Monday, October 27, 2008

Beyond moderation

How do you have a conversation, a real honest and open conversation with someone who disagrees with you at your blog? I have found that it can be a great challenge. The issue I see coming up at the blogs I frequent of brethren who I esteem highly and who I openly associate with is trying to find the line between conversational defense of a position and advertising promotion of that position.

I guess I'm evaluating this more and more. I want people who disagree with me to WANT to post here. But I also don't want this blog to be a place where error can freely be found. I doubt I will ever allow guests to link to content that could lead some astray. But, but, but.... I want people to be able to argue their point. Where is the line?

49 comments:

Jonathan Perreault said...

Kev,

My position is that if someone disagrees with me, they can feel free to discuss the textual arguments of the debate on my blog. Notice three important points here:

1) I give people the liberty to disagree with me on my blog.

2) There must be two way interaction and discussion. A willingness to dialog back and forth.

3) The focus of the discussion concerns the textual arguments and exegesis of the debate - not proof-texting, eisogesis, or ad hominem arguments.

If people don't want to follow those guidelines on my blog, then they don't have an argument worth considering anyway.

JP

Kevl said...

That sounds very reasonable JP.

I have a post about moderation.. but I wonder if I should make a more detailed post.

I notice that participation is down considerably since I asked Bridget to leave. As painful as that was it had to be done though.

Kev

Jonathan Perreault said...

Kev,

Here's the way I look at it. I'm going to be faithful in preaching the Word on my blog regardless of participation. People are reading and will continue to read in the months and years to come. God's Word will not return empty (Isa. 55:11). And that's a promise of God. And so I would say preach the Word, and leave the results to God (2 Tim. 4:1-2)!

JP

Sanctification said...

Hi Kev,

Would you mind if I asked a question?

JP said,
If people don't want to follow those guidelines on my blog, then they don't have an argument worth considering anyway.

Is this something similar to your perspective too? Whenever Dr. Radmacher hears my insight into the theological controversy or even the scriptures, he says he is... impressed with my understanding?? He doesn't always give me details, and I keep thinking that he is only or more-so just being kind. Which gives me passion to serve him faithfully, if I might at all. I don't mention this to create any legitimacy for my self; in fact when I went to the conference I realized that many people knew who I was, meaning that I actually make an influence, and that made my stomach churn. Really what I want to know, is this: do you know if the typical position of free grace is that without hermeneutics, scriptural arguments don't weigh in? Dr. Radmacher told me that before anything else I needed to take this class, because otherwise people don't know whether or not I have anything good. Is this what JP is saying, above? Is this the way it is from your perspective Kev?

I get the feeling it is very similar in the analogy of the scientific method:

"...that the process be objective to reduce a biased interpretation of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established."

Those who share their interpretation of scripture need to prove to everyone else that the results are reproducible. I... can't say I can provide that to others, being untrained. On the other hand, just because I am not trained doesn't mean I haven't found as many right answers per captia, per effort as anyone else.... Or is that flawed in assumption?

The point is, I want to participate by means of what I know. Is what I know sufficient to participate, even before hermeneutics?

Thanks for letting me investigate here at your blog, :D
Michele

Jonathan Perreault said...

Hi Kev and Michele,

Thanks for your invite Michele. I just read your comment above and found it "impressive", as Dr. Radmacher would say. You are a thinker, and I can appreciate that.

I would agree with Dr. Radmacher that a class in Biblical Hermaneutics (or Bible Interpretation) would be very beneficial. Every Bible college that I've attended has offered this important class.

You asked:

"Really what I want to know, is this: do you know if the typical position of free grace is that without hermeneutics, scriptural arguments don't weigh in?"

There are certain established rules for proper Bible interpretation. For example, we should not build a doctrine on a parable. We should interpret unclear passages in light of clear passages. We should recognize dispensational distinctions. Lewis Sperry Chafer affirms:

"The science of interpretation - usually designated hermeneutics, which term denotes the art of interpreting literature, especially the Sacred Scriptures - includes the recognition of the principles upon which a true analysis must proceed. This science is to be distinguished from exegesis, which is the application of the laws of interpretation."

And so if someone proposes a theological argument that is not founded on recognized rules of Biblical interpretation, most evangelical Christians will not take such arguments seriously.

You asked:

"The point is, I want to participate by means of what I know. Is what I know sufficient to participate, even before hermeneutics?"

I have a couple thoughts in response. First, I would say that you already employ some principles of Bible interpretation, even if you don't recognize them as such. For example, you recognize dispensational distinctions. You recognize that Israel is distinct from the Church. You recognize that God has a plan for the nation of Israel, and He has another plan for His Church. So you are using Biblical hermaneutics (to some extent at least).

Second, I think it's great that you want to participate by means of what you know. And that's all any of us can do, by God's grace (Jer. 9:23-24).

Third, you are not promoting false doctrine. And although you currently align yourself with Hodges, you are clearly searching out these issues and open to dialog. You are transparent. You are reasonable. You are open. That's the difference I see in you.

JP

Sanctification said...

Hi JP,

Thank you for the very encouraging response. I want to honor Kev and wait for him to share his thoughts before I continue to seek clarification.

Thanks again, Michele

Kevl said...

I'll get back to this later today. Sorry over my head with stuff to deal with.

Kev

Kevl said...

Hi Michele,

All any of us can do is participate via what we already have in our tool-box.

I am currently working on training that TCC is going to provide called "Failsafe For Fallacy" it's basically one stop course on how to learn from the Bible and not get duped by false teachers. Thankfully I stick to concepts for the most part instead of trying to get into many doctrines.

You compared Hermeneutics to the Scientific Method and you said something VERY insightful. Biblical interpretation must be repeatable. There is only ONE Truth. So two people can't come up with opposing views of the same passage and have them both be true. The process by which we get from not understanding to true understanding must be repeatable. Transparent is another good word for this.

This does not in anyway shape or form remove the process of Revelation from the Spirit. He is our great Teacher who leads us in all Truth.

The Spirit leads each believer in his or her own way - ala "raise a child up in the way he should go" this is really just God following His own instructions. This process is NOT going to be repeatable and will only be as transparent as the person being lead is able to express and show. This is revelation though. If it's true revelation the process of explaining the revelation will follow Hermeneutics and be transparent and repeatable.

This is getting a bit complicated... lol

I believe that any doctrine held to (taught or argued for) must be explainable by repeatable and transparent Biblical Interpretation.

However, I do not believe that everything I believe must be derived from Hermeneutics. I agree with the Word of God that what I believe must come from revelation. I may learn through a process of Hermeneutics, which is often how God teaches me, or I may just look at a verse one day and "get it" either way the revelation will always be explainable by interpretation that comes from the Text not inserted into it.

I believe in the Rapture. I believed in it before I could explain any of it. It just made sense to me. It matched God's character. Today I can explain much more of the doctrine, though not enough for me to hold to it in an argument. It's something I believe, and have had explained to me in great detail by teachers who dwarf me (that's actually a crazy understatement) in their Biblical understanding. I can't argue the Rapture but I can believe it.

AND, I can engage with people based on what I currently have in my tool-box on the subject. There is value in that. Just as there is value in you interacting based on what you know.

I almost always point people to this page when they have questions about hermeneutics http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/dispen/literal.htm

Of course the more skilled we are with the text the more we can participate confidently, transparently and in ways that are repeatable. :)

It also helps to say "I don't know" when you don't. :) Because it's OK not to know. It's NOT OK to know that you don't know but pretend like you do.

The Christian who has only momentarily been saved is fully able to participate, have fellowship, and spread the Good News of Jesus Christ. But staying in that state is not what we're here for. We're hear to grow up... and a lot of that comes from dirty knuckles study time. :)

Kev

Sanctification said...

Kev,

Thank you so much for the confirmation you gave! I want to apologize for using the word "cult," in response to some details of your beliefs you shared for my benefit. There are so many aspects of the meaning of that word which are unfitting.

I also want to apologize for the bad timing of my questions. Maybe after a little bit and I see from your posts that you and your family are more well, I'll ask some further questions. From time to time I have posted simple encouragements toward you.

Thanks Kev,
Michele

Kevl said...

Hi Michele, I'm not going to stop my work in the ministry just because the enemy wants me to. So post your thoughts.

However, before we get on with them please tell me what parts of the meaning of the word "Cult" do match what you understand of my beliefs.

Thanks,
Kev

Sanctification said...

Hi Kev,

Well I wanted to ask some more questions that are actually selfish, mostly for my benefit. :D I hope that's okay. Let me explain this though, I mentioned a bit already at JP's blog.

I think, before, you were saying in your thread here:

The Gospel found in 1 Cor 15 is not a summary of the narratives found in the Disciple's accounts of Christ's life - often called the "Gospels" (which truly just confuses things).

The Good News of Jesus Christ is that God Himself died for our sins, was buried and rose again the third day all in accordance with the Scriptures and that He was seen in the flesh by more than 500 people.


This gospel, as you shared? I have never heard it preached before I came to free grace. Even if I had, that's not really expressing what my concern is.

I don't understand how you mentally compartmentalize 1 cor 15 away from the four gospels of the apostles. Even if I had, that's not really expressing the thing that most concerns me, either.

I am not very willing to believe that a man holds the gate to salvation. Over and over again I find that "false" religions or deceived Christian faiths put mere men in charge who say that whatever it is that you have discovered of the Faith, it isn't enough, rather eternal life is found by looking here or there, in this arrangement, this formula, this nuance, this detail, this manifestation or appearance of the grace and truth of God. But what does the Word say?

The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming.... rom 10:8

The OP teach that you must focus on Acts 19 and so forth to notice tongues.

The COC teaches that you must look at Acts 2 and notice baptism.

The LDS teach that you must focus on the additional testament of Christ and by reading this text one may be most close to God.

The JWs teach that through knowing the infallible scriptures' testimony of Jehovah, one can have eternal life.

But my sense of the true way of God says that we should not focus on any one detail or example, nor should we need any man/denomination to define how to be saved, but through the Word of God we may be born again of the imperishable Seed.

I'm not against order, or importance, in the knowledge of God or in the gospel. I just feel the aire of sectarianism when someone says, "look here to this detail of what you thought was Christianity, for eternal life."

I hope this makes sense, I can be more scriptural in the next post after you share your reaction....

Thanks so much for taking this critical thought because I realize it is unpleasant.
- Michele

Kevl said...

Hello Michele,

You said This gospel, as you shared? I have never heard it preached before I came to free grace. Even if I had, that's not really expressing what my concern is.

The Gospel does offer Grace freely. The reason you never heard this as the Gospel before you found Free Grace is because you had never been told the Gospel. Everything else is man's message.

You said I don't understand how you mentally compartmentalize 1 cor 15 away from the four gospels of the apostles. Even if I had, that's not really expressing the thing that most concerns me, either.

Read the "Gospels" again. You'll see that Jesus sent the Disciples out with the Gospel of the Kingdom. "Repent for the Kingdom is at hand!" And later with the Gospel of Grace - after He "began" to teach them that He must suffer and die and be raised again.

The Gospel. The Good News. The Glad Tiddings. Is a specific message. The historical accounts of Jesus ministry and the credible witness to Who He Is is not that message, though that message can be seen in them.

I am not very willing to believe that a man holds the gate to salvation.

We are told to preach The Gospel. And that The Gospel is the power of God to salvation.

God has proclaimed that it is reception of the Gospel that saves. He's also proclaimed that reception can't happen unless the message is proclaimed (by some method) by someone who was sent to do that proclaimation.

We've read the Scriptures together. This is what it says... Salvation doesn't come from General Revelation. It comes from the reception of the Specific Revelation of the Gospel of Grace.

It is our duty to proclaim this Gospel to every created being. For the very reason that it is how God saves people.

People are not saved because they recognize there is a God. Though God will reveal more if they receive that much. They are saved when they receive the specific message about the specific Jesus Christ who carried out the acts that the Gospel proclaims on our behalf.

You said But my sense of the true way of God says that we should not focus on any one detail or example, nor should we need any man/denomination to define how to be saved, but through the Word of God we may be born again of the imperishable Seed

If I were just picking something and making that my focus.. that would be a denomination or a cult.

But I am proclaiming what I have also received. My reception comes directly from an Apostle (Sent One) who was named Paul and he received what he has proclaimed to me directly from Christ Himself.

1Co 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand,
1Co 15:2 by which also you are saved


This isn't man made theology. This is the plainest clearest reading of the Text.

Can you define what "The Gospel" is without submitting that it is exactly what Paul has declared in 1 Cor 15? Can you show me that "The Gospel" as referenced throughout the NT is anything but this? I've been through this with several of the more vocal Crossless gospel advocates so I know the answer. I would save you the effort by telling you clearly the answer is no.

Apostles are cool guys that do signs and wonders. They are men sent directly to us with command from the very mouth of Christ. They have His authority. Not only is 1 Cor 15 God breathed Scripture but it is intentionally sent to us by an Apostle. All of Church doctrine is dependent on these few verses. It is the very standard that Paul holds every teaching up to time and again.

I'm out of time here to soften this. Sorry.

Kev

Sanctification said...

Hi Kev,

It's Halloween night and I'm glad to rather be talking about the gospel! Don't worry about being soft, but I would be sad if my comments make you think I mean harm.

You said:
The reason you never heard this as the Gospel before you found Free Grace is because you had never been told the Gospel.

I had been told that He died for our sins, was buried and resurrected, as the gospel. I had never heard anyone insist or even include on the list of his appearances as being part of the gospel, till I took free grace classes (only some of the teachers taught this, others taught something different).

You said:
Read the "Gospels" again. You'll see that Jesus sent the Disciples out with the Gospel of the Kingdom. "Repent for the Kingdom is at hand!" The Gospel. The Good News. The Glad Tidings. Is a specific message. The historical accounts of Jesus ministry and the credible witness to Who He Is is not that message, though that message can be seen in them.

Okay; here's what I gather.... The apostles sit down and write the entire narrative of the Son of God. In it, they cannot deny that Jesus proclaimed the good news of the Kingdom. And you say that that gospel cannot save, but, the good news of the whole story including also Jesus dying for sins as each of the four gospel writers have narrated in detail, does save. "These things are written (and he did so many things it cannot be contained) that you may believe" and have eternal life.

You asked,
Can you define what "The Gospel" is without submitting that it is exactly what Paul has declared in 1 Cor 15?

No, like you said, I cannot. I cor 15 seems to be the most succinct place in scripture for the detail-rich version of what was important about Jesus. Both the doctrine of the gospel of salvation in the NT is longer (Romans or Hebrews) and too the examples of the gospel message is longer (Acts) (with one exception of course, 16:31). It's a handy medial point, which is why most people use it I bet.

But this actually serves my point. I can use 1 cor 15 as the gospel without being bound to it exclusively.

I don't need to go elsewhere to use anything/everything else to prove I don't need 1 cor 15, and yet with a short leash of freedom I might go to various different places in scripture to say the same content as 1 cor 15.

1 cor 15 is a guiding light, for me, for "first things."

You said:
All of Church doctrine is dependent on these few verses.

Do you mean to say that all doctrine depends on the verses or the facts in the verses? This is kind of what I'm feeling uncomfortable about. You see the difference? Do you see why it's important? Do you really think that Paul is referencing verses or referencing facts, for the establishment of subsequent doctrines?

You said,
We are told to preach The Gospel. And that The Gospel is the power of God to salvation.

Yes, you answered my question. This is acceptable, biblical. But from this point it ought to be hands-off. It becomes more hands-on, when people correct anything less or more than the perfect rendition of 1 Cor 15. By correcting it, they take the power to judge the message-bearer as possibly not being moved by God or impotent in evangelism to the lost. They also exercise the power to judge the one who receives an imperfect gospel rendition, as unsaved by rule, no matter what they think they have believed and no matter how they have a testimony of the Spirit of Christ living in them. They also shift the focus of the power to save from being fully by God, to being partially and more so about the effort of men. Men are getting caught up in thinking they have to preach it right, preach it right, in order to be effective. That's a little off-focus to me.

The problem with seeking to remove all error from any presentation of the gospel is that it will never happen, no matter how much precision we devote ourselves to. Our words? They will never be like God's, and they can never be inspired Greek even if we preach pure passages. Yet God supplies the message as we open our mouth, and we do not worry for He promised us that the message is His, speaking Spiritually, carrying and transmitting the Spirit to those who listen. In fact who can say where and when, in the presentation of 1 cor 15, the man truly has the instant moment of inward transformation into eternity? The scriptures say that "before Peter had finished speaking" the gospel message, the Spirit had fallen. It says in another that as he began to speak, the Spirit was received. Why not also, for us?

And we get therefore toward the pre-eminence of faith, in discussion. "Having believed, you were marked in Him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit." Faith causes salvation. How do you know, that a man cannot have faith till the message has ended?

This makes "knowing" when and how salvation happens, teaching it to others, delineating the tiny details in the gospel, and so on, messy. I think it's supposed to be messy. Just look at free grace, at evangelical Christianity, or at Christianity in general. It's just not perfect, neat, arranged according to harmonious agreement and order like we want it to be, yet still God is sufficient to work in individuals and keep on saving people to the truth from the day of the apostles till right now.

Just some of my wonderings....

Thanks Kev, and I hope things are slowly improving, Michele

Kevl said...

Michele,

Yes Paul was referencing facts not verses....

You said Okay; here's what I gather.... The apostles sit down and write the entire narrative of the Son of God. In it, they cannot deny that Jesus proclaimed the good news of the Kingdom. And you say that that gospel cannot save, but, the good news of the whole story including also Jesus dying for sins as each of the four gospel writers have narrated in detail, does save. "These things are written (and he did so many things it cannot be contained) that you may believe" and have eternal life.

I would have liked to cut that down to make it easier to read but it all had to be quoted.

I'm an Avionics Tech by trade. I read many technical manuals that give me technical specifications to set delicate electronics to. Let's say I'm adjusting something to a particular voltage. The specification says adjust it to 12.5 VDC. That's the fact of first importance. The way that fact interacts with the rest of the circuit may be contained in a more complete manual. This manual might show all kinds of things about the circuit but what I need to get the job done is that 12.5 VDC specification.

In order to understand that specification I likely need the rest of the manual.

Therefore the rest of the manual would be written "so that I would believe the specification, and by believing I would apply it" Get my point? The rest of the manual is not the specification, it is what explains the specification. Without exception explanation makes a specification easier to apply.

The Gospel is no different. You can find the elements of the Gospel in many places in the Scriptures. But the message it's self is DEFINED (declared) in 1 Cor 15. This is where we see the min and the max laid down in no uncertain terms. 1 Cor 15:11

Can I preach for an hour on the Gospel - you betchya! (insert Palin wink here) and people may very well be saved before I'm done talking about all the supporting details and implications. But I can also preach the Gospel in under a minute.

The Scriptures say that we are saved by reception of this specific message.

If a person were to read the book of John and believe from it all the elements of the Gospel then they surely would be saved. But if they were to read the book of John and not believe all the elements of the Gospel but yet believe some of the book of John they would not be saved.

You said Men are getting caught up in thinking they have to preach it right, preach it right, in order to be effective. That's a little off-focus to me.

Yes I get caught up in preaching the Gospel correctly. The only time in Scripture where Paul names names or questions someone's Salvation AT ALL is when it deals with getting the Gospel wrong.

The Gospel CAN be preached perfectly. The idea that because men are to lazy and prideful to get it right means that we shouldn't try is akin to the argument that the world teaches about handing condoms out at school.

We can preach it correctly. It's one of only two tasks the Lord gave us to do. 1 remember His death until He returns by breaking bread at the Table. 2 preach the Gospel to every created being.

Can we break bread properly? Should we be concerned if we do that properly? Of course we should. The motivation to change the Gospel doesn't come from impossibility.

Kev

Sanctification said...

Hi Kev,

I just hope you will forgive me for taking so long. I'm just trying to obey the LORD in my life and I want to get back with my response, I am confident that will be tomorrow....

Thank-you, I appreciate your conversation, Michele

Sanctification said...

Hi Kev,

You said (which is helping me to understand what it is you believe, I think I am getting there):
If a person were to read the book of John and believe from it all the elements of the Gospel then they surely would be saved. But if they were to read the book of John and not believe all the elements of the Gospel but yet believe some of the book of John they would not be saved.

If a person were to read the book of John and believe from it all the elements of the Gospel (1 cor 15), then they would be saved. You say, "surely" they would be saved. I want to see if I am hearing you right.

Do you think they have to confess their belief in these things (1 cor 15) in order to be saved? If not confess, then how clear must it be in their mind that they know and trust in each facet of 1 cor 15?

How does someone differentiate that fine line between knowledge and reliance?

Could we just say that they hear the truths of 1 cor 15 in the gospel of John and that, along with everything else in the narrative, they find that it is generally believable?

Are you saying in your parable of voltage, some truths in the gospel texts are saving, and some truths are not saving? And the truths that are saving are the ones listed in 1 cor 15?

You were saying before that a lost person needed to have sent to them an evangelist who would share 1 cor 15 so that they might be saved. And you probably want for things to happen that way so that the person could have assurance that they had selected the right things to know they were saved. As in it is a matter of assurance, at least socially, or something like that?

That would make sense.

I'm just thinking, though, that whenever it was that salvation did take place, whether or not they understood that they had met the requirement of "knowledge to trust in for salvation", they experienced it. They experienced the Holy Spirit, the indwelling of God, and they may have a clear testimony of knowing that Jesus is the only way to the Father. Their attention isn't so much the truths that they received but now the knowledge that comes from experience that they had been saved.

And this all could happen without them ever having read or having had preached to them, 1 cor 15?

I just want to know what it is that you are thinking. ... I myself am not sure on much of this, anyway!

:D Michele

Sanctification said...

Kev,

You said:
The only time in Scripture where Paul names names or questions someone's Salvation AT ALL is when it deals with getting the Gospel wrong.

Where?

You said:
The Gospel CAN be preached perfectly. The idea that because men are to lazy and prideful to get it right means that we shouldn't try is akin to...

I give the appearance maybe, that I don't agree, but of course I do. I'm not sure where, in the multiplications of error of the presentation of the gospel, that salvation becomes impossible for the lost who hear it. But I can say this: it is a grievous thing to play with the formula, this is something all free grace most thankfully agree about. We live in a dark world where the gospel has been contorted or lost altogether.

We know the kinds of errors that make the gospel false, and faith in vain - a contradictory to the Word kind of gospel ("there is no resurrection").

And the kinds of errors that cause damnation, adding works-righteousness to grace.

So what is the fate of those listeners of a gospel who have it presented to them not quite perfectly? For instance: maybe they don't mention that Christ was dead for three days? What happens then? More importantly than trying to ask a question which is somewhat difficult, I'd rather know this answer: How will you judge them?

The other day I was driving along and a bumper sticker upon the car in front of me, said, "the Sabbath of the LORD Yahweh, was on Saturday." See, now I don't know too much about this denomination. But I imagine it is like many of them who have split by the means of theology.... Anyone can be right compared to others, but will you leave the rest because you aren't being received like you think you should be?

This is how I see every well-intentioned theological split happening: they have the truth, found in scripture. Once the split gains momentum, so does a lot of suspicion and alienation between old and new which causes a whole lot of "reading into" texts on how we consider those who disagree with revelation. And, legalism for some groups of the "leaver" category, creeps in, too. Is this not the pattern that you've seen, in the evolution of sects?

If you aren't quite sure what I'm attempting to illustrate and ask about, let me know and I will work on my communication....

Thanks so much Kev.
-Michele

Kevl said...

Michelle, I'm not ignoring you I just have not been able to read your comments yet.

I hope to respond later today.

Kev

Kevl said...

Hi Michele, you've got two long posts made. I'm going to respond as I read because I just don't have enough brain power to put it all together after I read it all. So I'm going to skip responding to everything and just try to hit the points that sum everything up.

You asked Could we just say that they hear the truths of 1 cor 15 in the gospel of John and that, along with everything else in the narrative, they find that it is generally believable?

Paul says you have to "receive" the Gospel. Not just find it generally believable. This is a strong reception - to take to one's self. It becomes your dependence.

It's not just believable, it's the truth and it's applies to you personally.

Michele you are kept alive because you breath air. Understanding how that all works is a good way of making sure you know the biology and chemistry behind it... but you're kept alive by actually breathing.

The saving message is the Gospel. There is an endless amount of information available to help you understand it more...

And this all could happen without them ever having read or having had preached to them, 1 cor 15?

People don't need 1 Cor 15 read to them. They need to hear and receive the message of 1 Cor 15 which includes the facts it states.

Paul's concern for their salavation is found here.

Gal 4:8 But then, indeed, when you did not know God, you served those which by nature are not gods.
Gal 4:9 But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage?
Gal 4:10 You observe days and months and seasons and years.
Gal 4:11 I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain.

You asked So what is the fate of those listeners of a gospel who have it presented to them not quite perfectly? For instance: maybe they don't mention that Christ was dead for three days? What happens then?

If they receive anything of what they've been given then they will be given more. God will provide. God will translate someone with the full message to them if need be. They will be given more revelation until they have either rejected the message or received it.

You asked More importantly than trying to ask a question which is somewhat difficult, I'd rather know this answer: How will you judge them?

I guess you're asking how would I judge their salvation. If they have not received the Gospel in it's fullness they are not yet saved.

But I imagine it is like many of them who have split by the means of theology.... Anyone can be right compared to others, but will you leave the rest because you aren't being received like you think you should be?

No on can be right compared to others. Truth is singular. There is absolute truth and there is error. There is nothing else. Truth demands that it is true. Truth can not be relative. If something is more accurate, then it is "more accurate" but it may not be True.

Christianity is not a social club. We have fellowship with Christ, and through Him we have fellowship with the Brethren. We do not have any fellowship with the Brethren apart from Christ, who is the Truth.

If you aren't quite sure what I'm attempting to illustrate and ask about, let me know and I will work on my communication....

I get what you're getting at. I'll respond with this. There are no denominations in Christ's Church. There can be no split. There are those who are in fellowship and those who are not. Yes saved people can be out of "fellowship." You don't loose your salvation because you've drifted into some form of error.

Blessya,
Kev

Sanctification said...

Hi Kev!

Thanks for replying, I appreciate the brain cells you offer with sacrifice.

When I took the "Intro to free grace theology" class by Dr. Ken Wilson, he had these funny glasses which had huge sparkler-tinsel exploding outward from the lenses in every color. Whenever he read a bible text that belonged in the Augustinian construct of truth, and he was trying to point out what it really did and did not say, he would pick up the glasses, for effect. "Does it say this in here??" he would ask. "It does if I put on these glasses...."

Have you ever had a major shift in the theological grid of a certain issue of scripture?

What was it like? How did it make you think about your understanding of God once you experienced seeing things through another filter? Has it happened only once, or how many times in your life?

I know this is somewhat rhetorical but on the other hand, shifts of grids bring great consequences. If we're sober, we can figure out how to deal with them when they come and how to prepare for their arrival in the future.

Thanks, Michele

Kevl said...

Hi Michele,

I guess the major shifts I have experienced are these;

not believing to believing :) that's pretty major.

not knowing Genesis really mattered to believing it all happened exactly as a plain reading of it says about 6 - 10 thousand years ago.

Unknowing and leaning towards Covenant Theology, to believing the system (if not all the details) of Dispensational Theology.

Dispensationalism demands a fully Grace based soteriology. BUT for a while I was seeing some of the sense behind much of Lordship Salvation. That changed at my next major change.

From believing the Lordship Salvation definition of Repentance and therefore requiring that Repentance is not a condition for Salvation to believing the plain scripture reading of the process to mean a actual change of mind about sin, Christ, and judgment.

That's all the major theological shifts I've experienced, at least that I consider major and I can remember. :)

Kev

Sanctification said...

Hi again Kev,

So, I see you've experienced this kind of shift, some of the same ones too. What has become authority for you in those shifts?

Please let me go on a little bit because the illustrations help me discuss concepts....

"Way back when" I was told baptism in water was necessary for salvation and since it attacked my confidence and I had also seen many other versions of the story of what saves, I retreated. I didn't really... want to read stuff written by men. Now, I like to boast in what I am convinced, is to the glory of the LORD. However much I had been successful in shutting out traditional men's theology, it has made me by inheritance, free grace in soteriology.

But: somewhere I read "total depravity" and just as they say, one point leads to all five, and it is certainly true with this one teaching alone. For two years I struggled personally (of course) but also scripturally, trying to make sense of the doctrine of sanctification, in the light of calvinism. Bah! Remember the illustration of the "sparkle glasses of Augustinian theology" being removed from reading the Word? I felt that all the way into my soul.

You see why, once I was rid of total depravity, I saw that it was Spiritual for me to let someone else speak correction upon my constructions, right?

I'd like to think, with as much success I had (as measured by becoming free grace in soteriology) in closing out the words of men and concentrate solely, only, upon the Word of God, that it is also good for me in every situation at all times to never read anything, except scripture. (I still struggle choosing to read stuff written by men -- I'm very very selective!!) But with as easy a sweep deliverance from error it was for be to be rid of total depravity, the same kind of sweep I find time and time again as I venture out into free grace classes (and conversations occasionally).

Which one is the right answer? Reading men and the Word, or the Word alone? I'm torn.

Meanwhile I can't help but wonder what level of error I am being introduced in to by letting men speak to me of the Word, that I buy hook, line and sinker because I didn't just read and figure it out for myself, first, alone, and forever.

I know you will appreciate this story because I have seen your heart for being rid of men's thought for the sake of knowing the Word.

What happens to men who seek the vacuum from writers of theology? I don't know of a large segment of such men and their testimonies. Do you think that, reading the Word alone, someone would come out the other side with Lordship Theology? Hmm. The fact that anyone attempts such a state and comes out as whatever he has become, should speak weight to the theology he endorses. And I am very honored to be in such a place in my own small way. I praise the LORD who alone is faithful to take the heart of love for His truth and bless it with accuracy, of a level! That God has given me active participation with the straying gospels, gives me further confidence in the accuracy that comes by being unwilling to be influenced, but rather be a person of influence; of confidence in God's revelation. Again, it is because of the LORD alone that I am privileged to serve Him at all in regard to the Word.

It is truly the Lord who qualifies, isn't it?

The "vacuum" away from men's influence is not really possible, of course. Though I think one can go a long way in foregoing the confidence of whatever men have to say, and trust me there is no shortage of opinions out there to choose from if one so desires.

I mention all this so that I can get your own opinions on influence. What is good, to you? What is too much? Do you seek a balance between the two? I feel like I am being led toward a season of life in balance (between men and the Word), but in a way I am sad to leave behind where I had been, because of the confidence and fruit of the endeavor.

Thanks for wading through a long post,
Michele

Kevl said...

Hi Michele,

I've just finished writing three installments of a new series for here.. my brain is about toast.. :)

But I want to answer this.

Which one is the right answer? Reading men and the Word, or the Word alone? I'm torn.

We see in several of Paul's letters that he references the writing of other letters to these churches. They would have read these letters, which were never Scripture but written by a godly man.

There's your answer. It's ok to be taught. But the first authority is always Scripture and revelation given by the Spirit that lines up exactly with Scripture.

It is truly the Lord who qualifies, isn't it?

I would amplify that to the point that the Lord IS our qualification. All Christians are priests, whether they are obedient or not, so there is that. But there is also the fact that none of us could ever live up to the Call without Him.

What is good, to you? What is too much? Do you seek a balance between the two?

It's a struggle.

I do not read study bibles to learn. I use my Scofield to gather selections of Scripture - ie I need a starting point of scriptures on a topic and I find that starting point there. Though very seldom do I actually do this. I'm not sure WHY I have this bible... I have a beautiful Ryrie Study Bible that Brother Robb gave me. I've read a few things in it... but ya not so much.

When I started out I loved commentaries because it was the easy way to learn... or rather be indoctrinated. I quickly learned that indoctrination is wrong - even if what you're being indoctrinated in is correct. Because you do not learn how to learn. You don't learn how to wait on the Lord to reveal something to you.

In short, indoctrination, even in the Truth is not discipleship. Because discipleship is much more than knowing the truth.

so ya... it's a balance.. and a struggle. I have the hardest time with it on line. I'm still learning.... I have dearly loved brethren who I associate with on line. Yet they each have their own things that I don't agree with. I struggle to retain fellowship without acquiring definition or labels.

IE I absolutely believe that salvation is freely available by Grace through faith apart from works. Many would define me as "Free Grace" but I do not. Why? Because I can't control what the definition of "Free Grace" is. It's a label that others can use how they wish...

K now I'm zonkers. I'm off to lay down. 1:44 am.... I got just a little obsessive with my writing tonight.

Kev

Sanctification said...

Hi Kev,

I too have been working today, and I have two comments. Please put on your cap of patience with their length!!

:D Michele

Sanctification said...

Kev - wow!

I liked all your thoughts (even for 1:44 am) but especially appreciated your comment labeling commentarial truth so far as "indoctrination" and while that sounds extreme maybe to some, that's what it is. I didn't expect to be confirmed quite like this, this is so great. I've never met someone else who has this same perspective that confidence by commentaries & christian lit, is not good! (I have to use an exclamation mark at the end of that sentence.) In fact you exceed me; you actually articulate it better. So... if you know this so well, I bet you can answer my next question with ease, too.

What is the composition of interpretational error? What's "error"? I mean we might use the term "mistake" but really what is it? It's sin, its deception, its untruth. Right?

So whatever "mistakes" I once held as true, long ago, were what? Sin. I assume that as I keep growing in godliness, in Christ, in wisdom and in the Word, I will keep on correcting my errors, both large and small. But for me to feel open to growing is to first make the assumption that what I am learning today I may not keep as the truth in another ten years. On that day I will look back to right now and say, "I was 'mistaken.'"

Even if I seek "the vacuum" away from inaccurate influences of men upon the truth of the Word, I am forgetting about the influence of one man, being myself. No matter my good intentions I'm sure God wants to expose to me, my limited capabilities. I think He wants me to know that there should be a part of my assurance that comes from seeking fellowship Spiritually with God, instead of only using my mind for assurance. Walking by faith and that whole bit, which is said to be "sufficient...." Weren't you saying that, above? I think so!

I could have taken this awareness of imperfection and sin in interpretation, too far. I know this, too. So, I have this saying about myself, and I want your reaction. I'll never say to someone else "We can't really know, there is no such thing as 'the truth.'" I do believe God wants us to know certain revelations; that's why He preserved the scriptures for thousands of years. But here's what I do say: "I am a believer in absolute truth who handles it in a moderately relativist way." I just want to be humble before the LORD and receive whatever instruction and correction He would put forth. (And I might include men in that process of correction.) You know what relativism is, right? It's an evil frame of mind. But I think I make one worthwhile exception. My truth is not necessarily the real, the only truth. I say this ONLY because I know I have been wrong before, I probably am wrong now in some things unidentified, and will be wrong, still, even till I die.

I have only two alternatives:

1 -- "My truth is the only, real truth," whose consequence makes God's correction posing like an enemy instead of a delight.

OR

2 -- I trust God to keep me in the truth, and I think I have some good ideas on what the truth is, but show me (God or teacher) where I'm wrong.

I call choosing #2 as "handling absolutism with a degree of relativism," but if that language is naturally offensive, at least see what I am trying to get at.

Which one sparks your devotion, Kev? (BTW, this conversation is all within the subject of what makes a cult... remember we were talking about that? ;)

Thanks so much! I really appreciate this discussion - Michele

Sanctification said...

Hi Kev,

A man might be an established leader within Christian circles, and be promoting error (not willfully of course). He might be someone who quotes scripture as proof, but nevertheless espouses error. He might be a Spiritual man, who holds to error. Why do I say this - because I know I've loved the Lord and men as I should, and still was in error at times in ways! I'd say there is a generality that those who know the LORD the longest have less error as a result. But there is no one single catch-all indicator to identify someone who is holding to error in some issue of theology.

I understand the whole fundamentalist back-lash against modernism, and ecumenism, and liberalism. For a time in conservative baptist history (if I understand this right), there came a shift of thought toward things like whether or not the bible is infallible, and so on. So, rightfully and necessarily, somebody needed to stand up and stand apart and announce that kind of error and not participate in the drift.

I'd like you to think a bit on the "hegemone." Hegemony or cultural hegemony, you can see a bit from these links that essentially it means "an accepted influence of one small segment of a society toward the rest of the whole." Who plays the role of hegemone? I think whoever stands up for Christ, expects to be the hegemone. Jesus wants us to use His Word, His gospel of exclusivity, and His Spirit to be people of influence in our world, not people who have become influenced BY the world.

I think that those who stand up for the timeless fundamental elements of our faith, are by nature the hegemones and I am grateful for them. We call these people wherever they are found, "fundamentalists." Just because someone can get wacky and rigid over some details of practice or belief, doesn't mean they are fundamentalist. The fundamentalist is simply the person who says in just one of many issues, that "the bible is the word of God and that's not something we're going to back away from, no matter the cost." And that is good.

I want to say this: hegemony doesn't belong only to the fundamentalists. It also belongs to the rest of evangelical, conservative (biblical) Christianity.

The fundamentalist isn't right, only different. Their toolbox is not better, just different than mine. Let me show you what's in my toolbox, and what's in the fundamentalist's toolbox:

Inside the fundamentalist toolbox you'll find this device is well-borrowed in the practice of hegemony:

So they called them and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered and said to them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.” acts 4:18-20

Inside the evangelical toolbox you can find this kind of device being put to good use:

...and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who arewithout law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. 1 cor 9:20-22

What if... a fundamentalist stumbles in upon a situation where a "Paul" is mid-stream in "becoming a Jew"? He may take a look at "Paul" and say, "My brother, you have compromised by giving the appearance of evil." Or, he may be affected to say, "My brother, you should just say your beliefs from the beginning and be done with them to choose for themselves."

But if you look at the passage, Kev, who is being the hegemone; Paul, or the Jews he has assimilated into? Paul says that he (Christ operating through him) is still the one doing the influencing, not being the one influenced. He is still in control of the situation, isn't he? The only conclusion to make is that whether directly or indirectly, whether subtle and patient and slow or instantaneously, whether culturally inept and defying or culturally deft and forebearing, hegemony belongs to all Christians, not just those of one kind of method.

What do you think, Kev? Do you think biblically sound evangelicals have a fair reputation? How about the fundamentalists? (By the way, we're still talking about issues which have potential play to "cult." Though through getting to know you and listen more to your beliefs and interests in your case you rise so far above the word I should remove it altogether with twinges of regret.)

:D Michele

Kevl said...

Hi Michele, glad you liked my sleepy thoughts last night. lol

Please don't, and I trust those others reading will also follow this, mistake my short answers for me being "preachy" or self-righteous as though I have all the answers.

I'm giving the answers that match my thoughts... examination will determine if they match truth or not.

You asked What is the composition of interpretational error? What's "error"? I mean we might use the term "mistake" but really what is it? It's sin, its deception, its untruth. Right?

Sin is a falling short of the Glory or perfection of God. Remember when Jesus said "Be thou perfect as the Holy Father is perfect."? Somewhere in Matthew.... We can only be perfect when we are hidden in the cleft of the Rock, Jesus Christ. We act perfectly as we are conformed to His image.

Any error, mistake, shortcoming.. is sin because it is a falling short of the Glory of God. Rom 3:23

TOUGH ONE eh? So much for the idea that a Christian can't have on going sin.... just for a side note there.

You stated I think He wants me to know that there should be a part of my assurance that comes from seeking fellowship Spiritually with God, instead of only using my mind for assurance.

I would up the ante on that one too. I'd say that our only assurance is Spiritual. Based on our baptism into His death, burial and resurrection. We can be assured because we are hidden in Him. And that should drive us confidently forward to learn how to perform instead of remaining fearful of our lack of performance. If we really trust His promise to bring us to perfection then we will run forward as though across water, unafraid of the fact that a human can not walk on water. Get my meaning?

I thought you stated #1 with an odd sort of clarity.

yes I would gravitate more towards #2. Though I would LIKE TO THINK that I would ask to be led into Truth not just corrected.

oh and ya I forgot about the cult stuff... can I expect a whammy?

Kev

Kevl said...

I'll respond to your second later. I'm getting really tired and I want to edit part 2 of my The Gospel Delusion series ASAP because it gets into the meat.

Kev

Sanctification said...

Hi,

oh and ya I forgot about the cult stuff... can I expect a whammy?

I should have just let it lie. "That's what I always say; 'just let it lie.'" - Sally from "When Harry Met Sally"

Absolutely not. You're more and more reasonable and even a good influence on me with each post.

Michele

Kevl said...

Hi Michele, responding to your second long post.

But there is no one single catch-all indicator to identify someone who is holding to error in some issue of theology.

Being well versed in the whole of Scripture, walking in the Spirit and quick to test every spirit is the only way to be protected from error that I know.

I want to say this: hegemony doesn't belong only to the fundamentalists. It also belongs to the rest of evangelical, conservative (biblical) Christianity.

Given the nature of hegemony, it can belong to any group for any purpose. I gather your intent is positive though. :)

The fundamentalist isn't right, only different.

By MY definition of the word, a fundamentalist ought to be right about everything he holds to, yet that list will be limited to just the.. fundamentals. :)

I am confident that I am right about all the fundamentals of Christianity. Yet I do not just dwell in the fundamentals... so I'm not sure I would fit into the definition of a fundamentalist. I can converse with them but I tend to want to explore more.

You said What if... a fundamentalist stumbles in upon a situation where a "Paul" is mid-stream in "becoming a Jew"? He may take a look at "Paul" and say, "My brother, you have compromised by giving the appearance of evil." Or, he may be affected to say, "My brother, you should just say your beliefs from the beginning and be done with them to choose for themselves."

Paul is clear in his writing that the Christian has PERFECT freedom and can go anywhere and do anything. Yet Paul is just as clear that if our freedom becomes a stumbling block for our Brother that we are to limit our freedom. The safety of the weaker Brother is paramount over the freedom of the stronger.

So I would say the "Paul" in this case would be in error. IE if you're dancing and drinking wine at a wedding and there's a fundamentalist there... you NEED to stop immediately.

Also, James is clear that our first priority are our Brethren. So the Lost come second to our fellowship. That's a tough sentence for a self-professed Evangelist to write.. trust me. VERY hard.

What do you think, Kev? Do you think biblically sound evangelicals have a fair reputation? How about the fundamentalists?

OH I don't know really. It's so hard to find people who WANT to be Biblically sound let alone who ARE. We need to have a good reputation with the world... in Acts 2 those who didn't believe were fearful to hang with the believers because of the power of their testimony. We need that, and I don't think we have it right now. At least it's not wide spread through Christendom.

Kev

Sanctification said...

Hi there Kev,

Thanks for waiting around for response.

On the topic of "fundamentalists"

you said: "IE if you're dancing and drinking wine at a wedding and there's a fundamentalist there..."

Is that what a fundamentalist, is? You said you have your own understanding of it at least.

You said "MY definition of the word, a fundamentalist ought to be right about everything he holds to, yet that list will be limited to just the.. fundamentals."

Those who abstain from certain practices or consumptions... that is what has collectively banded those who are known as fundamentalists? Ah! I didn't know it was that easy to ID.

It's interesting that those who hold seriously to the "fundamental" teachings of the faith are also the ones who hold fast to specific "disputable matters" over things you say we ought to not spoil our brother's conscience.

I did like your point immensely on caring for brothers before choosing evangelism style. You are right!! Though, I believe Rom 14 teaches that both sides fudge toward helping both sides in their goal.

Thanks, Michele

Sanctification said...

Hi again Kev,

Gotta do one more or it'll fester in my head.

Our dialogue had gone like this:

I said "But there is no one single catch-all indicator to identify someone who is holding to error in some issue of theology."

You said: Being well versed in the whole of Scripture, walking in the Spirit and quick to test every spirit is the only way to be protected from error that I know.

Question....

If we are walking in the Spirit and not the flesh, and are devoted to seeking the matter in scripture, can we be absent from the presence of error?

:) Michele

Kevl said...

Hi Michele,

I don't think that's what a "Fundamentalist" ought to be but in my experience it is often what they end up being.

I believe a Fundamentalist "is" someone who is absolutely clear and unwavering on the fundamentals and also chooses to focus all of their energy there to the exclusion of other topics.

You asked
If we are walking in the Spirit and not the flesh, and are devoted to seeking the matter in scripture, can we be absent from the presence of error?


Yes. But that's not the answer to what you're really asking.

Gal 5:16 says that if we walk in the Spirit we shall not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. So if we are really walking in the Spirit we will be sinless.

However... I do not believe a person can be "walking in the Spirit" in every area of their life prior to Glorification. Please don't ask me to prove this from Scripture.. it's a large job. I'll have to just say that Sinless Perfection is something we'll experience in Glory not here.

I think we can be absolutely correct about things, but we do not have enough revelation to be absolutely correct about all things.

Kev

Sanctification said...

Kev,

lol you said: "But that's not the answer to what you're really asking." I like that! But, I was asking about error.

Recapturing the question:
If, by effort and devotion and the provision of Christ as He has promised in the Word, and when you've got all three of those going on, can you be absent from the (mental? or as they say "understanding") presence of error?

You answered "Yes."

:)

Let me help by asking this subsequent question: So, then you are done growing...? You have the bible all figured out.... (rhetorical addresses to you here) In another ten years, I can expect that you'll be the same in all beliefs as now?

-Michele

Kevl said...

Hi Michele,

The answer is in my last post.

Kev

Sanctification said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sanctification said...

Hi Kev,

You think you can be absent from error? Absolutely?

Thanks, Michele

Kevl said...

Michele,

You asked You think you can be absent from error? Absolutely?

1+1=2

There I am absolutely 100% free from error in that statement. I may not be able to give you a perfect answer about more complex questions but I am totally free from error in this.

I thought I was clear about that in my previous two posts.

Kev

Sanctification said...

Kev,

1+1=2

Thank-you. (I'm nodding my head.)

There is an elderly lady in my bible study, who I have always felt a little sorry for. But because of this comment I can see the extra blessing she has instead of the disadvantage.

They ask questions from scripture and she never writes down her answers. Instead, she only writes down the scripture we're reading, as "the answer." She never writes down her understanding, of the scripture.

This is an illustration from which maybe I can understand you better.

I can quote scripture. I suppose that is a solid 1 +1 = 2 kind of thing.

What should I do if someone asks me to put into my own words, what that means (or means to me)?

What about giving "an answer" that is "para-scripture"?

I need some help with this. Especially in light of the previous comments we both were making above about how we have changed our mind on some things in the past.

Do you see, and know how to help here?

Thank you, Michele

Kevl said...

Hi Michele,

I think that's very wise of the woman you mention.

I'd say the answer is to do your best to answer using Scripture interpreting Scripture. And barring that, to make sure that it is known this is what you think you're saying.

There comes a time when a person is "qualified" for the Ministry and they speak on topics with authority. But these are "Teachers" "Prophets" and "Pastor/Elders" and "Evangelists" (to a lesser degree) in my opinion.

Agree?

Sanctification said...

Kev,

Agree.

There are plenty of women, though, who will never see the benefit in official/unofficial training or else never have the opportunity to become so well established as authoritative with the Word.

Yet every day of their lives the people therein are asking for answers. "Tell me, Michele, why did I miscarry my baby? Is God just trying to get my attention?"

Your errors, from before in your walk....

When you were in the Lordship error, say, or whatever one you want to try and recall.... Did you not pray, beforehand your many times of study? Did you not seek the Lord and test all things? Did you never walk with God by the Spirit indwelling, in those times passed in your life when you held fast to those errors?

And here I am, opening myself up to you as an authority for me, so that in this small or large sense I might experience another "theological grid-shift." Because I want to trust not that I have all the answers but that if I do they will only improve in the face of talking with someone with another POV, or else change as necessary. It's not that I'm ungodly because I have/do disagree, and I don't think you were, either. There has to be something more grand to admit about the nature of humanity that will never be free from error.

You and I would never have had this conversation if I myself did not start with the assumption that I might possibly be wrong, in some part.

To quote, from before:

I have only two alternatives in paradigm:

1 -- "My truth is the only, real truth," whose consequence makes God's correction posing like an enemy instead of a delight.

OR

2 -- I trust God to keep me in the truth, and I think I have some good ideas on what the truth is, but show me (God or teacher) where I'm wrong.

Please, keep working with me on this, as you have the ability....

Thank you-Michele

Sanctification said...

Kev - sorry about the underlying heat of the last post, if you felt it, my baby is under the weather today.

M

Kevl said...

Hi Michele,

You asked When you were in the Lordship error, say, or whatever one you want to try and recall.... Did you not pray, beforehand your many times of study? Did you not seek the Lord and test all things? Did you never walk with God by the Spirit indwelling, in those times passed in your life when you held fast to those errors?

Here's an answer completely devoid of Scripture. I've often (almost always actually) found that God works on the things He chooses to work on and when... I can't seem to get Him to "fix" the things I want fixed if you know what I mean.

So yes, I'm sure I was walking in the Spirit to some degree in those times. And I surely was seeking His guidance and instruction.

One observation that I've made about the changes He's worked in me. Each time I've become more conservative in my theology.

I'm glad you're experiencing the effects of the Christian Question Magnet. People love to criticize us but when the going gets tough we are always the one they seek out. I'm sure you do well as you rely on God.

None of us will ever be perfect this side of Glory. But we can know perfection, and we can specialize.

One of my favorite teachers Renald E Showers is gifted to teach on future events. His work on the Rapture is THE work on the rapture (next to the Bible of course) in my opinion.

Yet he and I disagree about some other subjects.

John MacArthur's error, because it deals with the Gospel is much more serious. And also because his error colors every single thing he preaches on... his error makes it impossible for me to even suggest the work he does that is probably good.

For example, he's got a radio spot called "Portraits of Grace." Which is invariably about obedience.

So imagine this "Portraits of Unmerited Favor" "When the going got tough Joe obeyed God. If you're faith is real you'll obey God too. Join us again next time for more Portraits of Unmerited Favor."

He's allowed his error to get into everything.. and it really had to because it's on the most fundamental issue.

LIKEWISE you need to be seeking after truth on THIS issue with all your heart mind and soul. Because where we are wrong on the Gospel we will be wrong on everything.

I don't believe I can ever know everything there is to know about the Gospel, but just like with 1+1 I can get it right because it's spelled out for me.

The implications are going to take Eternity to see I think.

It's ok to be "close" about things like the Rapture or do women where hats in Church or ... whatever. But the Gospel has to be perfect or we can not be sure of it.

Sorry REALLY tired.. ranting a bit.

Kev

Sanctification said...

Kev,

I think your comment in the last, on the precision in an important message, the gospel, is both possible and also critical. Yet I don't think you assert a kind of perfection either in that or in your general approach to truth.

I can see many features of your humility and fidelity to the Word of God and yet you are confident to use it and proclaim it.

I learned a lot in this thread. I learned what you are not saying in what you're saying. :D So, thank you. I also want to thank you for the LS posts and I am glad you still found time over here in the midst of that important and enormous project.

Thanks for it all, Michele

Kevl said...

Thank you for that very kind post Michele.

I'm interested, and invested, so I feel I must ask. Where are you at with regard to the issue of the so-called "Crossless-Gospel"?

Not to bring up a huge debate, but because I am invested and interested.

Thanks again,
Kev

Sanctification said...

Hi Kev,

You asked where I was.

I received JP's highlights, where "gospel" (whatever that constitutes) is concerned, 1 cor 15 is the "first things" that are "declared."

I also received from you that using 1 cor 15 is by no means designed to be used as a proof text.

And... this is something I have to get back to the other side, on.... I guess I got confused about Hodges' saying "believe in Jesus for eternal life." I thought Hodges was saying "Believe in Jesus" is the gospel for eternal life, and Wilkin was saying "Believe in Jesus for eternal life" is the gospel. Of course this is just a reflection of stupidity on my part because I refuse to read these authors. I'm disappointed I don't have another option besides that one, on the "crossless" side of things.

I think I get the proofs are there, in scripture, both they with their COSF in the gospel text of John and the fuller COSF message here. Both can show how the summation of either the NT's "gospel" or else the summation of the evangelistic John's 20:31, is completely supported as the answer of what God desires us to believe upon, made by the constructs of truth.

But for me, I'm more liberal than either. And the reason, while scriptural, goes against the pleasure of revelation that most bible students aspire. I don't expect to get a lot of good feeling in sharing it here or there, though all are kind enough to listen of course and I'm grateful. And of course if I'm wrong then it will be a further spring-board into finding out for myself, what I should alternately believe about COSF.

Lou asked me a long time ago to answer yes or no about whether a lost person could be saved by a crossless gospel. My answer is, it is not a good indication: that is literally what I think I might say to the person who might respond accepting eternal life but simultaneously not handling with faith, Christ's deity or his work as payment of their sins.

What's more, I don't feel comfortable assuring someone of salvation by judging their COSF material, ever, in any case, crossless or the orthodox 1 corinthians 15.

I feel much more comfortable judging and passing a sense of assurance from the Word of God that this person has eternal life, because of a profession of faith, on the part of the one listening to a gospel bigger or smaller than 1 Cor 15.

To me it has to foremost be about faith, because the scriptures tell me so. I know that faith comes by the Word of God but who can say when and where that reliance upon Jesus is conceived?

JP mentioned he would get into my issues on this, and he is very busy. When I was at the conference Stegall and I had a wonderful beginning conversation on this too. I think we both concluded as interested in going on with the dialogue through email. Does anyone have a good email address, BTW? I've been trying to get ahold of him, and just touch base, but I forgot to get that from him before we left. Either way (and I did try some avenues), I am sure he is also, very busy.

In any case with you or JP or Stegall I would love to talk more about it. In fact when I was there I wrote a very short beginning touch-point of scriptures when I was in my hotel room and gave it to him, so, I think that if you are interested and can see what I mean by "the preeminence of faith" and you have a response, you can do so either here or there at my blog. I'm publishing it now.

I hope that eventually Stegall will find a way to get back in touch with me, or visa versa. I just think it was so great of him to take the time to make an impact on me.

Anyway, there you go; no debate, just a full display of where I am at on the issue. Oh -- and thanks, Kev, it means a lot to me that you don't get too frustrated by me just because I am in a place of heresy at this time in my understandings....

Thanks a lot, Michele

Kevl said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kevl said...

I haven't forgotten about you Michele. Just under significant stress.

I'm going to print this and attempt to respond later today.

Kev

Kevl said...

Hello Michele,

First I must apologize for taking so long to reply to a post I asked you to make. I'd rather not get into explanation in this reply so please accept my simple apology – I'm sorry.

As I said in my last I printed off your post and have read it with a pen in hand. :) I also printed off the article you linked to at your blog. There are a few things that I think are key.

I'm going to respond as though our conversation is simply continuing on, as this seems to be your invitation and desire at the end of you post. I must add the following caveat though. I will not usurp Pastor Stegall's authority, presence and/or influence. I ask that if he does take up the conversation with you that you tell me immediately so that I can respectfully bow out. Church order is of very high importance to me. Maintaining it is a condition of my continued service in ministry. Since your conversation was primarily with him it will only be right of me to allow him to respond to you without causing confusion. In his wisdom he may take a different track and my influence may derail his Pastoral work in your life.

I'm going to respond to both the article you linked and your last comment here. I'm going to go through a number of points. My purpose is to continue the discourse.

You wrote I received JP's highlights, where “gospel” (whatever that constitutes) is concerned, 1 Cor 15 is the “first things” that are “declared.”

There are subtle but very influential problems with the way you describe what Paul wrote. He is declaring the Gospel which is of first importance. He's not just declaring the things of the Gospel that are of first importance. Ref 1 Cor 15:1-3

Your paragraph about the differences you perceive between Hodges and Wilkin confused me. But I can respond this way. The word “gospel” means “good news.” News can not contain a command. It is “news” of something. In the case of the Gospel it's very good news. So, the Gospel, the Good News can not be “believe in Jesus” or “believe in Jesus for Eternal Life” because these are each instructions or commands. “Eternal Life is available in Jesus!” could be considered good news, but since this is not defined in Scripture as The Gospel, it is not. Good news tells us something good has happened or is happening.

Of John 20:31, John says that he has written these things that we might believe that Jesus IS the Christ, the Son of God, and through believing that we'll be saved. The point is we are to believe who Jesus is, not his title. I've been discussing this at some length at Lou's blog recently, you can surely visit there but in SHORT think of it this way. We don't have to qualify Someone for a Title that doesn't have specific meaning. John's work in his letter is not to have us believe that Jesus has the titles of Christ and Son of God, but to convince us that He IS the Christ, and the Son of God.

I begin to see the mental hold-up you're experiencing as you start to discuss the question that Lou asked you to answer. I didn't quite get it until I read the article you linked. But I believe I'm seeing what 'the' problem is now.

You wrote these statements: (other readers should note that COSF is “content of saving faith”)

I don't feel comfortable assuring someone of salvation by judging their COSF material

...because of a profession of faith, on the part of the one listening to a gospel bigger or smaller than 1 Cor 15.

To me it has to foremost be about faith......but who can say when and where that reliance on Jesus is conceived?


I'll respond more to this problem later but quickly now. What exactly are we required to trust or rely on? That we have been redeemed. Redemption comes at the price of the Gospel. One must be “thirsty” which is a deep need for life in the Bible. One must know they do not have Eternal Life. Then they must come and drink the living waters, freely, but they must drink it. This is what Christ was talking about when He said unless we drink His blood and eat His flesh that we will perish. So one must see their need, they will suffer death for sin, and see their need fully and properly met in Christ, the Cross and burial, and then they must see the life that Christ offers through His resurrection. Their thirst is then eternally satisfied.

In order for someone to come to that faith it may take much more information than just the Gospel. But in order to have faith in the REAL Jesus they must believe at least the Gospel. Because anything other than that paints a picture of a “different Jesus.” For example a Jesus who may forgive sin unjustly.

To lay it out, you're confusing what it takes to convince someone with what they have to believe.

Your letter to Pastor Stegall is about the “preeminence of Faith” and I can not speak for him, nor do I know what you spoke with him about. I can only react to the statements you share in light of the conversation WE have had.

You wrote And, I understand “keeping the righteous requirements of the law” as meaning as you said too; “Obey the gospel” means “have faith.”

and shortly after that you wrote Would we, should we dare criticize the sufficiency of faith?

What is the “righteous requirements of the Law”? The soul that sinneth will die. All those who do not continue to do all things written in the Book of the Law are under a curse. The righteous requirements of the Law is death. And this is VERY important for our discussion.

Paul asked Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law. in Rom 3:31.

How does Faith establish the Law (of sin and death)? Because our faith is in the fact that Christ was made sin, a curse, though He Himself was sinless and had no debt to pay, and died on our behalf, was buried and resurrected unto life (BECAUSE the sacrifice was accepted) all in accordance with the Scriptures.

If salvation came by “believing Jesus for Eternal Life.” then faith would make void the Law of Sin and Death. But since our faith is in the fact that Christ died in our place, then we establish (agree with and hold up) the Law of Sin and Death.

It's not that faith is overtaken by law or content, faith is sufficient, it is that faith must not violate the Justice of God. Because through the Cross God demonstrates that He is righteous and just to justify the sinner.

Thoughts?
Kev