From the first episode to the last viewers were entertained and enticed by the ABC drama Lost. I only watched one season and a few shows after that so most of you know the recurring characters and multiple story lines far better than me. But I think the writers may have unintentionally defined the post-modern approach to Bible understanding.
“. . . On Lost, says co-writer Damon Lindelof, "the question has mostly been, What's going to happen next? But that question no longer exists after the series finale. And we anticipate that it will be replaced by a question along the lines of, What did they mean by that? And the question that we would throw back at the audience is, Well, what did it mean to you? Your own personal relationship with Lost actually trumps any intention that we had as storytellers.(Italics mine) And we wanted that to be the legacy of the show."
This post-modern goal of individual truth is all that exists may be excusable in a fictional story that has little bearing on real life. When it enters the church it is a tragedy. Yet this is the model of Bible interpretation in many modern congregations, encouraged by emerging shepherds. ‘Your personal relationship with the Bible actually trumps any intention the writers had.’ ‘What God meant is not as important as what the verse means to you.’ This is not the church that Jesus promised to build. In fact, a priority calling of Christ’s church is to be the pillar and ground of the truth. Churches and church leaders who leave the legacy of Truth will never be lost.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Putting Grace Back into the Gospel
What do people actually do to get saved? That’s the question that drives this title.
There is good reason to invite people to come to Christ. One of the most comforting passages of Scripture is Jesus own request to “come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.” And come we must. But what does that mean in regard to salvation?
If I raise my hand, does that save me? If I come down an aisle and kneel at an altar am I going to heaven? How about repeating a prayer? Maybe asking Jesus into my heart. Or the various outdoor events like putting a stick in the fire. Surely these are all part of the process?
Here are a couple other suggestions, a little more severe but nonetheless encouraged by some to secure salvation. In the first century circumcision was an invitation to salvation. Many today preach a gospel of penance. When you have punished yourself enough you will be delivered.
But do any of these things actually save the person who participates? I hope your answer is a resounding NO! “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9) Salvation is through faith on the basis of grace. This type of salvation is not because of any work that anyone might do.
Most evangelical ministers and missionaries know this and believe it. That is why you will hear, have heard, various caveats in an invitation that asks for some action. “Raising your hand won’t save you.” “Walking down the aisle won’t put you in heaven.” Which begs the question, why then do some ask for these things to be done?
What is the purpose of doing anything that doesn’t save as part of the process to be saved? I have heard the suggestions. “These are outward signs that show inward belief.” “We want to know who to pray for.” My purpose is not to argue those points. Rather I would like to provoke thought and discussion about this type of invitation.
Does the Bible teach that man must do anything beyond belief to be saved? The reality is that God even gives the grace to be saved. John 1:12 claims that the authority, the right, to be born again is not at all related to man. “But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” It is simply through belief that man is saved. And it is not man’s right to claim even that. Philippians 1:29, “For it has been granted (engraced) to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake.” Belief is a gift. No one will be let into heaven on the basis of a raised hand, walked aisle, or burned stick. Only through belief in Christ. Specifically, that belief is that He became a substitute for you- that your sins, which would carry you into hell, were placed on Him and caused His death, so that you, through faith alone, may enter heaven. None of that requires any physical action.
Here’s the big deal. Is it possible that the past years, centuries, of asking for some sign of belief have produced confusion in the church? And resulted in a shallow lifestyle? It seems to me that two results have marked this confusion.
The first is false security. As much as one may try to explain otherwise pride is so powerful a sin that many who raise their hands do indeed believe that they had something to do with their salvation. Even the repetition of a prayer can produce a self-confident stature. That leads to the notion that since I raised my hand, etc. I am good with God. I can live any way I want. And when they do live any way they want we begin defending them. “Well, ‘Joe’ is a believer. He went forward two years ago and prayed the prayer. It’s too bad he isn’t living for Jesus.” Maybe that’s because Jesus isn’t living in him! But he thinks so; because he raised his hand and boy it felt good to get right with God.
The second potential result of ‘physical action invitations’ is false purity. It works this way. “Maybe it didn’t save me but I did do something when I got saved so I must do something(s) now to prove I am saved.” That attitude leads to legalism. And the ‘to do’ list is endless. But then we set the standard too low. God wants hearts that produce Christ like patterns. Would God rather that I not go to movies or that I live in purity that reflects His? But if I don’t go to movies but think impurely I am okay in many places because it is what I do that matters.
So do we give invitations? Absolutely. Jesus did. Paul did. (Even John Calvin did.) We all need to be challenged on issues of the heart. But we must be careful not to ask those to whom we are speaking to do anything that would foster false security or false purity. Jesus didn’t ask for raised hands. Paul didn’t ask anyone to repeat the sinner’s prayer.
Jesus did say that his sheep hear His voice and know Him and follow Him. And He gives them eternal life. Will they hear Him without an altar call? Will He know them without a raised hand? Will He give them eternal life based on belief or must His sheep prove they are sincere by doing something?
As always your comments are appreciated. Click on comment and follow the directions.
There is good reason to invite people to come to Christ. One of the most comforting passages of Scripture is Jesus own request to “come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.” And come we must. But what does that mean in regard to salvation?
If I raise my hand, does that save me? If I come down an aisle and kneel at an altar am I going to heaven? How about repeating a prayer? Maybe asking Jesus into my heart. Or the various outdoor events like putting a stick in the fire. Surely these are all part of the process?
Here are a couple other suggestions, a little more severe but nonetheless encouraged by some to secure salvation. In the first century circumcision was an invitation to salvation. Many today preach a gospel of penance. When you have punished yourself enough you will be delivered.
But do any of these things actually save the person who participates? I hope your answer is a resounding NO! “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9) Salvation is through faith on the basis of grace. This type of salvation is not because of any work that anyone might do.
Most evangelical ministers and missionaries know this and believe it. That is why you will hear, have heard, various caveats in an invitation that asks for some action. “Raising your hand won’t save you.” “Walking down the aisle won’t put you in heaven.” Which begs the question, why then do some ask for these things to be done?
What is the purpose of doing anything that doesn’t save as part of the process to be saved? I have heard the suggestions. “These are outward signs that show inward belief.” “We want to know who to pray for.” My purpose is not to argue those points. Rather I would like to provoke thought and discussion about this type of invitation.
Does the Bible teach that man must do anything beyond belief to be saved? The reality is that God even gives the grace to be saved. John 1:12 claims that the authority, the right, to be born again is not at all related to man. “But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” It is simply through belief that man is saved. And it is not man’s right to claim even that. Philippians 1:29, “For it has been granted (engraced) to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake.” Belief is a gift. No one will be let into heaven on the basis of a raised hand, walked aisle, or burned stick. Only through belief in Christ. Specifically, that belief is that He became a substitute for you- that your sins, which would carry you into hell, were placed on Him and caused His death, so that you, through faith alone, may enter heaven. None of that requires any physical action.
Here’s the big deal. Is it possible that the past years, centuries, of asking for some sign of belief have produced confusion in the church? And resulted in a shallow lifestyle? It seems to me that two results have marked this confusion.
The first is false security. As much as one may try to explain otherwise pride is so powerful a sin that many who raise their hands do indeed believe that they had something to do with their salvation. Even the repetition of a prayer can produce a self-confident stature. That leads to the notion that since I raised my hand, etc. I am good with God. I can live any way I want. And when they do live any way they want we begin defending them. “Well, ‘Joe’ is a believer. He went forward two years ago and prayed the prayer. It’s too bad he isn’t living for Jesus.” Maybe that’s because Jesus isn’t living in him! But he thinks so; because he raised his hand and boy it felt good to get right with God.
The second potential result of ‘physical action invitations’ is false purity. It works this way. “Maybe it didn’t save me but I did do something when I got saved so I must do something(s) now to prove I am saved.” That attitude leads to legalism. And the ‘to do’ list is endless. But then we set the standard too low. God wants hearts that produce Christ like patterns. Would God rather that I not go to movies or that I live in purity that reflects His? But if I don’t go to movies but think impurely I am okay in many places because it is what I do that matters.
So do we give invitations? Absolutely. Jesus did. Paul did. (Even John Calvin did.) We all need to be challenged on issues of the heart. But we must be careful not to ask those to whom we are speaking to do anything that would foster false security or false purity. Jesus didn’t ask for raised hands. Paul didn’t ask anyone to repeat the sinner’s prayer.
Jesus did say that his sheep hear His voice and know Him and follow Him. And He gives them eternal life. Will they hear Him without an altar call? Will He know them without a raised hand? Will He give them eternal life based on belief or must His sheep prove they are sincere by doing something?
As always your comments are appreciated. Click on comment and follow the directions.
Friday, March 5, 2010
What Does God Require for Forgiveness?
The Bible has a consistent message about forgiveness. Psalm 130:4 says that with God is forgiveness. It is part of His nature. The Gospel of Luke ends with this promise; “repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his (Jesus) name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.” Act 5:31 “God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.” Act 10:43 “To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name." Act 13:38 “Let it be known to you therefore, brothers, that through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you.”
The result of belief in Jesus is forgiveness of sins. That is transparently clear. Is there some condition attached to that forgiveness? Are some sins only forgiven after specific repentance? Will I go through life having never been forgiven for sins I have never confessed? Apparently some Bible teachers and writers think so. Here’s why I say that.
Ephesians 4:32 states this, “Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you. “ The example of how we are to forgive is the one set by Christ. Forgive one another, a vitally important point here, as Christ forgave us. When we forgive as Christ forgave we have it right. If Christ attached conditions to his forgiveness of me than so must I in regard to my fellow believers. And if I attach conditions to my forgiveness of fellow believers than I must be able to demonstrate that God’s forgiveness of me is conditional. Unless I do not want to forgive as Christ forgave.
How then are we to understand these two verses? First from the first chapter of Ephesians, “In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace.” Notice the definite condition. We have forgiveness. Right now, present tense. In the next verse it says that Christ lavished these things upon us. He smothered us with redemption and forgiveness. He heaped them on us. Colossians 1 has a similar proof. “He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.” How did Christ forgive us? With strings attached? Or do we right now live in the continuous blessing of forgiveness? Yes, there is one condition- belief. “Everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.” But that closes the contract, ends the pursuit. We can never be more or less forgiven by God than we were the moment He brought us to faith. His manner of forgiveness is to be our example. And He does not wait for our repentance or confession. He has already forgiven us of all our sins.
Yet there are some who teach that our forgiveness of another believer is based on his repentance. If he does not repent, then we must not forgive. That idea is promoted chiefly from a story Jesus told His disciples in Luke 17. “Pay attention to yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him, and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, saying, 'I repent,' you must forgive him."
Two points stand out in this illustration. First of all it has a specific application. If your brother sins and you rebuke him and he repents, then you must forgive. That is the specific order here-sin, rebuke, repent, forgive. But the general principle is still Ephesians 4:32- forgive one another as you have been forgiven.
The main point of Jesus lesson is the second point of importance. Jesus is not offering a lesson on forgiveness here. He is commanding care in the personal life of the disciples. The emphasis is not on forgiveness but on confrontation. He is challenging His men to keep their eyes on each other, to watch out for themselves. If your brother sins- rebuke him. And every time he sins, rebuke him. The major concern is not about forgiveness but about personal failures that may need forgiveness. The key to that interpretation is in verse 1. “And he said to his disciples, "Temptations to sin are sure to come, but woe to the one through whom they come!” Verse 2 highlights the dangers of offending a little one. With that in mind, Jesus warns to watch out for each other so that if sin does occur you can challenge one another and make short account of it. Is rebuke, repent, forgive the pattern for all interpersonal forgiveness? Or rather a specific application of the general principle established by Ephesians 4:32?
One more thing. What happens when a rebuked brother does not repent? Is he not to be forgiven? Jesus does not say that. There is no ‘if he does not repent do not forgive.’ It is not wrong to forgive without repentance. This lends additional support to the view that Jesus main point was to encourage accountability among His followers.
When we forgive others as Christ forgave us will we choose the overarching, comprehensive forgiveness He bestows or take a narrow approach that denies forgiveness unless there is repentance? And by the way, 1 John 1:9 assures us that forgiveness of all our sins has already taken place before confession. Here is what it says, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to have already forgiven our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”
We forgive one another as Christ forgave us when we forgive one another from the heart with no conditions, no strings attached.
The result of belief in Jesus is forgiveness of sins. That is transparently clear. Is there some condition attached to that forgiveness? Are some sins only forgiven after specific repentance? Will I go through life having never been forgiven for sins I have never confessed? Apparently some Bible teachers and writers think so. Here’s why I say that.
Ephesians 4:32 states this, “Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you. “ The example of how we are to forgive is the one set by Christ. Forgive one another, a vitally important point here, as Christ forgave us. When we forgive as Christ forgave we have it right. If Christ attached conditions to his forgiveness of me than so must I in regard to my fellow believers. And if I attach conditions to my forgiveness of fellow believers than I must be able to demonstrate that God’s forgiveness of me is conditional. Unless I do not want to forgive as Christ forgave.
How then are we to understand these two verses? First from the first chapter of Ephesians, “In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace.” Notice the definite condition. We have forgiveness. Right now, present tense. In the next verse it says that Christ lavished these things upon us. He smothered us with redemption and forgiveness. He heaped them on us. Colossians 1 has a similar proof. “He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.” How did Christ forgive us? With strings attached? Or do we right now live in the continuous blessing of forgiveness? Yes, there is one condition- belief. “Everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.” But that closes the contract, ends the pursuit. We can never be more or less forgiven by God than we were the moment He brought us to faith. His manner of forgiveness is to be our example. And He does not wait for our repentance or confession. He has already forgiven us of all our sins.
Yet there are some who teach that our forgiveness of another believer is based on his repentance. If he does not repent, then we must not forgive. That idea is promoted chiefly from a story Jesus told His disciples in Luke 17. “Pay attention to yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him, and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, saying, 'I repent,' you must forgive him."
Two points stand out in this illustration. First of all it has a specific application. If your brother sins and you rebuke him and he repents, then you must forgive. That is the specific order here-sin, rebuke, repent, forgive. But the general principle is still Ephesians 4:32- forgive one another as you have been forgiven.
The main point of Jesus lesson is the second point of importance. Jesus is not offering a lesson on forgiveness here. He is commanding care in the personal life of the disciples. The emphasis is not on forgiveness but on confrontation. He is challenging His men to keep their eyes on each other, to watch out for themselves. If your brother sins- rebuke him. And every time he sins, rebuke him. The major concern is not about forgiveness but about personal failures that may need forgiveness. The key to that interpretation is in verse 1. “And he said to his disciples, "Temptations to sin are sure to come, but woe to the one through whom they come!” Verse 2 highlights the dangers of offending a little one. With that in mind, Jesus warns to watch out for each other so that if sin does occur you can challenge one another and make short account of it. Is rebuke, repent, forgive the pattern for all interpersonal forgiveness? Or rather a specific application of the general principle established by Ephesians 4:32?
One more thing. What happens when a rebuked brother does not repent? Is he not to be forgiven? Jesus does not say that. There is no ‘if he does not repent do not forgive.’ It is not wrong to forgive without repentance. This lends additional support to the view that Jesus main point was to encourage accountability among His followers.
When we forgive others as Christ forgave us will we choose the overarching, comprehensive forgiveness He bestows or take a narrow approach that denies forgiveness unless there is repentance? And by the way, 1 John 1:9 assures us that forgiveness of all our sins has already taken place before confession. Here is what it says, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to have already forgiven our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”
We forgive one another as Christ forgave us when we forgive one another from the heart with no conditions, no strings attached.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Tiger Woods Apologized
Yesterday Tiger Woods apologized for his adultery. He didn't actually call it that. "I was unfaithful. I had affairs. I cheated." He seemed sincere. Since he has never been overly emotional it is hard to gauge his depth of feeling. But I was struck by his plans for correction. He admitted during the monologue that he had been selfish. "It's now up to me to make amends, and that starts by never repeating the mistakes I've made," Woods said. "It's up to me to start living a life of integrity." Good plans. Integrity-great idea! And how will he achieve this? Part of his rehab will include a return to his Buddhist faith. His mother raised him as a Buddhist, and he practiced that faith "until I drifted away from it in recent years." Religion can be a crutch during difficult times. But what does Tiger gain from Buddhism? "Buddhism teaches that a craving for things outside ourselves causes an unhappy and pointless search for security." Think about this. Tiger admitted he was selfish and so that he will never act that way again he will do what? Look inside himself! Perhaps he would repeat that his failures were due to not practising Buddhism. But could it be that the system itself is part of the problem? Man is born selfish and must seek a solution for that problem outside himself. Without that, any amount of self-discipline, self-correction, self-denial will eventually become self-absorption. And the unhappy and pointless search for security still persists. It is only by going outside of ourselves to ask forgiveness of God through Jesus Christ that peace comes. There have been few athletes that have dominated and popularized a sport as has Tiger Woods. But far more important than his return to golf is his repentance. I pray that he will reach outside himself and claim the gift of God which is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
As always your comments are welcomed.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Was Jesus Tempted to Do Cocaine?
I heard a preacher on the radio Friday claim that Jesus was tempted sexually. The basis for that claim is Hebrews 4:15 “For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.” The speaker was encouraging young people toward purity. "You can make it. If Jesus was tempted in every way He must have been tempted sexually. So Jesus knows what you are going through."
But does this verse really mean that Jesus encountered every temptation that we face? Is being tempted in all points the same as being tempted with every specific enticement? If the answer is yes, would we not have to agree that Jesus was tempted to drink too much, eat too much? Smoke marijuana? Do cocaine? I will not diminish the reality of Jesus’ temptations. He experienced them just as aggressively as Satan introduces them into our lives. But to say that Jesus was tempted sexually goes far beyond the intent of Hebrews 4:15.
The verse says that Jesus was tempted in the same way that we are. Not that He faced every temptation that we face. In every point that He was tempted He was tempted just like we are. The temptations were real. The discipline to reject them was applied humanly with difficulty
The surrounding passage, verses 14-16, is meant to encourage believers that Jesus is a greater High Priest than any other. He is a High Priest who went far beyond the earthly curtain of the Holy of Holies. He’s in heaven. While He was on earth He was tempted in the same way as we are. And now since He is heaven we can come boldly to Him in prayer about our deepest concerns and scariest temptations. He knows what it is like to be tested. But He need not have been tempted in every single way in which we are tempted to understand our ordeal.
Must he have been tempted to do cocaine to know the lure of narcotics? Must he have been tempted sexually to understand the enticement of that pleasure? Had He only been tempted in three ways, as Matthew 4: 1-11 reports, wouldn't He still be an able and sympathetic comforter?
But does this verse really mean that Jesus encountered every temptation that we face? Is being tempted in all points the same as being tempted with every specific enticement? If the answer is yes, would we not have to agree that Jesus was tempted to drink too much, eat too much? Smoke marijuana? Do cocaine? I will not diminish the reality of Jesus’ temptations. He experienced them just as aggressively as Satan introduces them into our lives. But to say that Jesus was tempted sexually goes far beyond the intent of Hebrews 4:15.
The verse says that Jesus was tempted in the same way that we are. Not that He faced every temptation that we face. In every point that He was tempted He was tempted just like we are. The temptations were real. The discipline to reject them was applied humanly with difficulty
The surrounding passage, verses 14-16, is meant to encourage believers that Jesus is a greater High Priest than any other. He is a High Priest who went far beyond the earthly curtain of the Holy of Holies. He’s in heaven. While He was on earth He was tempted in the same way as we are. And now since He is heaven we can come boldly to Him in prayer about our deepest concerns and scariest temptations. He knows what it is like to be tested. But He need not have been tempted in every single way in which we are tempted to understand our ordeal.
Must he have been tempted to do cocaine to know the lure of narcotics? Must he have been tempted sexually to understand the enticement of that pleasure? Had He only been tempted in three ways, as Matthew 4: 1-11 reports, wouldn't He still be an able and sympathetic comforter?
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Believer, Disciple, or Both
I follow a dispensational hermeneutic of Scripture. By that I mean- Israel is not the church and will specifically receive all the promises God has intended for her. I also believe that because all biblical prophecies that have been fulfilled have been fulfilled exactly as predicted, those left to be fulfilled will also be fulfilled literally. (I know, that’s a lot of fulfilled for one sentence.) This distinction between Israel and the church and the prophecies related to each may qualify me as a dispensationalist. I reject that title. Let me try and explain why.
I have recently been reminded of what it means to be a disciple. Now that seems like a simple enough thing to determine. Books are written about it; sermons preached; discussions formed. “A disciple is a learner.” “A disciple is someone who follows another person’s teachings.” You can find similar definitions easily enough. But a serious discussion occurs in this area. Some teachers adopt this standard- not every Christian is a disciple. Followed by- discipleship is a deeper level of Christianity. This creates a debate as to the identity of a disciple. Where do those ideas come from? The Bible?
Let’s see. Here are a few examples of Jesus’ ideas about a disciple. Mat 10:42 “And whoever gives one of these little ones even a cup of cold water because he is a disciple, truly, I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward." What if just an ordinary Christian gave the little one a drink? No reward? Why bother?
Luke 14:25 describes the setting for three disciple references. Jesus was talking to large crowds of unbelievers. Verse 26 "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.” But apparently for some, you can be a Christian and still love your life. Sounds like a good deal. And did He seriously believe that anyone would take Him up on this?
Verse 27 “Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple. “ A regular Christian, one would assume, does not have to carry a cross. That’s a relief.
Verse 33 “So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple. “ Fortunately, you can maintain first level status, just keep being a Christian, and retain all you have. Discipleship is such a bother.
And then there is the Great Commission. Matthew 28:18-20- And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."
Was Jesus asking His disciples to evangelize or make disciples? If being a disciple is different from being a Christian apparently Peter, John, James, et.al were not called specifically to evangelize. Presumably that was up to someone else. They would come in later with the ladder for the next step up- Disciple!
Do these arguments sound a little absurd? I intend them to be. But how about this one on the other side? After stating the point that salvation and becoming a disciple are not the same this writer tries to prove it with this syllogism.
Major Premise: All saved people are disciples.
Minor Premise: Discipleship is costly.
Conclusion: Salvation is costly.
He then proceeds to describe the weakness of the logic. Including his belief that salvation is not costly. (http://www.faithalone.org/news/y1990/90march1.html)The problem here is that there is no verse, no statement, not even a hint anywhere in Scripture that salvation and discipleship is not the same thing. So why must they be separated? What is the basis for that? Logic without Scripture is unreasonable. If I am given the freedom to frame the question or design the debate I will be right every time. Our plea must always be, what does the Bible say? Salvation is costly. The Bible says it was paid for by the precious blood of Christ. That did not come cheap. Certainly we are saved by grace through faith but because there is no cost to us does not mean there is no cost.
This is not the issue anyway. The issue is what Jesus expected from His followers. Was He interested in building a huge following? Was He trying to make it as easy as possible to be a‘learner?’ (disciple) Not from what we just read in Luke. But He did expect complete and full obedience from those who claimed they followed. “If you love me you will keep my commandments.” Sounds like a hard line is drawn. And let’s think about that Great Commission again.
What was to be the basis for discipleship? Teaching about ‘all that I have commanded you.” So what might we expect from the first group of disciples? And every bunch thereafter? To be true to the Master they will teach others to observe all that Jesus taught. That includes these hard sayings about following. And every other message in the Gospels. Is Jesus really satisfied that those who do not leave everything, deny themselves, and take up their cross love Him? Are His friends? (John 15:14) Can I be a true believer and ignore the Beatitudes? It is clear. In order to fulfill the command of Jesus in Matthew 28:18-20 we must call for followers of Jesus with the same zeal as did He. We will not be disciples unless we do.
So what does all this have to do with dispensationalism? It is my observation that many dispensationalists place more importance on the theological model than the actual message of Scripture. Every verse is read through the dispensational grid. The system determines the interpretation. So Jesus was in a transitional history between Law and Grace. His words are not as important theologically as Peter’s and Paul’s. (Maybe the red text should be removed from the Gospels and used to color Paul’s epistles.) A dispensationalist will say Christ’s Gospel was different. (Of course no Scriptural reference is provided as proof) It is as though the Speaker of the message did not know what He was about to say. So we should not preach what He preached. That kind of thinking is why I may affirm dispensational hermeneutics but I will not accept dispensationalism.
The fact is that we must preach Jesus’ gospel. How will we become disciples at all if we do not? It is what we are commissioned to do.
I have recently been reminded of what it means to be a disciple. Now that seems like a simple enough thing to determine. Books are written about it; sermons preached; discussions formed. “A disciple is a learner.” “A disciple is someone who follows another person’s teachings.” You can find similar definitions easily enough. But a serious discussion occurs in this area. Some teachers adopt this standard- not every Christian is a disciple. Followed by- discipleship is a deeper level of Christianity. This creates a debate as to the identity of a disciple. Where do those ideas come from? The Bible?
Let’s see. Here are a few examples of Jesus’ ideas about a disciple. Mat 10:42 “And whoever gives one of these little ones even a cup of cold water because he is a disciple, truly, I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward." What if just an ordinary Christian gave the little one a drink? No reward? Why bother?
Luke 14:25 describes the setting for three disciple references. Jesus was talking to large crowds of unbelievers. Verse 26 "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.” But apparently for some, you can be a Christian and still love your life. Sounds like a good deal. And did He seriously believe that anyone would take Him up on this?
Verse 27 “Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple. “ A regular Christian, one would assume, does not have to carry a cross. That’s a relief.
Verse 33 “So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple. “ Fortunately, you can maintain first level status, just keep being a Christian, and retain all you have. Discipleship is such a bother.
And then there is the Great Commission. Matthew 28:18-20- And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."
Was Jesus asking His disciples to evangelize or make disciples? If being a disciple is different from being a Christian apparently Peter, John, James, et.al were not called specifically to evangelize. Presumably that was up to someone else. They would come in later with the ladder for the next step up- Disciple!
Do these arguments sound a little absurd? I intend them to be. But how about this one on the other side? After stating the point that salvation and becoming a disciple are not the same this writer tries to prove it with this syllogism.
Major Premise: All saved people are disciples.
Minor Premise: Discipleship is costly.
Conclusion: Salvation is costly.
He then proceeds to describe the weakness of the logic. Including his belief that salvation is not costly. (http://www.faithalone.org/news/y1990/90march1.html)The problem here is that there is no verse, no statement, not even a hint anywhere in Scripture that salvation and discipleship is not the same thing. So why must they be separated? What is the basis for that? Logic without Scripture is unreasonable. If I am given the freedom to frame the question or design the debate I will be right every time. Our plea must always be, what does the Bible say? Salvation is costly. The Bible says it was paid for by the precious blood of Christ. That did not come cheap. Certainly we are saved by grace through faith but because there is no cost to us does not mean there is no cost.
This is not the issue anyway. The issue is what Jesus expected from His followers. Was He interested in building a huge following? Was He trying to make it as easy as possible to be a‘learner?’ (disciple) Not from what we just read in Luke. But He did expect complete and full obedience from those who claimed they followed. “If you love me you will keep my commandments.” Sounds like a hard line is drawn. And let’s think about that Great Commission again.
What was to be the basis for discipleship? Teaching about ‘all that I have commanded you.” So what might we expect from the first group of disciples? And every bunch thereafter? To be true to the Master they will teach others to observe all that Jesus taught. That includes these hard sayings about following. And every other message in the Gospels. Is Jesus really satisfied that those who do not leave everything, deny themselves, and take up their cross love Him? Are His friends? (John 15:14) Can I be a true believer and ignore the Beatitudes? It is clear. In order to fulfill the command of Jesus in Matthew 28:18-20 we must call for followers of Jesus with the same zeal as did He. We will not be disciples unless we do.
So what does all this have to do with dispensationalism? It is my observation that many dispensationalists place more importance on the theological model than the actual message of Scripture. Every verse is read through the dispensational grid. The system determines the interpretation. So Jesus was in a transitional history between Law and Grace. His words are not as important theologically as Peter’s and Paul’s. (Maybe the red text should be removed from the Gospels and used to color Paul’s epistles.) A dispensationalist will say Christ’s Gospel was different. (Of course no Scriptural reference is provided as proof) It is as though the Speaker of the message did not know what He was about to say. So we should not preach what He preached. That kind of thinking is why I may affirm dispensational hermeneutics but I will not accept dispensationalism.
The fact is that we must preach Jesus’ gospel. How will we become disciples at all if we do not? It is what we are commissioned to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)