story' line of argument: The story is indeed what God gave, and a large part of our problem has been our tendency to carve it up into other things: key theological terms, systematic theology categories, propositions, etc.) without first reckoning with the story as a story. If we can't grasp it in the terms God gave it, then we're going to have a devil of a time doing anything else with it.
I'm glad you're in the discussion, and I look forward to further interaction with you. I must plead guilty to speaking a 'different language' at times -- artifact of my misspent youth, no doubt. Please feel free to ask me to rephrase, clarify, etc. I'm happy to do so.
Tim asked:
". . . but the "participation in Christ's life" language makes me nervous. Would you be willing to elaborate a little what you mean by that?"
Yeah, this does call for further elaboration. From my perspective, and I think this will be different than both your's and Jim's, participation gets at a "union with Christ" theology; which starts with Christ joining Himself to us first (II Cor 5:21). What this is pressing is the notion of vicariousness and even an order of salvation. Simply put, our union with Christ is a function of His union with us first; thereby we are "able" to participate by Him and in Him and through Him by faith (here is a link to a post that might explain what I'm getting at further: http://recreatedinchrist.wordpress.com/2009/01/02/faith-of-christ-for-us/).
But besides this, I think there is overlap between what we are saying. The overlap would be the ground we share in the Trinitarian shape and personal (vs. non-rationalist)ways of how we think of salvation. I.e. that salvation involves responding to an invitation to participate in God's life through Christ by the Holy Spirit. That salvation is ultimately grounded in a person (i.e. God); and that any propositions "about" that relationship are first predicated upon God's life (thus salvation's trinitarian shape).
I think, probably, the real problem here (and you broach this in your comment to David on Clark and rationalism) is the baggage that rationalism/positivism has brought to how we think about salvation in purely propositional terms. It seems like so many in FG don't realize the "cultural background" and then the "conceptual" impingement that early Fundamentalism has had upon the way they/we interpret scripture (and thus how we think about salvation). I think this is probably the biggest gap in FG (but it's a hard gap to fill because it requires alot of work to communicate this kind of stuff in "layman" terms . . . i.e. or connect the dots).
Know what I mean?
Bobby, thanks for "jab." Anything at the elementary level helps.
Funny thing--and I say this with a smile and not a critical spirit at all--but when I first read some of your comments in months past, I thought, "Man, I don't think I could ever communicate with this guy; his and my personalities must be sooo different." Then, when you started writing about you physical trials in your blog, I felt like it was in my language and I was with you all the way. It's only when you'd go back to soteriological issues I'd have to ask again, "What'd he say?"
So thanks for the latest attempt to clarify.
Tim, your comments about Clark are really interesting. Thanks for sharing
I look forward to further interaction with you and others as well. It's just that sometimes I chew too slow to keep a conversation going.
David,
I too look forward to further interaction. Don't worry about slow chewing -- the online venue could use a few more people who think before speaking. I'll be happy to have a conversation with you at whatever pace you're comfortable with.
Oh, and I forgot to say earlier: with regard to passive or active faith, Jim and I are on opposite sides of that particular fence, but my 'passive faith' view is probably closer to his 'active faith' view than to many of my own 'passive faith' allies. That is a sign that the lines between categories are being drawn in the wrong places. Sadly, not uncommon.
Bobby,
With you on the rationalism and its impact on early fundy culture, and now our own conservative evangelicalism.
I would also define salvation in terms of participation in Christ's life; He is eternal life, and He is our life. I'm not sure I'd press that so far as an ordo salutis, myself; the whole concept makes me somewhat suspicious.
I also don't thus far have a dog in the active obedience/passive obedience fight. Not yet convinced that it matters.
David,
It is hard to talk about some of these things w/o getting a little technical (in fact given my like of reading Zane, for example, it is hard for me to follow him --- always --- in context).
I really appreciate the prayer you've offered over at my health site; it is much appreciated and much much needed right now!
I look forward to talking to you more about salvation (what a topic ;-).
Tim,
I hear you on the "order" point; I understand that that could be pushing the boundaries of scripture, a bit. What that presses is the reality or implications of the Incarnation, and what it means to have God assume Humanity. Discussing the "inner logic" or presuppositions of scripture and what scripture actually says can be a tenuous, even dangerous task at points; so I want to tread lightly on this, i.e. make sure I don't go beyond the Text.
Hm. I need to clarify. I wrote:
with regard to passive or active faith, Jim and I are on opposite sides of that particular fence, but my 'passive faith' view is probably closer to his 'active faith' view than to many of my own 'passive faith' allies.
I should have added: and vice versa. There's a bloody-minded, know-nothing way to interpret either position that is maximally far from the other side, but doesn't at all account for the realities of life and Scripture. The more nuanced, carefully thought through positions tend to be less extreme.
Michele,
This comment got left out and nothing makes sense without it. It should follow the comment (June 28, 2010 8:16 PM) that ended:
"I used to look for that "chair" I heard preachers talking about for many years but couldn't ever seem to find it!"
--------------------------
Bobby: "So instead of "proposition," I think what the Bible calls for in salvation (beyond the proposition) is participation in Christ's life. It's not the "proposition" that saves, it is the person of Jesus Christ that saves as we "participate" in His life through simple trust and belief in Him."
Answer: But how does the Bible say that an unbeliever can "participate in Christ's life"? Again, according to the Gospel of John (and the rest of scripture), the first thing he has to do is simply believe in Jesus plus nothing. And Jn. 3:16; 5:24; 6:47;11:25-25; 20:31; 1 Jn.5:1; 5:9-13, etc. prove that "believing in Jesus" = "believing that Jesus is the Christ". And believing that Jesus is the Christ cannot be separated from the "promise of life which is in Christ Jesus." 2 Tim. 1:16
So, back to the Jesus-chair. How does an unbeliever get himself into that chair? Well, Paul says an interesting thing in Eph. 1:4-6. He tells the Ephesians believers that GOD put them in the chair when they believed in Jesus: "But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, MADE US ALIVE TOGETHER WITH CHRIST, (= eternal life) (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us SIT together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus..."
Did you notice that word SIT? Well, that's the *Jesus Chair* we've been looking for--and notice that it's GOD who puts us in the chair--it's not something we do for ourselves by some act of "appropriation"! I guess you might say He beams us up to the chair Scotty style. Hey...how's that for "participation in Christ's life"? Turns out the *Jesus Chair* I was looking for all those years was in heaven all the time. No wonder I couldn't find it or get my hands on it!
---------------------------
Michele,
I might delete my comments to Bobby and put them in the right order unless you know some way to do it.
Let me know. The missing comment must have gotten lost in transmission because I'm pretty sure I sent it.
Thanks
Gary,
You have offered a lot in response; I won't be able to respond point by point.
I know we have some fundamental differences, and that those won't be ironed out in this thread.
What I really don't want to do is get into an order of salvation discussion (which I think is important); and most of my points, on "union with Christ" flow from "that" discussion.
I think what would be interesting from my vantage point is to see you and other FG'rs interact with some Pauline themes in re. to salvation. Certainly the Gospel of John is important in articulating the biblical view of salvation (of course in tandem with every other book of the Bible); but what I fail to see, over and again is a substantive interaction with Paul in re. to thinking through the logic of salvation (in certain parts of the FG camp). His "in Christ" language is huge in this regard; and I think it would only serve to enhance this discussion on propositions and the "personal" aspects of salvation.
As far as propositionalism. There is more to that, as I intimated with Tim, than meets the eye. There is more "baggage" (philosophically) than is immediately apparent.
In the end, I'm kind've confused by this whole discussion. You're saying the Gospel is a proposition, but then agree that it "IS" a person. Certainly there is someThing to believe, but this as I've noted only "points beyond itself" to the person that these symbols or words bear witness to (so the propositions or truth assertions about Jesus are only instrumental and give way to the person of Jesus Christ).
Anyway, thanks for the response, Gary.
Hi Friends,
Just a simple thought this morning that I wanted to share...
Believe in Jesus alone for what He offers (eternal life) and you have it.
I personally think that a lot of what we talk about confuses people and they miss the simple truth that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.
Perhaps we all agree and just are saying it in different ways. But this simple statement is what I understood many years ago when I past from death to life.
Hope you're all enjoying HIM today.
Your friend because of Jesus,
Diane
:-)
Sorry Bobby, the passage I referenced in Ephesians is 2:4-6, not 1:4-6. I probably should have included Eph 1:13 to make it clear that the point in time when 2:4-6 occurred for the Ephesians was when they had "listened (to)" and "believed" the "message of truth, the gospel of (their) salvation..."
"In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,"
Eph. 1:13 (NASB)
Note also that it is impossible to believe in Jesus without believing a "message" about Jesus.
So it is not unbiblical to speak of a "saving message" that must be believed. Thus, while it is true that Jesus is a Person and not a proposition, that's completely irrelevant to the issue of what someone must believe in order to believe in Jesus and be born again. It has absolutely nothing to do with "rationalism" or "logical positivism". It has everything to do with RATIONAL vs. IRRATIONAL (e.g.-mysticism, subjective existentialism, etc.). God has given rational propositional revelation to mankind within the context of a "Story"--both within the "Story" as it actually and progressively occurred in space-time history, and within the "Story" as it has been recorded for us in scripture.
"Rational" is not the same thing as "rationalism" or "logical positivism."
Hi, Michele. :) Lurking for so long, and I'm up way too late so I'm feeling the need to interact. Hope your family has fully recovered, sweet sis.
Gary, I hope you reorder and replace your deleted comments. I have now sorely lost my place in the discussion. :(
Sorry again, my reference to "the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus" should have been 2 Tim 1:1, not 1:16.
It is this "promise of (eternal) life" that is the focus of John's Gospel. It's this promise that he wants to illuminate for the reader. To believe that Jesus is the Christ includes and entails believing this promise (Jn. 11:25-27). This is what Paul means in 1 Tim 1:16 when he speaks of those who "believe in Him FOR eternal life" = believe "the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus."
Gary,
I realize there is a difference between being "rational" and "rationalism;" I nowhere intimated that there wasn't. My point is that propositionalism (like Gordon Clarks' kind) is most certainly ground in logical postivism and the modernistic epistemology. And that much of the history of FG theology can be traced to this era of thought; and thus much of its interpretive decisions and conclusions can said to be shaped and informed by said commitments to this "rationalist" articulation (or this desire to die on the hill of propositionalism).
While I'm not discounting that there are propositions in the Bible; what I am challenging is that the notion of my belief is grounded in propositions and not a personal, Trinitarian, Holy Spirit induced faith grounded in the person of Jesus Christ (vs. the proposition that bears witness to Him, and even about Him).
What you've provided us with is the idea that the propositions about Jesus (thus about the Gospel) have their own "ontological" orientation *APART FROM THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST*. In other words, the implication of what you are saying is that something that is about Jesus saves us; instead of Jesus Himself.
This whole discussion seems to be about slicing the bologne quite thin; but often times the thinner it is the better it tastes ;-).
We don't want an intellectualist faith; we want a faith that is Trinitarian, rleational, and personl (not individualistic) in its shape. I just think emphasizing propositions gives us the former kind of faith; and that leaves a really bad taste in my mouth, especially after I've just drunk from the pure waters of the Word of God.
Michele,
I was wondering if you could take comment moderation off; it makes it alot harder to have a fluid discussion with folks (i.e. timely).
If you're afraid of vicious commenters; just delete their comments as they are made.
Sorry, I know this is your blog; I'm just making a suggestion per my personal preferences :-).
In Christ,
BG
Hi Bobby,
Bobby: "This whole discussion seems to be about slicing the bologne quite thin; but often times the thinner it is the better it tastes ;-)."
No, Bobby, the bologne does NOT taste better when it has a TULIP mixed in, no matter how thin it's sliced. And in your comment, I feel like you've just handed me a THICK slice of TULIP boloney. When I read a statement like you've made, my first thoughts are: "Is he a mystic, charismatic, existentialist, post-modern experientialist--what? Oh, I forgot--Calvinism--that MUST be it!" Or maybe some combination of all of the above integrated into your Calvinism? Whatever it is, the TULIP is certainly in there somewhere providing the theological grid. No mistake about that.
To make matters worse, in your use of rhetoric, you seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. On the one hand, you denigrate what you call "propositionalism", while at the same time you speak of having "just drunk from the pure waters of the Word of God."
You say: "What you've provided us with is the idea that the propositions about Jesus (thus about the Gospel) have their own "ontological" orientation *APART FROM THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST*. In other words, the implication of what you are saying is that something that is about Jesus saves us; instead of Jesus Himself."
No, Bobby, that is precisely what I have NOT provided you with. There is not even so much as one IOTA of truth to what you are saying here. That's a misconception that YOU are trying to provide us with--not me! Why do you think that John began his gospel with the LOGOS, then proceeded to tell us that the LOGOS became FLESH and DWELT AMONG US-- and then NEVER ONCE mentions the LOGOS again? No, John only tells us, in the context of a narrative, the WORDS that the LOGOS SPOKE to the world AFTER He became flesh and dwelt among us. His focus is JESUS--what He said and did while in the world--the LOGOS MADE FLESH. But, without what He said, the events of the narrative, important as they were, would have been nothing but a meaningless and empty shell. He came into the world on a mission to give eternal life to whosoever believes in Him. That's the message of John's gospel in a nutshell. That message is the CRESCENDO of Jn 3:16-- "... THAT whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." And it's the CRESCENDO of the entire Gospel of John. Without that CRESCENDO, it was all for nothing. That's why John places so much emphasis on Jesus' promise of eternal life to all who believe in Him. The point that John is making in his Gospel is that it is impossible to believe in the LOGOS without Him becoming flesh, dwelling among us, and telling us in the form of propositional truth what the culminating purpose for His coming was--that "whosoever believes in Him has everlasting life." That's the MESSAGE. To believe that message is what it means to believe that Jesus is the Christ (5:24; 11:25-27; 20:31; 1 Jn 5:9-13). And, "Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God." 1 Jn 5:1
And Jesus cried out and said, “He who believes in Me, does not believe in Me but in Him who sent Me.
He who sees Me sees the One who sent Me.
I have come as Light into the world, so that everyone who believes in Me will not remain in darkness.
“If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world.
“He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.
“For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak.
“I know that His commandment is eternal life; therefore the things I speak, I speak just as the Father has told Me.” (Jn 12: 44-50)
What I am saying is the same thing that John is telling us-- that the "message of truth" (Eph 1:13) that must be believed for salvation finds it's origin in and is grounded upon the very words of Jesus Himself-- and that's precisely the reason why the "message" IS ontologically oriented in the PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST. In fact, the ontology of the message is not only ORIENTED in the PERSON of Jesus CHRIST, it is completely and absolutely GROUNDED in HIS PERSON ontologically. Biblically speaking, the "message of truth", which can only be traced directly back to the lips of the "LOGOS become flesh...", and is recorded for us in "God-breathed" scripture, STILL has His very BREATH upon it. So much so, that the "message of truth" flows from, and is an expression of His own SPIRIT and LIFE:
"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the WORDS that I HAVE SPOKEN TO YOU ARE SPIRIT AND ARE LIFE." Jn 6:63.
That's why it's so important to actually give unbelievers the eternal and living words of promise that Jesus Christ spoke--because they pack the infinite and life-giving power of Almighty God. This is what Paul meant by "the promise of life which is IN Christ Jesus." (2 Tim 1:1). Now there's some Pauline ontology AND epistemology for us to chew on! That's why I'm so perplexed by what you're saying--because not only is it Pauline and Johannine ontology and epistemology--it's the entire ontological and epistemological foundation for the Christian faith and how God has revealed Himself to mankind throughout history. As Francis Schaeffer once said: "HE IS THERE AND HE IS NOT SILENT."
The problem is NOT that the "message of truth" has no "ontological orientation in the Person of Christ", because it certainly does. No, the problem with many people is still the same as when Jesus gave the message while walking this earth---the simple fact that there are "some who do not believe" His WORDS. Jn 6:64: 6:47; 5:24.
You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them,
and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. 2 Tim. 3:14-17.
Hi Missy,
Long time no see. You ought to come visit us more often!
The question I was addressing in a previous comment to Bobby was regarding the old "chair" illustration that's often used by preachers, teachers and evangelists. You know, where they say that if you REALLY believe in Jesus you will actually sit in the "chair" or get in a wheelbarrow and let Him push you across to heaven. What it really amounts to is a denial that simply believing in Jesus and is promise is enough to be saved, and that there is something more that we must do like "appropriate", "receive", "trust", etc. It's just one of the many different "complicated elaborations" on what it means to "believe" that Zane Hodges referred to in his comment on the Greek word "pisteuo" I quoted above. It's one of reasons why Zane said that confusion about what it means to "believe" is so pervasive in church today.
Anyway, I'll try to locate all of my comments to Bobby and post them. I responded to each paragraph of Bobby's comment to me, but the one that is now posted above got left out somehow. That's why I had gone back and deleted them to avoid confusion. But then the one that got left out was posted later. As Bobby has mentioned, comment moderation creates problems in more ways than one. Especially when the moderator is in CANADA playing with the geese! Just kidding Michele...I love geese too! :)
Gary,
I don't have the time to respond to all that you've said.
But to attribute the TULIP to me when I'm writing a book that is completely at odds with the TULIP is a rather strange conclusion. If you would like to demonstrate how what I've said is consonant with TULIP theology I would really like to see that. Please don't misrpresent me this way, this is only caricature and disengenous, Gary. It's funny the Pyromaniancs think I'm an Arminian go figure. Just go read my blog: http://evangelicalcalvinist.com and tell me if I follow the TULIP then. Come on man.
Btw, there are different kinds of Calvinisms; there is a non-scholastic version (i.e. non-Federal), in fact an "Evangelical" version. I wonder if you're willing to take the time to understand its tenets before reducing it into the category of scholastic or Bezan Calvinism. If not, Gary, then all that you're saying again is really coming off as hot-headed and disengenous (i.e. it makes the credibility of what your asserting very questionable).
Anyway, peace brother.
Post a Comment