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:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 309 of 309Hi Missy,
I'm glad to hear your voice. I've heard you have an internal alarm for whenever a thread crosses 100 comments, must be handy. :) Ha ha.
Hi Bobby and Gary,
I think the fault for the crossing wires in the conversation was that I was gone this week, I'm sorry, it must be so frustrating to deal even with a diligent moderator, which I was not in the last crucial days here.
Sorry Gary for the missing post and the sequence it disturbed.
Gary,
Let me add a bit more.
It is very very ironic that you would charge me with scholasticism --- which conceptually is to follow the categories that Thomas Aquinas provided for the Western church (also known as Thomism) --- it is through these categories and the grammar that he provided that our understanding, even in Protestantism has taken shape, by and large. The irony then is that Free Grace theology still follows the Doctrine of God that Thomas provided for the Western Church (this comes through in Lewis Sperry Chafer, Ryrie, Zane Hodges, et al theologies). That is why when Free Grace tries to talk to Lordship folks all they can do is basically yell at eachother and trade scriptures (i.e. prooftext).
Anyway, I have a general critique of Free Grace; and that is that it hasn't dealt with the primary issue here, and that is discussing a Doctrine of God. It's not enough to say that they are "Trinitarian;" what's needed is what is meant by that. Is it Trinitarian in the sense that Thomas Aquinas and the Western tradition has generally understood it? Or is it actually a biblically grounded understanding of the Trinity?
This is important, because any doctrine of salvation is going to be preceded and shaped by a Doctrine of God; which in general, FG just assumes (they assume the typical Western grammar for this) --- but I think FG needs to do a whole bunch of work in this area --- be theologians (i.e. not "just" exegetes).
Another irony, about you claiming that I'm scholastic, is that the tradition and grammar I follow --- theologically --- is what is known as Scotism, coming from medieval theologian, John Duns Scotus. He thought of God in very relational and thus actual Trinitarian terms (i.e. that the ground of God's life, and shape, was love --- and that everything issues from this relationship which is God's life).
I mention all of this because it needs to be. I am very sympathetic with FG concerns (i.e. vs. the fall-out produced by Lordship models of salvation); but I would really like to see FG become more self-critical, get over some of the petty differences they have amongst themselves, and start thinking theo-logically and critically about their own informing heritage (esp. dealing with a doctrine of God).
I'm really not interested if what I just said reflects "too much learning," or something --- that's just a dodge or red herring --- I want to be a source of challenge to FG and LS (to be self critical). I think both Tim and Jim are really healthy for FG, but I would like to see them deal with a doctrine of God too --- it's not enough to just assert that they are following a "Trinitarian" approach (what does that mean?).
I thank you for the prayers, Gary. I hope our disagreement here is shaped within Christian love; and does not serve as a source of bitterness or division between the two of us. Love ya, brother . . .
Michele,
I appreciate you taking moderation off; if it is a problem, by no means don't let my little opinion on this get in the way of you turning it back on :-).
Btw, how is your daughter doing; the one you had to take into the ER (I've been praying).
peace everyone!
Gary,
Let me add a bit more.
It is very very ironic that you would charge me with scholasticism --- which conceptually is to follow the categories that Thomas Aquinas provided for the Western church (also known as Thomism) --- it is through these categories and the grammar that he provided that our understanding, even in Protestantism has taken shape, by and large. The irony then is that Free Grace theology still follows the Doctrine of God that Thomas provided for the Western Church (this comes through in Lewis Sperry Chafer, Ryrie, Zane Hodges, et al theologies). That is why when Free Grace tries to talk to Lordship folks all they can do is basically yell at eachother and trade scriptures (i.e. prooftext).
Anyway, I have a general critique of Free Grace; and that is that it hasn't dealt with the primary issue here, and that is discussing a Doctrine of God. It's not enough to say that they are "Trinitarian;" what's needed is what is meant by that. Is it Trinitarian in the sense that Thomas Aquinas and the Western tradition has generally understood it? Or is it actually a biblically grounded understanding of the Trinity?
This is important, because any doctrine of salvation is going to be preceded and shaped by a Doctrine of God; which in general, FG just assumes (they assume the typical Western grammar for this) --- but I think FG needs to do a whole bunch of work in this area --- be theologians (i.e. not "just" exegetes).
Another irony, about you claiming that I'm scholastic, is that the tradition and grammar I follow --- theologically --- is what is known as Scotism, coming from medieval theologian, John Duns Scotus. He thought of God in very relational and thus actual Trinitarian terms (i.e. that the ground of God's life, and shape, was love --- and that everything issues from this relationship which is God's life).
I mention all of this because it needs to be. I am very sympathetic with FG concerns (i.e. vs. the fall-out produced by Lordship models of salvation); but I would really like to see FG become more self-critical, get over some of the petty differences they have amongst themselves, and start thinking theo-logically and critically about their own informing heritage (esp. dealing with a doctrine of God).
I'm really not interested if what I just said reflects "too much learning," or something --- that's just a dodge or red herring --- I want to be a source of challenge to FG and LS (to be self critical). I think both Tim and Jim are really healthy for FG, but I would like to see them deal with a doctrine of God too --- it's not enough to just assert that they are following a "Trinitarian" approach (what does that mean?).
I thank you for the prayers, Gary. I hope our disagreement here is shaped within Christian love; and does not serve as a source of bitterness or division between the two of us. Love ya, brother . . .
Michele,
I appreciate you taking moderation off; if it is a problem, by no means don't let my little opinion on this get in the way of you turning it back on :-).
Btw, how is your daughter doing; the one you had to take into the ER (I've been praying).
peace everyone!
Gary,
Let me add a bit more.
It is very very ironic that you would charge me with scholasticism --- which conceptually is to follow the categories that Thomas Aquinas provided for the Western church (also known as Thomism) --- it is through these categories and the grammar that he provided that our understanding, even in Protestantism has taken shape, by and large. The irony then is that Free Grace theology still follows the Doctrine of God that Thomas provided for the Western Church (this comes through in Lewis Sperry Chafer, Ryrie, Zane Hodges, et al theologies). That is why when Free Grace tries to talk to Lordship folks all they can do is basically yell at eachother and trade scriptures (i.e. prooftext).
Anyway, I have a general critique of Free Grace; and that is that it hasn't dealt with the primary issue here, and that is discussing a Doctrine of God. It's not enough to say that they are "Trinitarian;" what's needed is what is meant by that. Is it Trinitarian in the sense that Thomas Aquinas and the Western tradition has generally understood it? Or is it actually a biblically grounded understanding of the Trinity?
This is important, because any doctrine of salvation is going to be preceded and shaped by a Doctrine of God; which in general, FG just assumes (they assume the typical Western grammar for this) --- but I think FG needs to do a whole bunch of work in this area --- be theologians (i.e. not "just" exegetes).
Another irony, about you claiming that I'm scholastic, is that the tradition and grammar I follow --- theologically --- is what is known as Scotism, coming from medieval theologian, John Duns Scotus. He thought of God in very relational and thus actual Trinitarian terms (i.e. that the ground of God's life, and shape, was love --- and that everything issues from this relationship which is God's life).
I mention all of this because it needs to be. I am very sympathetic with FG concerns (i.e. vs. the fall-out produced by Lordship models of salvation); but I would really like to see FG become more self-critical, get over some of the petty differences they have amongst themselves, and start thinking theo-logically and critically about their own informing heritage (esp. dealing with a doctrine of God).
I'm really not interested if what I just said reflects "too much learning," or something --- that's just a dodge or red herring --- I want to be a source of challenge to FG and LS (to be self critical). I think both Tim and Jim are really healthy for FG, but I would like to see them deal with a doctrine of God too --- it's not enough to just assert that they are following a "Trinitarian" approach (what does that mean?).
I thank you for the prayers, Gary. I hope our disagreement here is shaped within Christian love; and does not serve as a source of bitterness or division between the two of us. Love ya, brother . . .
Michele,
I appreciate you taking moderation off; if it is a problem, by no means don't let my little opinion on this get in the way of you turning it back on :-).
Btw, how is your daughter doing; the one you had to take into the ER (I've been praying).
peace everyone!
Bobby,
Me disingenuous? Really?
Bobby, if you will read my comments more carefully, you will see that I express my CONFUSION about what you are. I say from the beginning and I say it more than once.
I'm certainly aware that there are about a gazillion different flavors of Calvinism so I've learned to NEVER put them in the same box. I did not mean that you adhere to all 5 points of the TULIP--at least in it's "scholastic" or "classical" version. But who can even be sure what that is--much less what flavor you are? Calvinists are notorious for saying they are misunderstood since obviously only someone as intelligent and well-read as themselves could possibly have a true understanding of the high doctrines of grace, right?
The point is, one of your blogs is: http://evangelicalcalvinist.com
I've also read where you describe yourself as a "Reformed Evangelical".
Aside from the fact that you advertise yourself as such, it also comes through loud and clear in your comments that your theology and soteriology are shaped by Calvinism in some way and to some degree--and that was my only point.
So common, Bobby, I never said I had your theology pegged to a tee and it's ridiculous for you to say or imply that I did. The fact is, I doubt if there are many people who even understand what you are what you are saying 95% of the time. I know I don't.
However, I know Calvinism when I see it, smell it, or read it, having been in bondage to a certain flavor of my own at one time. I've also studied it and understand it fairly well, to the extent that such a monstrosity CAN be understood. So I KNOW you are some flavor of Calvinist, just as your blog says you are. In my opinion, any flavor is a bad flavor because a little leaven leavens the whole lump--especially when the leaven is Calvinism.
So don't you think it is you who are being somewhat disingenuous by trying to distance yourself from Calvinism while you distort MY comment?
Hi Gary & Bobby,
I might be about to mess around with your conversation. Bear with me...
1 john 4:8
Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.
Logos is an ontological factor of God, and here love is another ontological factor of God's being.
Are there not many truths (propositions) oriented into the very essence of God? So by propositions, one can either abuse their knowledge of God, or they can use it as intended, which is to exalt Jesus.
Thinking about the word "crescendo." Is the crescendo of all God's glory given to ontological factors of God, or the person Jesus? The crescendo is Jesus. He is standing in the center of God's throne.
I think people can be saved from a lifetime of desperate struggling to know how simply to connect with Jesus and be saved ultimately through a proposition (like Diane's testimony). I also think people can be saved by receiving a building momentum of understanding and conviction of the Holy Spirit just by listening to the testimony of John, without a specific proposition sinching any deal.
I go to bible studies and invite people to church feeling safe about the message they are about to receive. No matter what the message is as long as it is from the bible. When I walk out of two hours of bible study and meditation and worship, I feel reconnected with God and am once again walking by faith. Ask me, though, to point out any one proposition that regained my faith, and I usually have not a single one I remember afterward, and nevertheless.
The same must also be true in salvation. The emphasis isn't on content though content is a part. The emphasis is on the people involved. By faith - that's us. By grace - that's Him.
eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith
Gary,
You haven't taken the time to understand what Evangelical Calvinism is --- that's why there is a book coming out on it, so folks will understand it (most Calvinists are unaware of this strain, which fomented in Scottish Theology). You have indeed reduced or engaged in a reductionist fallacy in re. to your characterization of Calvinism.
If you don't understand what I'm talking about then ask me to clarify, and I'll try. Comments like this, which serve a nice rhetorical purpose, are really unhelpful; this:
. . . The fact is, I doubt if there are many people who even understand what you are what you are saying 95% of the time. I know I don't.
Nice. I suppose the same could be said about anybody since the communication loop requires feedback; and thus the loop continues, or we "communicate." Please keep comments like that to yourself, Gary, very unhelpful.
Anyway, your entrenched, I think, Gary. Nice talking to you.
Peace in Christ,
Bobby
Michele,
I agree with you, salvation is a very relational thing. Propositions don't save, Jesus does. I think it is hard to think this through. It's interesting that Jesus is called the Logos of Word of God; I think this might be the best illustration. The "Word" from God actually turns out to be a Person and not a Proposition (ontologically). Propositions have to do with epistemology (how we know); but even then, how we know is grounded in God's decision (therefore personal) for us to love Him first [cf. I Jn 4:19] (i.e. so everything is personal and Trinitarian this way :-).
I think Grace and Faith are all grounded in Jesus (this is what happens if we take the implications of the Incarnation and hypostatic union seriously --- I can explain more on that if you want me to.
Btw, here's an interesting piece from Free Gracer, Fred Lybrand, on Calvinism and FG (and how they are compatible and historically and doctrinally connected in many ways):
http://fredlybrand.wordpress.com/2010/07/02/can-i-be-a-calvinist-and-be-free-grace/
Further, Joseph Dillow and many FG'rs are very Calvinistic in orientation; they just shift some of the referent points from justification to sanctification (like with the "P" in the TULIP). FG is much more Classical Calvinist than many would probably want to admit; but many of her teachers in fact readily admit their reliance upon this tradition.
So there in fact is a "history" to FG :-).
Bobby,
I learned a long time ago to NEVER try and engage any flavor of committed Calvinist in theological discussion.
It's always the same story because it's impossible to ever nail jello to a wall.
I did something very foolish today in forgetting that- but my intentions were good. I apologize for trying to address your misrepresentations of what I was saying as well as the FG position in general. I should have just let it go. I've known it was mistake to have ever gotten involved in this thread from the beginning. But I do stand by the truth of what I said about necessity of believing "the promise of life in Christ Jesus" for anyone to be born gain. It is epistemologically true, ontologically true, and most of all biblically true.
God bless you and keep you in His grace,
Gary
Gary said:
But I do stand by the truth of what I said about necessity of believing "the promise of life in Christ Jesus" for anyone to be born gain. It is epistemologically true, ontologically true, and most of all biblically true.
On this we agree!
I actually like to think of myself as a Christian vs. a Calvinist --- that's more of a secondary label that has to do with non-essential mechanical issues. I would think all Christian brothers should be able to interact with eachother; no matter the seconadary labeling that often causes sectarian division (that's not my style, Gary).
Thank you for the prayers; and yes, I'm sorry, I think I kind've side-tracked this thread a bit . . . sorry, Michele.
Peace.
Here is another reflection of mine.
John 20:31 is a positive statement.
"but these 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."
It does not say that if you do not believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, one will not have life in His name.
What if this is indeed a bullseye but not strictly a bullseye meant for cinching salvation. What if it is a bullseye, but one say to those who are believers or who are not yet believers, "This is where you want to end up, content-wise." And by "ending-up" I am thinking that if someone "gets" that Jesus is Savior and Deity, then all proper doctrine tends to fall into place doesn't it? John is giving his readers a cliffnotes summary of what they were supposed to be noticing.
John 20:31 is a reality-check verse, a mirror to inspect your own grasp of content and depth of faith with, but not a rigid resting-point for any/all content necessary for salvation.
John 9. A good example of how the emphasis is more on people (Jesus, and the man) than it is on content.
The blind man starts off with no testimony of any significance when he experiences the power of Jesus. But they all reason through it; he can't be a sinner, he might be a prophet, etc. So he is prepared to believe. Jesus gives this COSF:
"Do you believe in the Son of God?" (the Son of Man in another text)
The man asks, "Who is he, Lord, that I may believe in Him?"
And Jesus says, "You have both seen Him and it is He who is talking with you."
Then he said, "Lord, I believe!" and he worshiped Him.
If the content demands more in order for him to be saved, Jesus would have said more. Or He would have told him to get up from worshiping Him, or whatever. But instead He changes his conversation back to the Pharisees to point out their blindness.
Is the blind man worshiping a false Jesus? A creeping-universalist presentation of Jesus? No. The blind man had already been meditating through the work and identity of Jesus. He was trying to understand Him and that apparently was the right attitude. He received the testimony. He had the faith, he only needed an object to focus his new faith upon. The object was the Man (identified with some content), not a promise.
This is one reason why I believe the content of saving faith is not rigid, not legal.
In fact, the shocking thing about john 9 is that the blind man actually asks Jesus for more content than just "the Son of Man" and Jesus does not give him more content. The man asks for more content of saving faith (COSF) so that he might believe in the right person.
The blind man asks, "Who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him?"
Jesus gives him an answer, "You have seen Me and you are before Me."
Hi Bobby,
Thanks for praying. She was kept safe from the thing her brother had (phew). Kind of miraculous. She is a wispy little thing and is always sick. Thank you so much. We were blessed on our vacation. More than happy to take off moderation. Fellowship is more natural feeling eh?
I would like to hear more. I am gathering that I don't understand these concepts well. Sorry for the trouble. I would like to hear more about the Trinitarian aspect FG overlooks.
BTW, I appreciated your link to Fred Lybrand's post and I imagine I will learn a lot from it. However not all FG people feel the freedom to be "any point" Calvinist because of... a lot of reasons. I think you probably are aware.
One thing I appreciated hearing around the blogosphere from you is that we should really take the time to learn new things instead of having the same conversations. You want to check back in and see people improving on one thing or another. Especially this means knowing what was taught historically in the faith so that we can understand our own grid which seems invisible to our eyes till we learn more.
I've been around Gary - gotta read those comments before you delete them. ;) I'd read the originals, but it's helpful sometimes to go back. Odds are, they are archived somehwere. :)
Michelle, your last couple of comments are why I keep following up on your page! I'm totally in agreement with you and I love how you often bring up these very things for thinking about our own growth. Blessings!
Hi Gary,
I don't know if you saw the triple posting on blogger. Seems to be tripped up lately, I did it too then deleted them. I know that online discussion has both a beneficial draw and detrimental effect on you and I regret the negative parts. I desire the best for you and I know you me. When you warn me of the vicious geese and not just the crazed partiers, that's pure sweetness.
:)
Wow, thanks Missy, that's really sweet of you. How are you doing over there in those Northeast parts? We can't seem to find summertime around here.
It's certainly summertime here, Michele, at near 90 for the next 10 days or so. We'll be camping soon and I am very excited, just hoping I can get ahead on all of my schoolwork before we go. Please encourage these guys not to erase too much so I can follow along when I return. :)
Greetings Michele,
Glad your vacation went well and the kids are well again.
I want to add a sort-of-endorsement to Bobby's comments here. He & I disagree a fair bit and have cone a few rounds over it on occasion, but he's onto something important with the doctrine of the Trinity. I don't think the effects of Thomism penetrated as deeply as he thinks they did -- lots of people in the Protestant tradition are better Christians than philosophers, thank God, and have been faithful to Him instead of their Thomistic first principles -- but the contrasts he is seeking to draw are worth thinking deeply about.
But brother Bobby is kind of an egghead, and he talks like it (no offense, Bobby -- takes one to know one). I'll be very interested to see what comes of dialogue between the two of you; you have a knack for asking the right questions to simplify tough discussions.
Egghead, huh ;-)?
Before the LORD began to motivate me to know Him in deep ways --- through some tough life circumstances in the past --- I was anything but and egghead. And even now, my only motivation for eggheadedness is to know Him and then make Him known; apart from that being an egghead is good for nothing, except maybe for being scrambled ;-).
Tim,
I would like to know though, given the history of ideas and their impact upon present understandings; given FG's historical reliance upon Calvinism (relative to doctrinal points and the general framework); how it is that you believe that FG's understanding of the Trinity is not informed, categorically, by the Thomist synthesis?
This might not be the spot to do this; if not, then lets defer to another venue (if you want to email about this Tim, that would be fine with me).
I like the way you think though, my fellow egghead ;-).
Bobby,
'Egghead' is (to me) a matter of style and wiring. Some people can't seem to grasp an idea/concept/ethic until they see three or four practical examples; others seem to need to trace it through the history of philosophy or church history in order to get a handle on it. Doesn't much matter how you get there, I think, but a good communicator has to be able to adapt to the folks that can only get there a different way than he did. (Yeah, I know. ;-) I'm workin' on it...)
Re. your question: I tend to see FG (presently) as generically Protestant-ish more than specifically Calvinistic. I'm aware of the history (quiet as it's kept), but there are two supervening considerations:
1. American Calvinism hasn't been particularly true to its own Reformation roots (see the Federal Vision controversy), let alone to its Roman roots before that. Overall, it's been revivalistic, pietistic, populist -- which is to say, anabaptist -- and it's that strain of American quasi-Calvinism that historically issued in FG theology.
2. As FG has gotten less Calvinistic -- which it clearly has -- it's gotten even more anabaptistic than it was before (which of those is the frying pan and which is the fire is maybe debatable, but neither stance is a good one, as far as I'm concerned. Nonetheless, it's what we've got.)
I do think FG has remnants of static theism from Plato, through Augustin and thence to Calvin, when we get to talking about theo. proper -- but I don't think that static theism is carried out consistently in FG soteriology (otherwise Bob Wilkin would be a thoroughgoing Calvinist). We're better Christians than philosophers, and thank God for that.
I think similar dynamics obtain with regard to various strains of Thomistic thought -- it's not that they aren't there, if you start digging a bit; it's that they aren't carried out all that consistently, which attenuates the influence of Thomas by quite a bit.
I am, of course, happy to be shown otherwise -- being no fan of Thomas to start with, I'd like to see his influence reduced if it's there -- but so far I've not seen the pervasive influence you're touting.
That said, I will add that I do see a persistent unitarianism reflected in American fundamentalism generally, through its insistence on uniformity rather than unity. The FG community is certainly guilty of that.
1) Tim, I realize that the challenge is to communicate certain things to certain audiences; which is what makes this medium even that more exceedingly difficult to communicate in. Beyond that, some of theological points actually requires that said audience spend some time doing personal study in order to have the necessary context in order to understand particular concepts that just cannot be reduced to analogies; etc. This is indeed a challenge, (in other words trying to introduce folks to concepts that require, at least, essay length, if not book length treatments) trying to communicate in blog metas ( is almost pointless, at points).
2) It's true that American Calvinism has morphed in some ways --- I think more socio/culturally vs. doctrinally --- and in fact there are certainly different strains of American Calvinism. We have those who are more true to the heritage (like actual Reformed churches, i.e. Muller, Scott Clark, Mike Horton, Westminster Seminary, etc.); and then those who have really hybrided (at least in regards to ecclesiology) like John MacArthur represents (like a "Spurgeonized Calvinism" or Baptistic version). I suppose FG could be said to fit more into the Baptistic version (or your Anabaptist); as far as heritage goes.
3) It is true that no one is purely Thomistic, only Thomas Aquinas was; everyone else just appropriates his synthesis with their own --- as William Perkins did. But that is not to say that Thomas', and then Aristotle's categories are not present; they are just present with a different emphases (but still there nonetheless).
4) I don't see how Plato is at play as much as you intimate in the Reformed tradition; they are clearly steeped in the Thomistic tradition (in fact they defend that, see Richard Muller on that).
5) There is not the space to demonstrate how FG relies on the Thomistic understanding in re. to a doctrine of God; but FG clearly fits into that scheme of things, theologically. Speaking of this, could you point me to a systematic theology that FG might rely upon for how they articulate a doctrine of God (would it be Chafer?)? Sometimes I get the sense with FG that the essential doctrines of Chrisitianity have already been hammered out (thus the static); and therefore FG doesn't have to think these issues through anymore.
Yes, I agree, there is a functional modalism at play in all of American Protestantism --- in general. And of course this unitarianism does not come by accident; it is a result of the Thomist influence of conceiving of God in monadic terms --- this can be traced back further to Stoicism.
I don't think anything happens in a vacuum; and your point on unitarianism illustrates this.
1) Tim, I realize that the challenge is to communicate certain things to certain audiences; which is what makes this medium even that more exceedingly difficult to communicate in. Beyond that, some of theological points actually requires that said audience spend some time doing personal study in order to have the necessary context in order to understand particular concepts that just cannot be reduced to analogies; etc. This is indeed a challenge, (in other words trying to introduce folks to concepts that require, at least, essay length, if not book length treatments) trying to communicate in blog metas ( is almost pointless, at points).
2) It's true that American Calvinism has morphed in some ways --- I think more socio/culturally vs. doctrinally --- and in fact there are certainly different strains of American Calvinism. We have those who are more true to the heritage (like actual Reformed churches, i.e. Muller, Scott Clark, Mike Horton, Westminster Seminary, etc.); and then those who have really hybrided (at least in regards to ecclesiology) like John MacArthur represents (like a "Spurgeonized Calvinism" or Baptistic version). I suppose FG could be said to fit more into the Baptistic version (or your Anabaptist); as far as heritage goes.
3) It is true that no one is purely Thomistic, only Thomas Aquinas was; everyone else just appropriates his synthesis with their own --- as William Perkins did. But that is not to say that Thomas', and then Aristotle's categories are not present; they are just present with a different emphases (but still there nonetheless).
4) I don't see how Plato is at play as much as you intimate in the Reformed tradition; they are clearly steeped in the Thomistic tradition (in fact they defend that, see Richard Muller on that).
5) There is not the space to demonstrate how FG relies on the Thomistic understanding in re. to a doctrine of God; but FG clearly fits into that scheme of things, theologically. Speaking of this, could you point me to a systematic theology that FG might rely upon for how they articulate a doctrine of God (would it be Chafer?)? Sometimes I get the sense with FG that the essential doctrines of Chrisitianity have already been hammered out (thus the static); and therefore FG doesn't have to think these issues through anymore.
Yes, I agree, there is a functional modalism at play in all of American Protestantism --- in general. And of course this unitarianism does not come by accident; it is a result of the Thomist influence of conceiving of God in monadic terms --- this can be traced back further to Stoicism.
I don't think anything happens in a vacuum; and your point on unitarianism illustrates this.
Greetings Bobby,
(1) We disagree. Metaphor and analogy are basic to Yahweh's creation; the fundamental is/is not relationship on which metaphor depends is inherent to the Trinity, and is reflected in everything. So I'd tend to say that there's nothing that can't be conveyed by analogy; oversimplification is always a danger, but there are ways to attenuate that. It's just a matter of good craft, creativity, and experimentation.
Getting the concepts down to where they communicate readily is likewise a matter of good craft and very hard work.
Case in point: presuppositional apologetics, if you get it from Cornelius Van Til, is enormously complicated and requires a massive background knowledge of philosophy to understand. A proponent might argue that it's the best apologetic approach, but how many takers will he get (even if he's right) when the buy-in is slugging through a 3-foot shelf of Van Til's published works, almost all of which are basically unedited lectures? So, big surprise, lots of folks studied under him, but very few of them understood him, and fewer still were persuaded. He just made it too stinkin' hard.
Enter Greg Bahnsen, who reduced that 3-foot shelf to the 3-inch-thick reader Van Til's Apologetic. To convey the material effectively, Bahnsen still tended to drag his students through a brief history of western philosophy and a summary of Westminster Calvinism, and then launch into the apologetic as an application of those. In audio, about 10-12 hours would do it to outline the basic approach, or a reasonable-length book that a high school senior could profitably read (e.g., Pushing the Antithesis). Much lower buy-in, that, and many common folk came away from a Bahnsen seminar convinced that he was onto something.
For the audiences I was working with, I needed something simpler, because they weren't Calvinists, and I didn't have 10 hours with them anyway. It took me around 5 hours a week for about 2 years to do it, but I was able to study the material through and boil the basic approach down to 4 passages of Scripture: Gen. 1-3, Rom. 1, Col. 2, and Prov. 26:4-5. I can present each of these in 60-90 minutes profitably, and I bill it as "Devotional Apologetics," which I find draws people in and persuades them to give me a chance to explain myself.
Pardon the long digression, but the point is that it's easy to say that the person you're trying to convince ought to do more work. Pigs oughta have wings so we could fly them to market, too, but it's just silly to hold your breath waiting for that to happen. It's true that the convince-ee can't be completely passive; he'll have to contribute something if he's going to learn. But if you expect to convince him, your job is to do enough of the work for him so that he'll catch the vision and be inspired to do the rest himself. This is how we do evangelism (see Col. 1:24), and it's how we do everything else too. People are making stewardship decisions about their time and effort, and can't be expected to casually set aside the resources to slug through something tough until they're convinced that it's worth it. The bigger and tougher the homework, the more convinced they have to be. Nobody's got time to read the Summa (or the works of Torrance, for that matter) on a lark.
--MORE--
--CONTINUED--
(2) Agreed on socio-cultural, but there have also been major doctrinal defections. The guys you cited (Clark, Horton, etc.) mostly don't believe in sacramental efficacy of any kind, for example, and are engaged in a serious war with those who do (as did the Westminster divines). A man can find himself on trial in the PCA or OPC for quoting John Knox on some of these issues. Incredible as it is, it really is that bad.
(3) As far as 'pure' Thomism, sure. As far as categories and such -- the point to be demonstrated, if I understand your thesis correctly.
(4) Calvin is sharply Augustinian, and says so; Augustin was significantly Platonic, and repeatedly gave credit where it was due. They claim the influences themselves, and I believe them. No carefully nuanced philosophical detective work required; I'm just reading footnotes here. (Not the only vector for static theism, but one of them.) However, this is not a hill I'm prepared to die on, and I don't really care if I persuade anyone of the origins of our prevalent static theism. The static theism itself, however derived, is my concern, and it's sufficient for my purposes to show that wherever we got the idea, we didn't get it from Scripture. If I can show where it did come from, that has additional persuasive value with some people, but it's icing on the cake.
(5) Chafer tends to be pretty well-respected in FG circles. It would be a good place to start to demonstrate your case. A lot of FG folk would admit he's kinda dated, but wouldn't have anything more current to recommend in his place. If you use him as your base, and follow up with, say, Ryrie's _Basic Theology_ as an update of Chafer, you'll be hitting the theology proper that most FG folks subscribe to. I agree that many/most FG folk, like the Reformed, the Funnymentalists, and everybody else, think that all the important stuff has been settled and is essentially beyond discussion. What can I tell you -- we're like people that way.
(6) Unitarian nonsense -- Thomas/Aristotle is one vector, sure. But there's only two positions outside Trinitarian Christianity, and cultures fall into the unitarian/uniformity trap on one hand or polytheism/pluralism trap on the other -- totalitarianism or anarchy, as expressed politically (and on this, Rushdoony's _The One and the Many_ might be of help to you, if you're interested). These are universal human temptations; Ancient Egypt came up with unitarian government millennia before Thomas, or even the Stoics; Islam came up with unitarianism centuries before Thomas; China has been unitarian in character for millennia, and Thomas hasn't touched their culture, ever -- nor the Stoics, for that matter.
The tribesman in the New Guinea highlands who beats his wife because she doesn't fetch him a betel nut and cater to his every whim without him having to ask is a unitarian in his heart. You could probably, with sufficient ingenuity, describe his problem in Thomistic categories, but it would be kinda beside the point.
Tim,
1)Yeah, but it's one thing to teach a class (I've done that too, college level); and another to interact in a comment meta on a blog. That was my point on "context," blogs cannot require folks to do "homework." It's a totally different venue.
I do agree there are ways to communicate, even in this venue, that can be understandable; but not w/o the necessary feedback --- and often that is lacking in this context (i.e. it's hard to know if folks are tracking or not, unless they let you know).
2)When I talk about Calvinism I'm not talking about John Calvin, but the "Post-Reformed" Calvinists (where the hertiage comes from). These are two different animals, and the Calvinists are clear Thomists.
3) On unitarianism, I suppose in general people are prone to this. But in the Western context, where we live, it is shaped by a Christian presupposition; and would argue that that context is largely Calvinistic (or even Arminian, one in the same, really --- I.e. classical theism).
4) I've read Ryrie's Basic Theology (he actually autographed my copy) and chuncks of Chafer. I don't think the case would be that hard to establish on their Thomist influence (I'll have to do that some time at my blog).
P.S. You're a presuppotionalist?
Bobby,
(1)It's a church-based thing; I can't require homework either, and don't even suggest it in that particular case. I wasn't saying it's the same thing as chatting in a blog comment thread, just that it's possible and necessary to bring complex and difficult things down, and inspire people to step up to them. And--the moral point--if I have knowledge that will benefit someone, if only he had it, that implies certain responsibilities on my part. I am not actually helping the body grow if I offer him the knowledge in such a way that he's not inspired to acquire it. I can't beg off by just shrugging and saying "Well, he won't do the work." The master gives talents to his servants so that the servants will find ways of making them benefit.
The goal is to benefit the body; if my knowledge doesn't benefit the body because I can't inspire anyone else to listen to it, the problem is on my end, not theirs, and I need better communication strategies. (Another way of putting it: it's an entrepreneurial, not a bureaucratic, ethos. The goal is not to CYA but to get the job done.)
(2) Ah. Well, if you're regarding R. Scott Clark and Michael Horton as paradigm cases of "Calvinist," there certainly is a difference.
(3) Fair enough; Western unitarianism is unitarianism of a particular sort, filtered through a particular set of influences, and Thomas definitely had a hand on it. That said, I'm still uncomfortable locating the error with him--as though we'd be all right, if only we could only get back to where we were before Thomas messed it up. Thomistic unitarianism is an error, sure, but it's the 'unitarianism' part that's the error.
(4) PRETTY PLEEEEEEASE??? Sooner rather than later? I think you have some valuable contributions to make, and that would be a great starting point. Most people don't know Thomas at all, but if you can point at something in Chafer/Ryrie and show that (a) it came from Aristotle via Thomas, (b) it doesn't come from the Bible, and (c) in fact, the Bible contradicts it -- that'll shake 'em a little more.
(5) Yes, I'm basically a presuppositionalist, although various caveats apply to that statement. In brief: I think the good, meaty stuff in presup comes down to a pretty straightforward application of Gen. 1-3, Rom. 1, Col. 2, and Prov. 26:4-5, as applied by Paul and Jesus. The Calvinistic trappings generally associated with presup are just the wrapping paper that the gift comes in.
I responded, Tim, but blogger ate it up; I'll be back later to re-respond :-).
Tim,
1)Agreed.
2)Indeed.
3)My concern is more with the problems of thinking of the Christian God through monadic categories; and this is, I think, a real problem plaguing American Evangelicalism (in particular, since that's the tradition or movement we're in). Whether it was Thomas (I think so) or whoever isn't my biggest concern.
4)This will take me some time. I'm trying to read and research on Calvin. But maybe I'll do some posting on Ryrie (btw, I still like Ryrie).
5)I'm not necessarily a presuppositionalist (I think it's too "rationalist"); I would say I'm more of a qualified fideist (who still sees value with some evidentialism --- probably more for the believer vs. the non-believer ;-).
Bobby,
Presup too rationalist? That's not an accusation I hear very often. Interesting. Love to hear more about it sometime.
Tim,
Even wikipedia's description of presuppositionalism makes this pretty clear.
Presuppositionalism is decision centered; therefore by definition it is grounded in "my intellect" or rationale.
Gordon Clark was quite the rationalist.
Bobby,
1) I know Clark was considered a presuppositionalist of some variety, and I would expect his variety to be rationalist to the bone -- but I've never read him on this; I came to this out of the Van Til/Bahnsen/Butler line, for what it's worth, and I'd include C.S. Lewis and some others as well (to the chagrin of Butler, no doubt).
2) Need I comment on using Wikipedia as an accurate source about anything, let alone theology?
3) Sproul and that camp regularly accuse presup of fideism; I have a couple of the recordings. One has to wonder how they can see that, and you can see rationalism at the same time.
4)Re. "Presuppositionalism is decision centered; therefore by definition it is grounded in "my intellect" or rationale." -- I don't know where you're getting that; I reject it absolutely. The only decision at issue in presup is deciding that you won't snub Yahweh whilst doing apologetics. The essence of it is relational. I know that Yahweh is God, and my God, and I owe Him acknowledgement of that at all times and in all places. I don't take off my wedding ring so that I might more easily chat up attractive single women, and for the same reason, I don't conduct apologetic conversation as though Yahweh maybe doesn't exist -- I know better, and the relationship we have demands better than that of me. I also don't forget that the person I'm talking to knows Yahweh and is suppressing that knowledge; my job is not to prove Yahweh's existence to a willing seeker but to remind a rebel that in every thought and action, he betrays himself by showing that he already knows (although, of course, he refuses to admit it).
Tim,
We simply disagree then. I think the anthropology undergirding presuppositionalism is intellectualist one; wherein, to engage the tripartite faculty psychology, the mind and will are predominate to the despair of the affections (or motive or value center).
My point on "rationalism" is where the decision to be presuppositional is even grounded. Is it grounded in "my decision" (thus my mind); or is it grounded in Jesus Christ, and His mind for us (I'm thinking about the vicarious nature of Christ for us of course).
Anyway, that's where I'm coming from on this.
Apparently the Apostle Paul had an inadequate grasp of the deep things of theology, anthropology, and, more specifically, the "vicarious nature of Christ for us." Of course, he didn't have the advantage of a modern education in theology, affective epistemology, anthropology, etc, so we shouldn't be surprised if his views and methods were somewhat primitive and unenlightened-- much to the despair of the affections. If only he had been privilege to the gnosis of such an education I'm sure he would have repented of his misguided intellectualist and rational approach to evangelism.
2 Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them, and for three Sabbaths REASONED with them from the Scriptures, 3 EXPLAINING and DEMONSTRATING that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I preach to you is the Christ.” 4 And some of them WERE PERSUADED (= believed); and a great multitude of the devout Greeks, and not a few of the leading women, joined Paul and Silas. Acts 17:2-4
17 Therefore he REASONED in the synagogue with the Jews and with the Gentile worshipers, and in the marketplace daily with those who happened to be there. Acts 17:17
And he REASONED in the synagogue every Sabbath, and PERSUADED (> to believe)) both Jews and Greeks. Acts 18:4
And he came to Ephesus, and left them there; but he himself entered the synagogue and REASONED with the Jews. Acts 18:19
And after some days, when Felix came with his wife Drusilla, who was Jewish, he sent for Paul and heard him concerning the faith in Christ. 25 Now as he (Paul) REASONED... Acts 24: 24,25
8 And he went into the synagogue and spoke boldly for three months, REASONING and PERSUADING concerning the things of the kingdom of God. 9 But when some were hardened and DID NOT BELIEVE, but spoke evil of the Way before the multitude, he departed from them and withdrew the disciples, REASONING DAILY in the school of Tyrannus. 10 And this continued for TWO YEARS, so that all who dwelt in Asia HEARD THE WORD of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks. Acts 19:8-10
24 Now as he thus made his defense, Festus said with a loud voice, “Paul, you are beside yourself! Much learning is driving you mad!”
25 But he said, “I am not mad, most noble Festus, but SPEAK WORDS OF TRUTH AND REASON. 26 For the king, before whom I also speak freely, knows these things; for I am convinced (= believe) that none of these things escapes his attention, since this thing was not done in a corner. 27 King Agrippa, do you BELIEVE the prophets? I know that you do BELIEVE.”
28 Then Agrippa said to Paul, “You almost PERSUADE ME to become a Christian (= to believe in Jesus Christ).” Acts 26:24-28
...not walking in craftiness nor handling the word of God deceitfully, but by MANIFESTATION OF TRUTH commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. 3 But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 whose MINDS the god of this age has BLINDED, who DO NOT BELIEVE, lest the LIGHT OF THE GOSPEL of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should SHINE on them. 5 For we do not PREACH ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your bondservants for Jesus’ sake. 6 For it is the God who COMMANDED LIGHT TO SHINE (by means of "preaching" and "reasoning") out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the LIGHT OF THE KNOWLEDGE of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. 2 Cor 4: 2-6
5 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense (apologia= an explanation that includes reasons) to everyone who asks you a REASON for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear; 1 Pet 3:15
So Peter has not yet been freed from the methodology or epistemology of reason and rationality either--much to the despair of the affections. Obviously, neither Paul nor Peter had yet been imbued with the Gnostic wisdom that our faith is not grounded in OUR minds, but in the mind of Christ and the vicarious nature of Christ "for us".
Bobby,
Yep, we disagree for sure. For your first paragraph, I don't know what your grounds would be for that statement.
To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure I grasp what you mean in the second paragraph. If it's a biblical approach, and the practitioner feels himself compelled by Scripture to adopt it, wouldn't that satisfy your criteria? Or is it somehow his own volition and intellect, bereft of proper affections and Christ himself, just because the dude actually made a choice instead of it happening automatically?
(And if my question betrays a serious misunderstanding of your position -- well, toldja I didn't get it. Sorry.)
Although to be perfectly honest, I'm not sure I understand the second part of what you said. If anything one chooses is ipso facto man-centered and fails to involve the affections, how could you live?
It might have been more accurate to say that the Apostles Peter and Paul would have greatly benefitted from a good solid POST-modern education in affective epistemology, theology, and anthropology--hence, less despair to the affections in their methodology and approach to evangelism.
Oh well, they did the best they could with reason and rationality.
:)
Of course, a good pinch of Calvinism thrown in would have enlightened them too.
Tim,
All that I'm saying is that there is an order of knowledge. The starting point has to do with ontology, and then epistemology. What I am getting at is that we must first be recreated in Christ before we can have a true knowledge of God. And beyond the normal Calvinistic framing, I'm saying that union with Christ is a decision that God made for us when He decided to become elect man for us in the incarnation (objectively --- ontological point). We, by the Spirit, are able to reciprocate His great love for us (I Jn 4:19); and thus have a knowledge (epistemological point --- subjective) as His love is shed abroad in our hearts by the Spirit (cf. Rom 5:5 and Augustine's usage).
Classic Calvinists, like Sproul and G. Glarke, follow an intellectualist anthropology insofar as their approach starts with epistemology prior to ontological concerns.
Gary,
You've really misunderstood me (and I know I know so does 95% of everyone else). If anything, the approach I'm advocating is a qualified Barthian one; with a Torrancean twist (i.e. not Calvinism at all --- at least not classically construed). And I know, you just follow the Bible --- oh, and Zane Hodges ;-).
Hi Gary,
Amen! Keep reasoning from the scriptures... it can't be wrong! I want to hear more and more from you on your thoughts. I know it takes perseverance to hold these discussions. I enjoy hearing your perspective because I always gain from it.... When I get back maybe we can talk some more about these things either online, or not? I'll be back Sunday afternoon.
Michele
Hi Tim and Bobby,
Sure appreciate the prayers from all around. I also really enjoyed reading thoughtful, kind discussion in the last week or so. Thanks for that. I've had a very busy week while you've been talking, but next week I might ask a question here or there.
Michele
Bobby,
Van Til is one of the people who pushed very very hard to hammer home the point that ontology is prior to epistemology. He was always going on about it; it's the foundation of his apologetic. If you're lumping him in with Sproul and Clark, you're doing him a considerable injustice.
(If you're inclined to investigate, let me suggest Bahnsen's _Van Til's Apologetic_, which is a VT reader with footnotes and introductory notes by Bahnsen. It is hands down the single best starting point for someone with as much academic ability as you have. (I'd have to recommend something more popular to, say, a high school student.))
So, I've misunderstood you yet again? You are such an amusing guy Bobby.
Barth, huh? Well, thank you very much. You've just clarified and confirmed my worst fears and suspicions. If you truly think I've misunderstood you it's only because you've misunderstood ME. But I really don't think that's the case. I might not have understood all the details or specifics of your particular theological brew, but I've definitely been on the right track from the beginning, and you know it.
As for your Calvinism, I only said "a pinch", right? You've obviously got more seriously problems than a pinch of Calvinism, though--unfortunately for you.
By the way, Barth has such an interesting pedigree: Kant, Ritshchl, Herrman, Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky, Overbeck, Blumhardt, Feuerbach, etc.
Wowy kazowy (!), you're up to your neck in quite a poison pot Bobby--just as I knew you were.
Tim,
I'll read that, by Bahnsen, if you'll read: T. F. Torrance's Theological Science (if you can get your hands on it, it's spendy, I just checked it out at amazon). This book provides excellent background to the dualism that is at play in most theological frameworks (even Van Tils).
Gary,
Talking theology or the Bible with you isn't really fruitful. I never said I'm dyed in the wool Barthian (I follow TF Torrance more closely); but that he has offered an excellent critique and reification of the Classical Calvinist framing of election (e.g. he points out how the Calvinist framing makes God's life contingent upon creation vis-a'-vis their heavy dependence on the "absolute decrees"). That's pretty much all I appreciate Barth for (his bibliology is whacked). But your uncritical caricaturing of him is unhelpful and just not "Christian." All I've seen from you, Gary, is "reactionism;" so from this point on I won't really be engaging you around theological or biblical points --- it's just not healthy or fruitful.
Peace in Christ
Like I said Bobby, you're a very amusing guy. I best just leave it at that.
Peace to you as well.
Bobby,
Wow! You sure know how to pick 'em. That's not in the book budget right now, for sure. Sometime soon, hopefully.
I know, it frustrates me; so many TFT's books are so stinkin' expensive. The only way I have access to some of them is through my alma mater's library. Another one by TF that is really good in this re., and maybe better is his: Ground And Grammar Of Theology: Consonance Between Theology and Science. I just checked you can get one for about $30. But that's still spendy. You don't have a theo library near by? Denver seminary maybe :-).
Hi Gary,
Yesterday evening we sung this hymn in church. I thought it would be a helpful way to continue discussing believing in Jesus for eternal life and the nuances within that expression of the gospel.
My Faith Has Found A Resting Place
My faith has found a resting place,
Not in device nor creed;
I trust the Ever-living One,
His wounds for me shall plead.
I need no other argument,
I need no other plea;
It is enough that Jesus died,
And that He died for me.
Enough for me that Jesus saves,
This ends my fear and doubt;
A sinful soul I come to Him,
He'll never cast me out.
My heart is leaning on the Word,
The written Word of God,
Salvation by my Savior's name,
Salvation through His blood.
My great Physician heals the sick,
The lost He came to save;
For me His precious blood He shed,
For me His life He gave.
I see all kinds of interesting things in that hymn, including a faith in the atonement. What do you see in it?
Hi Michele,
Yes, this is a great hymn that I've always loved. I certainly don't find any fault with it as it clearly expresses in a beautiful way how our salvation is completely grounded upon the finished work of Christ for us, and not on anything in ourselves. Understanding that wonderful truth should obviously be a source of peace and comfort to all believers. But since you are specifically asking to discuss the hymn in the context of "believing in Jesus for eternal life and the nuances within that expression of the gospel", I'll give it a try.
As far as "believing in Jesus for eternal life", it's never EXPLICITLY stated this way in the hymn, but it's clearly IMPLIED throughout it. For example, "I trust the ever-living One" (= I believe in Jesus). That He gives us eternal life (=salvation) when we believe (or trust) is implied by--"Salvation by my Saviour's name, Salvation through His blood." The hymn also expresses the idea that we only KNOW about this offer of salvation by means of the written word--"My heart is leaning on the Word, the written word of God." So the same essential truth expressed by this hymn is found much more succinctly expressed in Jn 3:16. Same truth, just expressed differently.
So what is the basic idea that this hymn is expressing? Is it not that we can find assurance that we are eternally saved (=salvation) by simply believing in Jesus for eternal life (=salvation) based upon His word to us? Notice that the hymn clearly expresses the idea of assurance--"resting place", 'this ends my fear and doubt". So if a person was to find assurance of eternal life by simply believing the truth of Jn 3:16, would they not be believing the same essential truth this hymn is expressing? But notice something very important. What if a person said they believed Jn 3:16 but did NOT have assurance of salvation? Would they then be believing what this hymn is expressing (or Jn 3:16)? Has their faith found a "resting place...free from fear and doubt"? No, in that case the person would NOT be believing either Jn 3:16 or the truth that this hymn is expressing. Perhaps it's because they are not really clear about the meaning of Jn 3:16. For example, maybe they are convinced that more is necessary to be saved (as MANY people are!) than to simply believe in Jesus. In that case they would not have assurance because they are thinking that Jn 3:16 means something that it doesn't mean. If they are wrong about what it means, then believing their FALSE understanding of Jn 3:16 is not the same as believing the TRUTH of Jn 3:16. This was my problem for many years because I was so confused by LS teachers and preachers. I was still trying to be "totally committed and surrendered" enough so that Jesus would save me. In other words, I was trying to EARN my way to heaven, so I was NOT believing Jn 3:16. So does that mean I was not saved during this time? Since I can remember times when I DID find assurance by simply believing in Jesus, I think I was born again at some point, just very confused by false teaching for a long time, which led to a lot of instability. False teaching about the gospel will do that to you. But it can also be a stumbling-block that can blind an unbeliever to the truth so that they never believe it. Satan is in the business of doing that very thing 24/7/365
Here is another great hymn by Charlotte Elliot that is essentially the same, but notice that it explicitly refers to the promise of Christ which the other hymn only implies:
Just As I Am
Just as I am, without one plea,
but that thy blood was shed for me,
and that thou bidst me come to thee,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.
Just as I am, and waiting not
to rid my soul of one dark blot,
to thee whose blood can cleanse each spot,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.
Just as I am, though tossed about
with many a conflict, many a doubt,
fightings and fears within, without,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.
Just as I am, poor, wretched, blind;
sight, riches, healing of the mind,
yea, all I need in thee to find,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.
Just as I am, thou wilt receive,
wilt welcome, pardon, cleanse, relieve;
BECAUSE THY PROMISE I BELIEVE,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.
Just as I am, thy love unknown
hath broken every barrier down;
now, to be thine, yea thine alone,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.
What I especially love about this hymn is that it expresses both assurance and lack of assurance, but not in the sense that these two things can co-exist at the same moment in time. One moment they are "tossed about", the next moment they are confident and assured. There is something "real-life" about that. The person is "coming" to Jesus while being "tossed about with many a conflict, many a doubt, fightings and fears within, without..." Yet notice that they find a point of contact for assurance in the PROMISE even in the midst of their conflict--"Just as I am, thou wilt receive, wilt welcome, pardon, cleanse, relieve; BECAUSE THY PROMISE I BELIEVE, O Lamb of God, I come, I come." Do you see the assurance there? I think a great biblical illustration of this is found in Peter walking on the stormy sea in Matt. 14:28-31:
And Peter answered Him and said, “Lord, if it is You, command me to come to You on the water.”
29 So He said, “Come.” And when Peter had come down out of the boat, he walked on the water to go to Jesus. 30 But when he saw that the wind was boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink he cried out, saying, “Lord, save me!”
31 And immediately Jesus stretched out His hand and caught him, and said to him, “O you of little faith, why did you doubt?”
Isn't this how faiths works in real life? One moment faith, the next moment doubt or unbelief? I think this is where many people have misunderstood what Zane believed about "assurance being OF the essence of saving faith." Zane never taught that our faith and assurance is indefectible. He always taught that the faith of a believer is imperfect and ever subject to change and instability. In fact, he knew that the faith of a believer can be completely overthrown (2 Tim. 2:18). Since our assurance is directly related to our faith, then our assurance can be unstable and lost as well. Zane knew that stability in faith and assurance is related to the spiritual maturity of a believer and other factors such as false teaching, etc.
.
So, back to the hymns. I think the bottom line for both of these two hymns could be not be expressed any better than Jesus did it:
"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life." Jn 6:47
You might say that Jesus is giving us the "nutshell" version of both of these great hymns--and of the gospel. Isn't it beautiful how Hedid that that with such sublime simplicity?
But notice these important words: "MOST ASSUREDLY, I say to you..." If a person says they believes what Jesus is saying but doesn't have the assurance that He expressly promises here, have they "believed in Him"? Have they believed what he is saying? Just as those two hymns expressed so clearly, assurance is OF the essence of saving faith. But of course, as I said before, this doesn't mean that a believer cannot become confused and lose their assurance. It just means that whenever that happens, it's because they are not at that moment believing what Jesus wants them to believe. All they have to do get their assurance back is reaffirm what they first believed when they were born again. (1 Jn 5:13)
When you read the words of those hymns, do you see how assurance is an important element? Clearly, the people who wrote those hymns understood the gospel and believed it. Walla--assurance!
So you asked me to review one hymn and you got TWO--with a few bible verses thrown in!
Thank you Gary that was more than trying. I appreciated how thoroughly you treated the hymn and my thoughts/question....
As far as "believing in Jesus for eternal life", it's never EXPLICITLY stated this way in the hymn, but it's clearly IMPLIED throughout it.
I totally agree, that's what I was wondering if you would say when I first thought about it. That's good that I understand you....
So what is the basic idea that this hymn is expressing? Is it not that we can find assurance that we are eternally saved (=salvation) by simply believing in Jesus for eternal life (=salvation) based upon His word to us?
Yes, this hymn is about assurance.
So if a person was to find assurance of eternal life by simply believing the truth of Jn 3:16, would they not be believing the same essential truth this hymn is expressing?
Yes.
But notice something very important. What if a person said they believed Jn 3:16 but did NOT have assurance of salvation? Would they then be believing what this hymn is expressing (or Jn 3:16)? Has their faith found a "resting place...free from fear and doubt"? No, in that case the person would NOT be believing either Jn 3:16 or the truth that this hymn is expressing. Perhaps it's because they are not really clear about the meaning of Jn 3:16.
This is one of those discussions that I don't know if we have ever gotten around to having, I definitely brought it up with this hymn didn't I? I'm trying hard to understand how assurance is always the essence of saving faith. I think sometimes for some people, assurance and faith have to be together because of what they have suffered. But I am not sure that the message in john 3:16 is exactly the same message as that in john 20:31. For some people john 3:16 just doesn't mean anything without john 20:31. I can agree with that. But because it doesn't have a "resting place," doesn't mean they weren't saved by believing just for a very short while... right? Like we talked about on the phone.... Or I'm still unsure how to understand this.
Actually I notice you explain the aspects I was wondering in your next comments:
Since I can remember times when I DID find assurance by simply believing in Jesus, I think I was born again at some point, just very confused by false teaching for a long time, which led to a lot of instability. False teaching about the gospel will do that to you. But it can also be a stumbling-block that can blind an unbeliever to the truth so that they never believe it.
Okay. Definitely. That's a horrible way to have to live as a babe in Christ. Just horrible. Teachers will be held to a stricter judgment, it says in James. Can you imagine why.
Hi Michele,
You said: "But I am not sure that the message in john 3:16 is exactly the same message as that in john 20:31. For some people john 3:16 just doesn't mean anything without john 20:31."
I'm not sure exactly what you mean here, but I might say something about this later.
But first, I think you and I should sing these hymns together. Ready?
A one, and a two, and a three...
♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪
♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪
♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫
♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪
♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪
Thank you Jesus!
Ha ha you brighten my day! :) Yes thank you Jesus, that's what I was feeling too in response to thinking about assurance!
You were saying that doubt is the stuff of real life... and you are so right. I think that's why 1 John says what it says in chapter 5,
Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about his Son. 11And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.
I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life. 14This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. 15And if we know that he hears us—whatever we ask—we know that we have what we asked of him.
It's for confidence in approaching God and believing we've been heard! Something I also struggled with for a long time!
Michele,
Do you have Zane's commentary on 1 John? After reading your comment about that passage I looked to see what he says about it. He agrees with you! I think you will love what he has to say. If you don't have the commentary I'll send his comments on that passage to you.
Hi Gary,
Well you make me feel good about myself but I think we had already been talking about it, on the phone and now. You said it, how important assurance is to the Christian life. For a believer to know they are saved and for a believer to know they have confidence in fellowship with God are huge, to help believers become the obedient people He originally willed.
"John's shift to the subject of prayer after his reference to ongoing faith 'in the name of the Son of God' is natural...."
pg. 1226 of the new Grace NT Commentary Vol. 1
(yes I do have a copy of Zane's commentaries now!)
Michele
Hi Gary,
So, you think there are other ways to gain assurance besides the explicit promise of Jesus? Are there other ways to absorb eternal life (both the justifying eternal life and the sanctifying eternal life) other than the one way of being open and then persuaded by His explicit offer? Or... no?
Going back to the hymn, and this is what's in my head..
My Faith Has Found A Resting Place
My faith has found a resting place,
Not in device nor creed;
I trust the Ever-living One,
His wounds for me shall plead.
I need no other argument,
I need no other plea;
It is enough that Jesus died,
And that He died for me.
Enough for me that Jesus saves,
This ends my fear and doubt;
A sinful soul I come to Him,
He'll never cast me out.
My heart is leaning on the Word,
The written Word of God,
Salvation by my Savior's name,
Salvation through His blood.
My great Physician heals the sick,
The lost He came to save;
For me His precious blood He shed,
For me His life He gave.
Yes, I think there are ways that a person can gain assurance through an IMPLICIT understanding of the offer of eternal life. For example, if you were explaining the gospel to a child, you might say something like: "If you just believe in Jesus He promises that you will be with Him forever, and that nothing can ever separate you from Him and His love." Isn't this essentially what it means to have eternal life? If the child believed this, then he (she) would be born again and have assurance of eternal life, even though those explicit words were not used.
In this hymn, it is clear to me that the thought being expressed is essentially the same as well. It expresses the idea that we are "saved" by "faith", or "trust (in) the Ever-living One (Jesus)" and that this salvation can never be lost ("He'll never cast me out"). It also shows that the person understands that this salvation is not based on works but on the finished work of Christ, as seen in the references to His "blood", "He died for me", "His wounds for me shall plead", etc.
It seems to me that in order for anyone to truly have assurance of salvation, there are certain things they must at least implicitly understand when they believe in Jesus. They must understand that salvation (eternal life = life and/or relationship with Jesus that can never be lost) is a gift that only Jesus can give us, and that we can only receive that gift by faith alone and not by works. If a person thinks that their eternal destiny (relationship with Jesus and/or God) depends upon their works (not a gift and not by faith alone in Christ alone), then they will not have assurance. This is just another way of saying that if a person thinks that what Jesus gives them can be lost or that Jesus only puts them on "probation", then they will not assurance--and if a person has NEVER had assurance then they have not yet understood and believed the true gospel.
But, while it is true that the explicit offer of eternal life by believing in Jesus can be implicitly understood and communicated other ways, I still think that the ideal way of evangelizing people is to actually give them Jesus' own words of promise. Why not follow Jesus' example and evangelize people the way He did as much as possible? If it's true that the Gospel of John is the only book in scripture written primarily for an evangelistic purpose, then it just makes sense to use it that way. Then people are putting their faith in the actual words of the Person they are entrusting their eternal destiny to. If ever they get confused and lose their assurance, they always have the simple promise of Jesus to fall back on as a fresh source of assurance--and they can easily find it right there in black and white on the pages of their Bible.
I definitely don't think that the Gospel of John is the ONLY way a person can be saved though. While you don't find Jesus' own words explicitly stated like in John's Gospel, the same saving message He gave in John's Gospel is implicitly taught throughout the rest of the NT. So an unbeliever could come to understand the essential message of John's Gospel by just reading the epistles, for example. But it would probably be a little more difficult and confusing for them that way. The reason it's not as explicitly stated and emphasized in the rest of the NT the same way as in John's Gospel is for the simple reason that the epistles were not written to unbelievers, but to born again believers who had ALREADY believed that Jesus is the Christ--in the sense that John's Gospel explains the meaning of that. They already knew they had eternal life by believing in Jesus, and the epistles were written for the purpose of their spiritual growth, not for the purpose of evangelizing them like John's Gospel was.
Does this make sense, or did I completely miss the point of your question?
By the way, Bob Wilkin has written a new article in the latest Grace in Focus newsletter about assurance where he tries to address questions people have about this.
He ends the article by saying this:
"I welcome more questions and more biblical observations. God is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him (Heb 11:6)."
I also like this comment by him:
"Almost everyone wants to know for sure that he will spend eternity with God in His kingdom. Few are offended when you talk to them about that. But many people do get offended if you talk to them about being 'saved.' "
---------------------
The word "saved" can have some pretty negative and unbiblical connotations for people, whereas the words "everlasting life" are much more clear and to the point. Maybe that's why Jesus used it so much when He evangelized people?
Hi Gary,
I think you answered it, and I think I agree with everything you said, though I'd like to chew on it.... I like the invitation Bob Wilkin gave at the end of the article. I'll go check it out....
Hi Gary,
Right now Chuck Swindoll is preaching through Romans 5-8 and last night's radio broadcast was on the subject of sonship through the Spirit based on Rom 8:15-17
For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, “Abba, Father.” The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together.
I've been wondering as I've been doing a discipleship series with a few women and we are being taught about this image of a locomotive train of order of priority in growing in assurance and closeness with the LORD.
FACT is the engine
FAITH is the middle
FEELINGS is the caboose
Have you heard that teaching? But this verse tells me that His Spirit mingled with mine is a testimony of having been saved. Or is that the right way to say it....
Should I "feel" that? Should I "know"... from inside?
Swindoll was describing a fearless intimacy with God and when he shared this short story of going on a tandem bike ride with the Savior I thought you might appreciate that. Swindoll says "I used to steer the bike for myself, but then I let Jesus steer in front and I sat behind him. I'd say, 'Umm, Jesus where are we going?' And He'd turn around and yell at me, 'Pedal!'"
The "delightful detours" He takes, Swindoll shared.
I thought that was encouraging and life-giving. His message from last night on this passage can be heard here.
Hi Michele,
You said:
"I've been wondering as I've been doing a discipleship series with a few women and we are being taught about this image of a locomotive train of order of priority in growing in assurance and closeness with the LORD. FACT is the engine FAITH is the middle FEELINGS is the caboose Have you heard that teaching? But this verse tells me that His Spirit mingled with mine is a testimony of having been saved. Or is that the right way to say it.... Should I "feel" that? Should I "know"... from inside?"
--------------------------------------------------
Yes, I've heard of that (fact>faith>feelings), and I agree with it, though I don't think we will always have "good feelings." But I think this is the right "order of priority" taught in scripture. God has given us an objective basis for our assurance in the Gospel and promise of Jesus (= fact). When we believe those "facts" or "truths" we will have assurance. When we have assurance the feelings should follow, but not necessarily always. Assurance, yes--but not always "feelings." In other words, assurance should NEVER be based on our feelings or emotions, which are always changing and beyond our control. Just the opposite, our feelings should result from the assurance we have from simply believing God's word to us in the Gospel--fact>faith>assurance>feelings. The Gospel is always the engine, NOT our feelings. It's always a mistake to let the caboose be the engine, or you will not have a locomotive.
So what about Rom. 8:15-17? I don't think this verse has anything to do with the Spirit giving us assurance of our salvation, and I don't think it has anything to do with our feelings. It says that the Spirit bears witness WITH our spirit to God, not TO our spirit. This statement by Paul is in a context where he is discussing prayer-- "...we cry out 'Abba, Father'... "-- so Paul is saying that when we pray, the Spirit also prays to the Father WITH us. Compare this with what Paul says in v 26.."...the Spirit Himself makes intercession FOR us.... and v 27..."He makes intercession FOR the saints according to the will of God." So when Paul tells them that the Spirit bears witness WITH our spirit, he's not thinking of assurance of salvation, but he's trying to encourage the believer's to pray with confidence knowing that the Spirit is ALSO praying WITH them to the Father as they pray. This is probably a reflecttion of the OT principle that all things must be verified by at least two witnesses. Paul's purpose in telling them this is to encourage them all the more to pray, knowing that the Spirit is always there to "bear witness" and "make intercession" to the Father WITH them as they pray.
Of course, Reformed theology has generally held to the interpretation that you mentioned, that this passage is about some kind of subjective confirmation of our salvation in our "feelings." But I think they were wrong about that. I used to be taught that, and wasted a lot of time trying to confirm my salvation with the "feeling" of the inner witness. It didn't work out to well for me.
So I definitely think that "fact>faith>feeling model is in keeping with what the Bible teaches. Look at what Jesus tells the disciples in Jn 14:1--"Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me."
What was Abraham's basis for assurance? It was the promise of God (fact) and his belief in that promise: "He did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God, and being fully convinced (>assured) that what He had promised He was also able to perform. " Rom 4:20,21.
"Now may the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in BELIEVING, that you may abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit." Rom 15:13
And, of course, what you mentioned yesterday: "These things (vv 6-12) have been written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you might know (=assurance) that you have eternal life and may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God." (1 Jn 5:13).
So the "locomotive" could be expressed this way:
TRUTH (=God's word)
FAITH
FEELINGS
If there is a flaw to the fact>faith>feeling model, I think it may be that it could be misunderstood to mean that assurance=feelings (or emotions).
But biblical assurance is always a direct result of simply believing that what God tells us in the Gospel promise is true--nothing more and nothing less.
So it would be:
Truth (God's word)
Faith
Assurance
Feelings-- (but feelings (emotions) may or may not be there, and are not a requirement for assurance. It is more a matter of "knowing" because we believe that what God tells us is true--like Abraham did)
Generally speaking though, I think our feelings or emotions tend to follow along like the caboose, but not necessarily so all the time.
And what about the Mormons who base their "testimony" and assurance on the "burning in the bosom" experience they had? Whenever we base our relationship with God on some subjective experience like our emotions, we are on precarious ground--even if we think it's the Holy Spirit. God's word is always what we should base our relationship on--and it's something that is objective, outside of ourselves, and unchanging. We don't have to worry about being deceived by His word. The Holy Spirit always works in us though the word of God. He is the Spirit of truth (Jn 14:17; 15:26; 16:13)--and God's word is truth ( Jn 8:32; 17:17)
Hi Gary,
I liked your comment, though I think you were quoting Grace in Focus,
the words "everlasting life" are much more clear and to the point. Maybe that's why Jesus used it so much when He evangelized people?
That's good stuff! I could not find the article on assurance, there were only two articles for July, online. I might be overlooking it somehow.
I agree with you as you agree with the "train," I think it is most-times right. I'm glad you bear with me because I'm allowing my mind to ruminate on all the non-verbal ways we can gain assurance about our justification and you're answering those thoughts.
You said,
while it is true that the explicit offer of eternal life by believing in Jesus can be implicitly understood and communicated other ways, I still think that the ideal way of evangelizing people is to actually give them Jesus' own words of promise. Why not follow Jesus' example and evangelize people the way He did as much as possible?
I agree and believe God uses the promise. I think He uses other non-verbal truths or even feelings (according to scripture) to encourage someone to come and stay near Christ. Let me explain.
This is an excerpt from a bible study I get to be a part of this summer, from "Contagious Joy" by Christa Kinde....
Contagious: Spreading or tending to spread from one to another; catching
Joy: A condition or feeling of high pleasure or delight.
I love when one unexpected word comes together with another unexpected word, and in the marriage of the two, they bring us a whole new dimension of understanding--like in the case of contagious and joy.
Contagious always brings to mind my sons, who during their childhood, were riddled with measles, chickenpox, or some other illness. Then there were the annual notes from school warning parents of outbreaks of head lice, which prompted me to dig through their curly locks in search of trouble.
We believers have the commission to spread joy in this world in order to combat the insidious spread of hopelessness. Now don't misunderstand--when I say spread, I don't mean like smearing peanut butter across a slice of bread. I don't mean that we should try to apply joy onto others. No, true joy spreads as we live out God's way in our lives with such credibility that others move closer to purposely catch it.
Joy people are popular, in demand, hired first, applauded, appreciated, and sought out. Joy makes hard days easier, dark days brighter, optimism possible, and friendships a pleasure.
What fun to have a case of something others want! You won't have to convince others about joy, because joy will cast her net of authenticity and draw in even the reluctant. Joy is just that appealing.
Excerpt written by Patsy Clairmont.
Michele,
Yes, I like that.
"What fun to have a case of something others want! You won't have to convince others about joy, because joy will cast her net of authenticity and draw in even the reluctant. Joy is just that appealing."
I like that words "cast (the) net of authenticity" and "draw", because you (and Patsy) are right that God obviously uses "non-verbal" means of "casting (the net" and "drawing" people to the point of believing the message of the gospel. Things like "love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control". (Gal. 5:22,23).
Those things would work pretty good in drawing people to Christ wouldn't they? Is that what you mean by "contagious"?
We see Jesus drawing people to Himself in this way all through the four gospels, no doubt.
Hi Gary,
Here I am reading a bible study on how to revive the joy of my salvation, and many other women are doing this too, for an important reason. We want to bring integrity to the good news and way down deep inside I think we are convicted that we don't always act accordingly - and by saying so I'm not saying we aren't always following the ten commandments. I mean there's a basic Father-child, fellowship aspect here that is so simple it just gets overlooked or forgotten in the ongoing believer's life. This is one thing I know way down deep that you have in yourself. It is one of the most obvious qualities you exhibit. That's why I think you're the best, I really do. :) You are a life-giving influence on me because you are more free in areas that I am not. There are only a few things that steal your joy and when you have it you have it fully. That's just a gift God has given to you I think. I see it and admire it.
Rev 2:4-5 "Nevertheless I have this against you, that you have left your first love. Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place—unless you repent."
I know that this is a sanctification verse, not at all a passage on assurance. I'm just saying that emotions matter to Him - and feelings seem to be intertwined in the important stuff of the testimony we share with the lost.
1 John 3:2-3
"Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is. And everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as He is pure."
The Content there is mostly on the resurrection so that is interesting, but, hope being placed in Him actually purifies. The feeling, purifies. What do you think... if someone approaching justification has hope, will God not purify Him as He promises here... "everyone"?
1 Thess 1:6
And you became followers of us and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Spirit, so that you became examples to all in Macedonia and Achaia who believe.
This passage is interesting because though 1 Thessalonians is written to believers who had already received a great deal of "gospel teaching" - meaning more than just the message that justifies but the message that sanctifies, as proven by his continuation through the book on the second coming of Christ, the context for this verse may indeed be a remembrance of their initial conversion.
2:13 For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe.
"And you became followers of us" in 1:6 sounds like Paul is saying that this joy was a result of a choice they made for discipleship. But I think that there was an indistinguishable transition in these people, between their justification and a commitment to sanctification, for this particular region of believers. They "joined" Paul and Silas:
Acts 17:1-4
Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and demonstrating that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I preach to you is the Christ.” And some of them were persuaded; and a great multitude of the devout Greeks, and not a few of the leading women, joined Paul and Silas.
In their initial exposure to the good news of eternal life in Jesus Christ, Paul opened up and reasoned with them in the scriptures for three weeks and the result was... joy. It was powerful, and they became good examples to those around them.
Hi Michele,
I would have gotten back with you sooner, but I've been a little sidetracked. Remember me telling you about the man who said he was "saved" in the Church of Christ when he was a teenager but is now an atheist? Not only is he an atheist but he seems to enjoy mocking God and Christ quite a bit these days. Well, from time to time he likes to engage in a discussion/debate with me via FB. You can probably imagine how messy and complicated that can get. I'm trying to decide right now if he's really sincere or just likes to ask tons of questions to mess with my head for the sport of it. So you might say that my caboose has been derailed big-time the past couple of days. Seems like he leaves me with huge migraine headache most of the time. I usually need an extra strength BC powder when he gets through with my caboose. :)
Anyway, thanks for your kind words. I'll get back with you later when I've recovered a little bit. I really like some of your thoughts and observations.
Hi Gary,
Like you were offering him the gospel after his "I went to church and was baptized" testimony, I don't know for sure like you are not whether this person has eternal life... but I do know that you are the real deal. Hopefully your testimony will remain in his soul till that day that he turns to the LORD. I have been praying for your discernment and peace too.
I have a couple comments when you're back. Or I'll just leave them and then you can ruminate when ready... Thanks so much for interacting on my thoughts.
Hi Michele,
You said:
"The Content there is mostly on the resurrection so that is interesting, but, hope being placed in Him actually purifies. The feeling, purifies. What do you think... if someone approaching justification has hope, will God not purify Him as He promises here... "everyone"?"
I'm not sure exactly what you mean here. Could you clarify or elaborate on this some?
You said:
"And you became followers of us" in 1:6 sounds like Paul is saying that this joy was a result of a choice they made for discipleship. But I think that there was an indistinguishable transition in these people, between their justification and a commitment to sanctification, for this particular region of believers. They "joined" Paul and Silas:"
Right, it appears that these believers made a smooth transition into discipleship after they believed. This seems to be indicated also in the passage you cited from Acts 17:
“This Jesus whom I preach to you is the Christ.” And some of them were persuaded (=believed); and a great multitude of the devout Greeks, and not a few of the leading women, JOINED Paul and Silas."
At the point they believed ("were persuaded") Paul's message they would have been born again. From that point on it seems they immediately "joined" in fellowship with Paul and Silas. They were no doubt baptized (which is the first step in discipleship) and began receiving further teaching from Paul and Silas. The "joy" they had was probably a combination of the joy they had from knowing they had eternal life and from the fellowship they were experiencing in discipleship as they were being taught and learning more from Paul and Silas.
I think we have a common problem in the church today that wasn't true for the early church. Oftentimes today the "gospel" that people are hearing is a garbled version of the gospel with some kind of works mixed into what we must do to be saved. Consequently, many people who respond to these "gospel messages" don't really have assurance that they have everlasting life. Because they've heard some form of a "faith + works" gospel, they are thinking that their salvation or eternal destiny somehow depends on their works or faithful continuous in discipleship (= Lordship Salvation). Therefore they don't really have assurance, and since assurance is an indispensable foundation for true discipleship, they are essentially trying to move into discipleship without the necessary foundation that every new believer is supposed to have. In fact, since they are believing that salvation is by faith+ works they are likely not even born again yet. They have only believed a false gospel. This is exactly what happened to me when I was 17 yrs old.
This was not a problem in the early church like today because a pure apostolic "faith alone in Christ alone" gospel was being preached and believed by the new converts. They KNEW they had everlasting life which can never be lost (=assurance), so they had the foundation to make that smooth transition into discipleship that God intends every believer to have.
By the way, this is exactly what happened to the man I've been having a discussion with on FB. He says he was "saved" as a teenager in the Church of Christ. The interesting thing is that even though he no longer believes in God, Jesus, or the bible, he is still absolutely convinced that the "faith + works" gospel he believed as a teenager is what the bible teaches. He will still fight you tooth and nail over that. He thinks I'm very confused and don't understand the bible because I keep telling him that eternal life is a free gift received by faith alone. He is convinced that keeping all God's commandments are necessary for salvation. Of course, this is the "gospel" that the Church of Christ has always preached and he still believes it is biblical, though he no longer believes the bible is the word of God. Is it any wonder that he has turned away from God?
Interesting isn't it?
Have anybody seen da Sanctifier round dese parts? Where she at? Have she gone back to da land of da goose an da gander and leave me hangin high and dry? Sumbody gunna haff ta give dat gal a whuppin in a woodshed! She gots house guests waitin at all da tables and she vanish into da thin air so she go gallavantin over hill an dale chasin geeses!
Sure... just leave a comment when I've clean and left and there's nothing I can do about it! No chasing geese, no geese chasing me - this time I went to Idaho, the land of plenty potatoes. I actually didn't see any except in the grocery store. :(
Glasses: instantaneous nerdiness! Ha
Nerd? Bet ya ain't a sayin dat directkly to my purdy face cuz ya might git bitted! I chase ya back to yer geeses and dirt diggin fer taters in Iderho! Den da last haha be on you sister.
Iderho? No wonder dere weren't no cornection line fer yer compuder. Dey ain't even got compuder signel waves in da Iderho pertater fields where you diggin!
Hi Gary,
Okay, so back. You saw and thought I was doing alright and said,
The "joy" they had was probably a combination of the joy they had from knowing they had eternal life and from the fellowship they were experiencing in discipleship as they were being taught and learning more from Paul and Silas.
I have some more brain twisters along the same line. This is a great scripture; Jesus is a maverick. This bit happens right after Jesus is tempted in the desert.
Luke 4:14-21
Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about him spread through the whole countryside. He taught in their synagogues, and everyone praised him.
He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. And he stood up to read. The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:
"The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."
Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him, and he began by saying to them, "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing."
:-P :-D
Here Jesus explains the purposes and uses of His gospel in detail. Are these descriptions adding to the gospel message of eternal life? Are these descriptions contained in the gospel of eternal life? What is eternal life for?
Here is another interesting passage.
Acts 24:21-27
unless it was this one thing I shouted as I stood in their presence: 'It is concerning the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial before you today.' "
Then Felix, who was well acquainted with the Way, adjourned the proceedings. "When Lysias the commander comes," he said, "I will decide your case." He ordered the centurion to keep Paul under guard but to give him some freedom and permit his friends to take care of his needs.
Several days later Felix came with his wife Drusilla, who was a Jewess. He sent for Paul and listened to him as he spoke about faith in Christ Jesus. As Paul discoursed on righteousness, self-control and the judgment to come, Felix was afraid and said, "That's enough for now! You may leave. When I find it convenient, I will send for you." At the same time he was hoping that Paul would offer him a bribe, so he sent for him frequently and talked with him.
When two years had passed, Felix was succeeded by Porcius Festus, but because Felix wanted to grant a favor to the Jews, he left Paul in prison.
1) Luke summarizes Paul's gospel as quote, "about faith in Christ Jesus" vs. 24.
2) Paul preached about righteousness, self-control and the judgment to come as a way to illustrate WHY and WHAT the gospel of Christ crucified was meant to accomplish in vs. 25??
Is preaching on the purpose of the gospel after salvation, adding to the gospel message?
What do you think?
This is what you said earlier which I liked very much and agreed with,
while it is true that the explicit offer of eternal life by believing in Jesus can be implicitly understood and communicated other ways, I still think that the ideal way of evangelizing people is to actually give them Jesus' own words of promise. Why not follow Jesus' example and evangelize people the way He did as much as possible?
So so far I've brought to your attention how in 1 thess 1:6 they received the gospel of salvation with much joy so that they became examples to all Macedonia, and, joy of our salvation happens at salvation and needs to continually be renewed, and, how assurance of having been saved can be gained for someone in demonstrations Jesus made, or in other non-verbal ways, and, how the gospel that Felix heard ventured into what would be the point of converting and believing but self-control must have not been convenient to him in order to want eternal life, ... etc.
I bring all these things up because I think it's okay to apply the unchanging truth of the gospel to a personal level because Jesus is interested in the personal level. If that involves emotions, if that involves a healing, if that involves a motivation to become a disciple and not only a believer... all of these facets are okay to be part of a testimony of what life was like before knowing the gospel, what the gospel "brought" to them during the receiving of eternal life or specifically was ministered to in the facets of receiving eternal life, and it is a testimony of what life is like after knowing the gospel.
And I would go a step further, I suppose. I think that someone can understand that they are being given the gift of eternal life intuitively, never hearing anything about it explicitly. This would happen in the case where someone comes to Jesus in prayer in such a deep, trusting way that they entrust the #1 issue which needs redemption about their life, to Him. Or even more so if they simply trust their whole destiny to Jesus, both in this life and the next... all without hearing the promise regarding eternal life. "Anyone who trusts in Him will not be ashamed."
There are lots of passages in the gospels where after people came to Him and experienced His grace and mercy, He verbally approves their faith and worship even though they dealt with Jesus just short of hearing and believing the explicit promise of eternal life to all who would trust in Him for it.
I realize I don't fully understand everything you do so it might be you'll have to unfortunately repeat yourself a lot. Or maybe you'll disagree at least partially with me, and that's just fine with me :) You heard me and went through these questions and I appreciate that a lot.
Remember Diane's friend who was under the car? He had heard the promise but didn't believe, but later on when he was afraid of being crushed, He remembered the promise of eternal life and became converted by it. His need was, under a car, eternal life. Others have other needs on their hearts when they consider receiving Jesus Christ.
Matthew 8:5-13
Now when Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to Him, pleading with Him, saying, “Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, dreadfully tormented.”
And Jesus said to him, “I will come and heal him.”
The centurion answered and said, “Lord, I am not worthy that You should come under my roof. But only speak a word, and my servant will be healed. 9 For I also am a man under authority, having soldiers under me. And I say to this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes; and to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.”
When Jesus heard it, He marveled, and said to those who followed, “Assuredly, I say to you, I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel! And I say to you that many will come from east and west, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Then Jesus said to the centurion, “Go your way; and as you have believed, so let it be done for you.” And his servant was healed that same hour.
Thoughts?
Hi Michele,
I'm sorry to hear about Jim's accident. Is he okay? Sounds like he's banged up pretty bad. If you can, keep us posted if you hear anything. I hope and pray for his soon recovery.
You've given me a lot to think about in your comments. There are still some things I'm not completely clear on . I might have to ask you a couple of questions before I try to answer. I'll try and get back with you tomorrow. The past couple of days have been really busy for me. I haven't had much computer time lately. I might as well have been in Idaho myself! :D
Your "brain-twisters" are working! You're making me think and that's good.
Even though I know he'll be alright I'm pretty worried. He wrote in a text this morning that he thinks himself very fortunate, so that is good. I don't know anything more right now.
I'm so glad to have a brother like you! I do struggle with communicating clearly. Glad to give you time to let it simmer.... Look forward to your reply. :D
Your sis....
Lk 4:14-21
You said: "Here Jesus explains the purposes and uses of His gospel in detail. Are these descriptions adding to the gospel message of eternal life? Are these descriptions contained in the gospel of eternal life? What is eternal life for?"
I think that the the word "gospel" is a broad term that refers to ALL the "good news" about Jesus. As such, we will find different aspects of the "good news" about Jesus being emphasized at different places in scripture. In the synoptics, there is also the "gospel of the kingdom" offered to Israel that was a part of what Jesus was doing and preaching as well. In Lk 4: 14-21, by quoting this Messianic passage from Isaiah Jesus is, of course, claiming to be Israel's promised Messiah. But the passage was not meant to be an exhaustive description of everything that Jesus is or came to do. And the passage also had spiritual overtones in that it addresses both physical AND spiritual realities in the ministry that Jesus came to fulfill as the Messiah. But while it is true that there are different aspects of the good news about Jesus that can be preached ("gospel" in the broadest sense), if we have a correct conception of what "eternal life" is, it becomes clear that the message of eternal life that Jesus promised to freely give to all who believe in Him is the core, indispensable element of the Gospel, without which all the rest would be meaningless. It's the difference between a "temporal gospel" and an "everlasting gospel"--and it is this all important aspect of how individuals are born again that John's Gospel focuses on. Remember that no one can even "enter" or "see" the kingdom of Messiah unless they are "born again" and possess eternal life. "Eternal life" cannot be separated from the Person of Jesus Christ and His kingdom. He IS eternal life as is made clear from the very beginning of John's Gospel in 1:4-7--"In Him was LIFE, and the LIFE was the LIGHT of men. And the LIGHT SHINES in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it. There was a man sent from from God, whose name was John. This man came for a witness of the LIGHT, that all might BELIEVE."
Do you see how John, from the very beginning of his gospel, practically equates the Logos and LIGHT (= revelation) with eternal life? Eternal life is IN Him, and this LIFE is the very LIGHT that SHINES in the darkness. It is this LIGHT (= LIFE) that John wants the reader to BELIEVE (cf. 20:31). As John goes on the say, the LOGOS (= life = light) became FLESH and dwelt among us. The rest of John's gospel is just a development this theme. This is the message that John wrote to unbelievers and it's this specific message that he wants them to believe. To believe the LIGHT is to believe also in the LIFE that is IN the LIGHT and IN HIM. Life = light = Jesus--they are inseparable. Compare also 11:25; 14:6; 17:3; 1 Jn 1:2; 1 Jn 5:20. Eternal life is not just eternal existence that begins after we physically die--it is the present possession of a forever relationship with Jesus from the moment anyone believes in Him for that relationship. It is being "made alive together with Him" (Eph 1:5)--the One who IS life. If we read John's gospel carefully he tries to explain what eternal life is. The fact that it's called "eternal" or "everlasting" tells us that this "life" in Jesus is irrevocable and forever life. If we have a biblical understanding of what eternal life is, it's obvious that it's an essential element of the saving message (= "light") God want us to believe. As Paul also says: "in Him, you also, having listening to the gospel of your salvation--having also believed, you were sealed in Him with Holy Spirit of promise." Eph 1:13. Paul is equating "salvation" here with eternal life just as Jn 3:16-18 does (see "saved" in v 17). This was the point of Jesus' words to those who followed Him wanting food: " ...Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal. Therefore, they said to Him, 'What shall we do, so that that we may work the works of God?' Jesus answered and said to them, 'This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent." Jn 6:26-29 Is it not clear that Jesus is here saying that to "believe in Him for eternal life" (cf 1 Tim 1:16) is the "work" that God wants from us? They were seeking Him for temporal benefits, but Jesus tells them to seek Him for the eternal life He wanted to give them. That's what He wants them to believe in Him for. Yes, He would give them the "food that perishes" and other temporal blessings, but it was eternal life that was the most important and the thing He urged them to seek.
The message of eternal life is the very heart of the gospel. Without it, there isn't a "Gospel". If we don't have eternal life we don't have HIM. And if we are only seeking or believing in Him for the temporal benefits He can give us, we are not believing in Him for what God sent Him to give us--we are only "working for the food which perishes."
You said: "There are lots of passages in the gospels where after people came to Him and experienced His grace and mercy, He verbally approves their faith and worship even though they dealt with Jesus just short of hearing and believing the explicit promise of eternal life to all who would trust in Him for it."
I don't think we can can know how much these people understood and believed about Jesus. Just because the text doesn't say anything about eternal life doesn't really prove anything. For example, some of these people might have been "OT believers" in the Messiah who already had eternal life when they came to Jesus for healing. Or maybe their faith in Jesus for healing was just a stepping stone for faith in Him for eternal life later. We just don't know the details about their relationship with Jesus when these things occurred. We need to keep in mind that the synoptic gospels were not written for the purpose of explaining how we are "born again"--they were written to believers who already understood that fundamental truth. But we know that Jesus preached the message of eternal life to everyone who believed in Him because the Gospel of John tells us that He did. That's why John focuses on this particular aspect of Jesus' message in accordance with his purpose for writing the book. We only find hints of this teaching in the synoptics because they had a different purpose and were written to believers. The same is true of the book of Acts. While we don't find the same emphasis or explicit references to eternal life in the sermons in Acts, it is clearly implied throughout and we know it was preached as Acts 16:31 and 13:45-48. Just as in the Gospel of John (cf 3:16-18) the fundamental sense of "salvation" for Paul and the rest of the apostles was to have or receive eternal life. Paul says this in 2 tim 1:9-10: "(God) has SAVED us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given us before time began, but has now been REVEALED by the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ, who has abolished death and brought LIFE and IMMORTALITY to LIGHT through the gospel." What does the gospel bring to LIGHT? LIFE and IMMORTALITY! Is this not the "LIGHT" that John's Gospel wants unbeliever's to SEE and BELIEVE? (Jn 1:4-7; 11:25-27; 20:31). So how can a person believe the core, essential "message of truth" (Eph 1:13) and yet not know and believe in the message of "LIFE and IMMORTALITY" that is "brought to light" by the gospel?
Why was Paul preaching those particular things to Felix? I don't know, maybe in response to specific questions that Felix asked Him. When I was having my discussion with the Church of Christ man, I had to cover a wide range of subjects. For example, I had to explain to him why we are not under the Law of Moses and why we are not prohibited from working on the Sabbath and many other things that aren't neccessary for someone to understand and believe to be saved. Different people need different things explained to them before they will believe in Christ. Luke is simply telling us some of the things Paul discussed with Felix. He didn't intend for us to understand it as a formula for how to preach the gospel to someone. Preaching the gospel doesn't mean that we just go out and tell people to believe in Jesus for eternal life and just stop there. We might have to explain things from Genesis or Leviticus to someone--who knows?
Like I said, I'll comment in more detail on the other passages you mentioned later if you want, but I'd like to hear your thoughts before I do. You might have to explain yourself a little more before I can understand what you are asking. Please excuse the sloppiness of my answer because I'm still short on time right now. There is so much more I would like to say about this, but my time is up for today. I've kind of had to rush through this but I wanted to give you some kind of an answer and not leave you hanging. I'm really interested to hear your thoughts though.
I see that Jim is supposed to be released from the hospital today. That's great news. I just hope he stays off his bike for awhile!
Hi Gary,
Your response was so compelling and humble, did you write that? Being pressed for time brings so much goodness out in your message. I think... your answers are really good. I think I agree with them. I'm thinking about them. It's funny, sometimes when you're having a good conversation with someone else who knows a lot more than you on the topic with which you disagree, you can really forget why it is that you believe what you believe.
:-D
:-F
Hi Gary, considering what you explained above, what would you say considering Matt 27:54?
When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, "Surely he was the Son of God!"
Was this saving faith? If it was, it was the product of the only revelation being that written on a sign over the crucified Lord's head, "King of the Jews," and, the miraculous circumstances at the time; the earthquake, the graves and the torn curtain. Is that enough belief in Jesus to be converted? Even... at a time when they were telling Jesus to save Himself - one who promises eternal life to others - and He wasn't saving His own? I'd like to hear again what you would say to this.
Yes, it sure sounds like saving faith to me. I imagine that when the darkness came over the land for 3 hrs it got their attention! Maybe they asked questions about Jesus from those standing around, perhaps those who were already believers. They might have been present when Pilate questioned Jesus too (v 11).
And remember what Jesus said to the thief on the cross: "Today you will be with me in Paradise." They might have heard that, and also "It is finished." Who knows, maybe they even talked to Jesus directly and it's just not recorded in scripture. But with the darkness, earthquake, people being resurrected from the dead, etc., it seems like God gave them plenty of reason to believe don't you think? What a great time to get saved! They sure had a great testimony to give didn't they? To literally get saved at the foot of the cross! The providence of God in bringing us to faith is amazing isn't it?
Thanks Gary!
I have another thing to bother you with :-F yeah I might be getting real old :)
Remember the gospel that Jesus came to preach as I mentioned,
"The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."
And then you made an excellent distinction between a temporal gospel versus the eternal life gospel, saying,
"I think that the the word "gospel" is a broad term that refers to ALL the "good news" about Jesus. As such, we will find different aspects of the "good news" about Jesus being emphasized at different places in scripture. In the synoptics, there is also the "gospel of the kingdom" offered to Israel that was a part of what Jesus was doing and preaching as well. In Lk 4: 14-21, by quoting this Messianic passage from Isaiah Jesus is, of course, claiming to be Israel's promised Messiah. But the passage was not meant to be an exhaustive description of everything that Jesus is or came to do."
...and I thought that was great. I was going to leave it alone except it struck me. The word "soteria" is defined as more than just eternal life.
soteria
In my hardback strong's it says, "rescue or safety, deliver, health, salvation, save, saving."
Isn't that what those examples I've been bringing up, are about? There are examples of Jesus approving the faith or worship of one who receives some kind of "salvation," with or without a precise belief in Him for eternal life....
In fact this is one of Free Grace's contributions, isn't that right? That when we read, for example "Can such a faith save a man?" in James chapter 2, we aren't confused to think "sozo" only narrowly refers to justification/eternal life/whether someone is going to heaven, or not. We know that it means other "salvations" in this verse.
Yet "soteria" is one word. And I'm wondering what you think about that significant variety the single word holds.
Would you reply... saying that "salvation" ("soteria") refers more frequently to that "temporal" gospel?
Ephesians 1:13 uses both "gospel" and "salvation" ("soteria") when it describes the "salvation" that declares men justified before God and our being God's possession at redemption. So "soteria" has many uses, including meaning eternal life. Is this right?
"In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory."
You said,
The message of eternal life is the very heart of the gospel. Without it, there isn't a "Gospel". If we don't have eternal life we don't have HIM. And if we are only seeking or believing in Him for the temporal benefits He can give us, we are not believing in Him for what God sent Him to give us--we are only "working for the food which perishes."
Was the blind man only working for the food that perishes - which is something at least, if not seeking after eternal life? John 9 also mentions "light" and "seeing" which are the distinctives you brought out concerning the good news of eternal life in Jesus Christ.
You said, "Paul says this in 2 tim 1:9-10: "(God) has SAVED us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given us before time began, but has now been REVEALED by the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ, who has abolished death and brought LIFE and IMMORTALITY to LIGHT through the gospel." What does the gospel bring to LIGHT? LIFE and IMMORTALITY! Is this not the "LIGHT" that John's Gospel wants unbeliever's to SEE and BELIEVE?"
In verse 9:4-5 it says that only Jesus has light, therefore the world only has light in it while Jesus lived among us.
"I must work the works of Him who sent Me while it is day; the night is coming when no one can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”
I found this verse below interesting for our discussion, 9:31, where the formerly blind man is beginning to reason on the identity of Jesus, saying,
Now we know that God does not hear sinners; but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does His will, He hears him.
And then this same man worships Jesus. And Jesus "hears" his worship (accepts it) - but all without a spoken promise of eternal life, though the passage does exclusively call Jesus "the light of the world" which he now "sees" and "believes".
What does that make you think?
Thanks for letting me bug you to no end. :)
I also found this interesting sentence.
1 John 3:8
The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work.
:-Þ "Thou hast wearied me with the abundance of thy many words. Yet thou sayest, "How hast thy handmaiden wearied thee, lord? I bid thee tellest me."
In that thou sayest, " Everyone who believest this or that is likened unto a beseeching aroma of worship in the nostrils of the Lord." Yea...YEA, thoughest yer words be as a refining fire in the hand of a winnowing enthusiast, and the cleaning soap of many fiendish launderers, even still shall my own déclassé garments return unto me henceforth whiter than the whitest snow, as thru the fire of many tribulations unscathed and with the scent of many redolent flowers." :-Þ Hezekiah 46:23-24.
:-Þ
I shall soon make a pronouncement of canonicity after consulting the lost books of Masada. Therewith, the inquiring mind of the handmaiden shallest be forever silenced.
:-Þ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This Old English-speaking goofy monkey should do commercials for Tide! I see you and all your tongue wagging.... Bucktooth would stick out her tongue 'cept for her conspicuously large cuttin' teeths.
Hi Michele,
Well, I got rid of the goofy monkey. He likes to get on the computer when I'm gone and play sock-puppet games impersonating an Englishman. It's one of those "monkey see, monkey do" things. Since he got a glimpse of those shiny Buck-teef, though, I ain't seen hide nor hair of that critter! His tongue is no match for conspicuously large cuttin teef!
Wow, I just noticed that this thread is 303 comments! And now we seem to be drifting into COSF issues. You've been reading these debates on the blogs about COSF much longer than I have so I doubt I could say much that you haven't heard already. I agree about the word "soteria" having different meanings in different contexts, but I'm not sure how that would have any bearing on the COSF issue. It just means that the word "soteria" can refer to different things, that's all. The whole point of those within the FG movement who have recognized the various meanings of "soteria" is that it's NOT a technical word that always refers to soteriological issues. Hence it's meaning in non-soteriological contexts would be irrelevant to the COSF issue.
As for the blind man in Jn 9, it's possible that he was already an OT believer in the promised Messiah just like others at that time such as John the Baptist, Anna, Simeon, Andrew, Philip, Nathaniel, etc. There were many at that time who already knew they had eternal life by faith in the Messiah so there was no need to tell them about eternal life. All they needed was to realize that JESUS was the Messiah. That this was true of Andrew, Philip, Nathaniel, etc seems to be indicated by Jn 1:41-43.
As far as the the blind man's statement: "Now we know that God does not hear sinners; but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does His will, He hears him"-- the blind man wasn't making a statement here about what a person must do to be born again, but a more general statement about the kind of person that God "hears"--i.e. God answers their prayers. Of course, this is the same thing Jesus told His disciples in Jn 15:7: "If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you will ask what you desire and it shall be done for you." Jesus wasn't telling the disciples how to be born again here because they were already born again believers. In addition, if anyone truly "does His will", as the blind man said, it would first of all necessarily include believing in Jesus (something the Pharisees were not doing). "Worship" is not a condition for being born again, but a condition for continuing to "abide" in fellowship so that God "hears" our prayers. The point of the blind man's statement was that Jesus must be just such a man, because if He was just a sinner as the Pharisees claimed, then how did Jesus heal him of his blindness? The blind man was not making a soteriological statement about the conditions for receiving eternal life. Paul tells us in Rom 10: 2 that it's even possible for a person to have a "zeal for God" and yet be unsaved. Again, the Pharisees are good examples of this as well. After the blind man came to know (= believed) that Jesus was the Christ, he worshipped Him, but his worship had nothing to do with him receiving eternal life.
As for the blind man "working for the food which perishes"--I don't see him doing that at all. He didn't even seek healing from Jesus or ask for it. It was Jesus who took all the initiative in approaching him and healing him.. Compare this with the healing of the man at the Pool of Bethesda in Jn 5. Jesus did everything of His on initiative. The man not only didn't ask to be healed, he doesn't do anything to indicate he even had any kind of faith in Jesus. Jesus just does it, period. So, in both of these cases, these two men were not seeking Jesus for temporal benefits like those in John 6 were.
I just don't see how anything is gained on the COSF issue by examining the times when Jesus healed people. There are various possibilities with each of them: (1) Were they already born again believers (either OT believers in Messiah who just needed to know that Jesus was the Messiah, OR were they people who ALSO believed in Jesus for eternal life but it just isn't mentioned? (2) Were they people who were NOT born again believers and didn't even have faith to be healed like the man at the Pool of Bethesda?--Jesus just healed them because it was His will to do so regardless of there belief or unbelief (3) Were they people who had faith in Jesus to heal them but were not yet born again, so Jesus healed them in order to elicit or draw them to faith in Him as the Christ? (cf Jn 20:31--the purpose of the "signs")
There might be other possibilities I haven't thought of. The point is that we just don't know for sure so it's really impossible to draw any conclusions from those type passages on the COSF issue. However, the purpose of John's Gospel IS designed to address the COSF issue and I think the answer is very clear there.
Anyway, I wouldn't ever want you to accept something just because of my opinion about it, and I know you wouldn't do that regardless. The only way you will ever have clarity and conviction about it is if you see it for yourself in God's word. This has been debated on the blogs for several years now so I don't know that I have much to add at this point. I just know I'm pretty much burned out on that particular issue. I know what I believe about it, but I wouldn't feel right about trying to force my opinion down your throat. Besides, I'm just as wary of those conspicuously large cuttin teef as my goofy Brit monkey is!
Oops! I can't seem to shake that monkey!
Sorry, I forgot something. I wasn't saying that there are two different "gospels"--a "temporal gospel versus an eternal life gospel". I meant that there are different "aspects" of the one "everlasting gospel" (cf. Rev 14:6). I also think the term "gospel" is a broad term that includes ALL the good news about Jesus Christ, but I think that there is a specific "saving message" which lies at the core of all the "good news" about Jesus which must be believed to be born again. Without that "core message" the rest of the "gospel" would pretty much be meaningless. To put it in Paul's words, I think the saving message is the "promise of life which in Christ Jesus." 2 Tim 1:1. I think that the promise Paul is referring to is the focus of John's Gospel.
"Therefore let that abide in you which you HEARD FROM THE BEGINNING. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father. And this is the PROMISE that He has PROMISED us--ETERNAL LIFE." 1 Jn. 2:24,25
Hi Gary,
I believe you are helping me always and never over-persuading me, I need to be told the answer over and over because I'm a slow learner on this stuff.
I agree with your statement, you've still got me convinced. You said,
There might be other possibilities I haven't thought of. The point is that we just don't know for sure so it's really impossible to draw any conclusions from those type passages on the COSF issue.
That is what Tim wrote most recently in his post River Evangediscipleship II: An Example. He wrote at the end of that post,
Do you know for sure whether Rick was saved that day when he first asked God for help? Maybe not. Did he really understand enough about what he was asking for? There’s no way to know for sure. But who cares? We’re making disciples here, and that’s what Jesus said to do.
I thought you might want to read it since it was the same point more or less that you both are saying.
Thanks :) for replying again.
Post a Comment