“Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.” ― Abraham Lincoln link
As many of you know, the Nate Morales trial begins today. We will try to keep you updated on testimony, etc. when we hear reports. In the meantime, Todd Wilhelm at Thou Art the Man wrote a great post, C.J. Mahaney and Sovereign Grace Ministries On Edge as Morales Trial Set to Begin which will get you up to date in the significance of this trial. Look for subpoenaed appearances from Grant Layman, CJ Mahaney's brother in law and Robin Boisvert, a CLC pastor.
Dee found this comment in a letter from CLC to its members disturbing.
We wanted the church family to be aware that Robin Boisvert and Grant Layman have received subpoenas to appear as witnesses in the Morales trial. This represents an opportunity to pray for wisdom if they testify
They should pray that these two men will tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Good night! This is evangelical codswallop.
In the meantime, I though it would be interesting to point to a debate over the The Gospel Coalition. It involves the intersection of grace and obedience. In my opinion, the Calvinista crowd often harps on the issues of "obeying the law" while at the same time denying that they do so. The issues surrounding church discipline and the utter inability of this crowd to define what they do, and do not, "discipline" demonstrates a schizophrenic love affair with the Law.
I had planned to present my response to Jen Wilkin's post until Tullian Tchvidjian jumped into the fray last week. I found much to agree with in Tullian's response. I plan to present my own view on the matter and I look forward to the debate on this issue. I expect it will be vigorous on all side.
Jen Wilkin's "Free to Obey" is just another way of saying "obey the Law."
As I have already said, I find many in the Neo-Calvinist crowd rather enamored of forcing obedience to the Law as part of their package. As I have read post after post by proponents such as John Piper, Wayne Grudem, Mark Dever, Al Mohler, Kevin DeYoung, Tim Challies, etc. I get absolutely exhausted as I consider keeping up with all of their rules, many of which seem to be made on the fly. Yet, they all know that Jesus came to set us free from the rules of the Pharisees and they must twist themselves into pretzels in order to morph grace into obedience to authoritarian rules that they themselves call the Gospel.™
Let's take a look at Wilkin's stab at the issue in her post, Failure Is Not a Virtue. She is a member of the Village Church which is pastored by Matt Chandler who is also the head of the Acts 29 Network. You can be sure that she toes the NeoCalvinist line of her pastor.
Jen expresses profound disagreement with the following phrases which she uses to advance her theological approach.
- Christian, you cannot obey the Law. Your certain failure is a means to show forth the grace of God when you repent."
- "We don't need more lists of how to be a better spouse/parent/Christian. We need more grace."
- "My life strategy for today: fail, repent, repeat."
I smiled when I read this because I remember Pete Briscoe, my former pastor, discussing the life of a Christian. He is a great proponent of grace. He said that the Christian life is the desire to press forward and that we all fall. Then, if we are followers, we look up, ask for forgiveness, brush ourselves off and continue onward, repeating this cycle, until we come home. This is not celebrating sin as Wilkin suggests. It is celebrating grace. It is understanding our lot, blinders off.
I immediately knew that I would not be agreeing with Wilkin since it was obvious that she would have to adhere to a treatise that would obligate us to unfailing obedience. She does and she calls it "the freedom to obey."
Rather than tossing out the Law or devaluing obedience to it, he called his followers to a deeper obedience (Matthew 5:17-48) than the behavior modification the Pharisees prized. He called for obedience in motive as well as in deed, the kind of godly obedience that is impossible for someone whose heart has not been transformed by the gospel in the power of the Holy Spirit. Rather than abolish the Law, Jesus deepened his followers' understanding of what it required, and then went to the cross to ensure they could actually begin to obey it.
My response to this is "I'm hosed." She expects me not only to obey the laws but to obey them right down to my very motivation. She says that Jesus went to the Cross to make us obedient to the Law. Here is where I totally, absolutely, in toto disagree with her.
Jesus, during his ministry, revealed to us the extent of the Law and included our motivations in the mix which really ticked off the Pharisees because they wrote the rule book on how to obey. They weren' t real big on heart issues. Jesus let them know that not only were they to obey outwardly, but they had to obey inwardly which threw a monkey wrench into the Pharisaical approach. Even they knew that they could not "control" the heart.
Jesus died on that Cross precisely because we cannot fully conform, no matter how hard we try, to the exacting Law. He died for that inability.
She goes on to both reject and embrace the Law.
Through the gospel our God, whose Law and whose character do not change, changes us into those who obey in both motive and deed. Believers no longer live under the Law, but the Law lies under us as a sure path for pursuing what is good, right, and pleasing to the Lord
And then throws in the hooker.
Obedience is only moralism if we believe it curries favor with God. The believer knows that it is impossible to curry favor with God, because God needs nothing from us. He cannot be put in our debt. Knowing this frees us to obey out of joyful gratitude rather than servile grasping.
So, now we must be able to obey because we do it from the right motives. We are back to square one. If we don't obey, then we must have the wrong motives. If we have the wrong motives, maybe we aren't even Christians. Let me assure you that Jen Wilkin is no different in obedience than any other committed Christian. She fails daily. If she denies that she does so, she is either eligible for sainthood or she is in deep denial (cooking the books).
I think she is wrong because I know me. I want to be obedient, right down into the dark recesses of my heart. However, if I am being honest with you, I am not and I fail regularly, even when I want to do it right. For me, that is the key to this issue.
Tullian Tchividjian turns the tables on Wilkin
In a post Acknowledging Failure IS A Virtue: A Response To Jen Wilkin, I found myself nodding along with Tchividjian because I, too, have been around the Christian life for quite awhile.
” I have to be honest and say I’ve never encountered a Christian who “celebrates failure.” And I’ve been around for a while. Don’t get me wrong, I see moral laxity in everyone, everywhere. But I don’t see real Christians reveling in it or bragging about it.
Now, I have seen Christians who are in denial of their sin. They go through great lengths to justify why their behavior in question is in accordance with Scripture. One only need look at the current plethora of CJ Mahaney fans who have justified their support or silence in the light of alleged child sex abuse cover up allegations in his ministry. The funniest excuse belongs to Tim Challies who claimed he didn't educate himself about the problem because it was not "good time management" which is apparently a new Scriptural mandate in certain circles.
Why would they go to all lengths to justify their actions in light of Scripture if they didn't give a hoot about the Bible? The fact that their reasoning is weak does not negate this point. I have a pastor who calls this approach "cooking the books."
Tchvidjian discusses the inspiration which comes from understanding grace.
What causes actual love for God is God’s love for us. His love for us is what motivates love from us. The Bible is very, very, very clear that grace and grace alone carries the power to inspire what the law demands. Love, not law, compels heartfelt loyalty.
He says that preaching obedience does not necessarily make us more obedient.
Too many people assume that championing ethics will itself make us more ethical; that preaching obedience will itself make us more obedient; that focusing on the law will itself make us more lawful. But is that the way it works?
Tullian quotes Matt Richard who does not believe that preaching grace leads to lawlessness.
I have found that as Christians we many times attribute “lawlessness” to the preaching of the Gospel. Somewhere in our thinking we rationalize that if the Gospel is presented as “too free, too unconditional or that Jesus fulfills the law for us” that the result will be lax morality, loose living and lawlessness. It’s as if we believe that the freeing message of the Gospel actually produces, encourages and grants people a license to sin. Because of this rationalization we find ourselves strapping, holding and attaching restrictions to the Gospel so that we might prevent or limit lawlessness. In other words, the Gospel is placed into bondage due to our rationalization and reaction to lawlessness.
He then quotes from a letter that he received from a pastor who believes that preaching on the law can actually lead to lawless living.
Pastors are so concerned about somehow preaching “too much grace” (as if that is possible), because they wrongly believe that type of preaching leads to antinomianism or licentiousness. But, I can testify that the opposite is actually true. I believe preaching only the law and giving little to no gospel actually leads to lawless living. When mainly law is preached, it leads to the realization that I can’t follow it, so I might as well quit trying. At least, that’s what has happened to me.
He then discusses the "Good News."
As my friend and New Testament scholar Jono Linebaugh says, “God doesn’t serve mixed drinks. The divine cocktail is not law mixed with gospel. God serves two separate shots: law then gospel.” Jen confuses these two “shots” and therefore fails to deliver the REAL bad news which prevents the reader from hearing (and being relieved by) the REAL good news.
Your failure does not condemn you. For those of you who get down on yourself a lot (like me), read this 10x.
So when I say “Because Jesus succeeded for you, you’re free to fail”, I’m NOT saying “go out and sin more so that grace may abound.” I’ve never heard anyone say that. What I AM saying is that you ARE failing and that if you are in Christ, your failure does not condemn you (Rom. 8:1). Furthermore, your failure cannot separate you from God’s love (Rom. 8:31ff). So, because Jesus succeeded for you, you’re free to fail without fear of being cast out, abandoned. Even our most cataclysmic failures won’t tempt God to “leave us or forsake us.” Perfect love casts out all fear.
A high view of the law leads us to a high view of grace and that is what sets us free.
J. Gresham Machen counterintutively noted, “A low view of law always produces legalism; a high view of law makes a person a seeker after grace.” The reason this seems so counterintuitive is because most people think those who talk a lot about grace have a low view of God’s law (hence, the regular charge of antinomianism). Others think those with a high view of the law are the legalists. But Machen makes the compelling point that it’s a low view of the law that produces legalism, since a low view of the law causes us to conclude we can do it—the bar is low enough for us to jump over. A low view of the law makes us think the standards are attainable, the goals reachable, the demands doable. This means, contrary to what some Christians would have you believe, the biggest problem facing the church today is not “cheap grace” but “cheap law”—the idea that God accepts anything less than the perfect righteousness of Jesus.
Grace gives each of us the "want to" obey. It is the hope that I have, each morning as I wake, that I will demonstrate the love of God in my actions. I do not want to sin. When I do (every day), I feel bad and wish that I could be kinder, more patient, less self centered, etc. But then I look to Jesus and understand, each and every day, why He came and what he accomplished for me on that Cross. I am free and I am free to repent and to love Him and to keep on loving and caring for others.
When should church discipline be applied?
Perhaps it is necessary when people do not care that they are sinning in a big way. In fact, the problem within the church in Corinth actually backs up Tchividjian's point of view. 1 Corinthians 5:1-2-NIV Bible Gateway)
It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father’s wife. And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have gone into mourning and have put out of your fellowship the man who has been doing this?
There are many who have fallen in the area of sexual immorality. What makes this one so different? The church was proud of this sinful behavior. Remember what Tchividjian said above?
I have to be honest and say I’ve never encountered a Christian who “celebrates failure.” And I’ve been around for a while. Don’t get me wrong, I see moral laxity in everyone, everywhere. But I don’t see real Christians reveling in it or bragging about it.
The church was celebrating failure. Those who truly get grace would *not* celebrate sin when it is pointed out to them. The response would be one of repentance. And that is the difference.
In fact, it is this understanding which should have been applied in the story of Andrew at Mars Hill. In that story, a young man confessed his sexual immorality and repented. But that was not enough for the leaders at Mars Hill. They piled on the punishment. An understanding of grace would not have led to this response.
Believing in God's freeing and glorious grace does not lead us into sin. It will lead us, day in and day out, to pick ourselves up, repent, not dwell in our failures and to travel on through this life, free to love and care for one another.
That sort of grace is truly worth celebrating.
Lydia's Corner: Ezekiel 29:1-30:26 Hebrews 11:32-12:13 Psalm 112:1-10 Proverbs 27:1
First???
First?
Marie2 wrote:
Toi? Encore?
😉
From Lenin’s writings (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/three6.htm)
Engels says: “Hegel was the first to state correctly the relation between freedom and necessity. To him, freedom is the appreciation of necessity…”
Eagle wrote:
Sounds like she’s Glorying in How Sinful *I* Am — sort of an inverted “Can You Top This?”
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Notice how focusing on the law lets people focus on themselves. Constantly asking how good have I been? Did I forget something inadvertently and therefore need to repent? Goodness, it has been two hours since I repented of something, let me see if I can’t find something that somehow might not have lived up to the impossible standard I have set for myself. I did take pains to smile at the mail man but perhaps I did not smile as well as I should have, maybe that is it.
Then I can see my neighbor who does not “feel convicted” about this or that and, realizing that I consider it sinful, I can conclude that I have reached a higher spiritual level than said neighbor, and that feels really good. Not that I would indulge in spiritual pride, or anything, but I just could not help but notice. Maybe I should say something to said neighbor about this. After all, if I fail to warn my neighbor of sin then I can be held responsible.
And here then I will have become someone for whom there are several very awful descriptions in the very scriptures which I think I value.
Nancy wrote:
Like an Ayn Rand male hero constantly worrying about “Am I Getting Fat? Do I Look Fat? Do you think I’m Fat? Does this make me Look Fat? etc”.
Or a Massachusetts Puritan constantly journaling Every Sinful Thought and Act. Seems to me that would turn you inward in a form of Negative Navel-Gazing and Personal Sin-Sniffing — what my church calls “Excessive Scrupulosity”, a form of OCD.
Absolute Perfectionism can kill you. When every breath you take is scrutinized under an electron microscope for imperfection…. Well, let’s say you can take it for only so long before you die, go crazy, or do anything to escape. Or figure that “If I Never Attempt Anything, I Can’t Get Punished For Doing It Wrong.”
Very inside baseball sort of article, I found it a fascinating read. Definitely a somewhat new take on Grace then I’ve read commonly. Nice article.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I wish the protestants would start recognizing that.
@ Eagle:
There does seem to be an awful lot of fascination for sin, their sin, your sin, my sin, sin in the bible, sin in the church, sin somebody used to do, sin in the nation, sin as a theological issue, sin we had to make up to keep the sin bucket full. Methinks there is also sin which some people want to “enjoy” vicariously.
*Ahem* I could have been first, but I chose to actually read the article first. I just want to make sure everyone knows that. All kidding aside, thanks for pointing this out. I have been so disappointed with the direction of many “neo-cals” and TGC has gone. Not only do they muddy the distinction between law and gospel, but they often tie themselves in knots trying to contradict Galatians. What makes it so irksome is that I have read several instances (and I do believe Wilkin’s post qualifies) where they could legitimately be accused of preaching “another gospel”. How is a life on the hamster wheel of moralism good news?
“He called for obedience in motive as well as in deed…”–Jen Wilkin
+++++++++++++++++++++
ah, the motives police has arrived.
and I thought the tone police was bad enough.
@ Nancy:
“There does seem to be an awful lot of fascination for sin, their sin, your sin, my sin..”
++++++++++++++
reminds me of gorillas & primates who pick bugs out of each other’s fur. & the base fascination of then smelling their hands after touching themselves & others.
To comply 100% with the Law is impossible. To desire and strive to live up to the standard of the Law is barely possible.
Grace is the gift that says “you are accepted as my child and when you fall, I will be there to pick you up, remind you of my love, and ask you to try again.” God is Love, and we love being loved by Him, and so love Him in return, giving us the motivation to be living witnesses to his love, by loving those He loves. Sin is our failure to love. Jesus pointed out that all of the Law can be stated as Love God, Love those God Loves (everyone!!!).
@ Eagle:
I will never understand this false equivalence/sin leveling. I think Andrew Solomon’s insight in his article on Lanza (excellent article, BTW), said it best -basically, most of us understand run of the mill crimes like theft, assault, and murder of an individual because we’ve had the impulse or understand the potential emotional payoff. But we don’t understand premeditated murder of children or mass murder because there’s nothing about the act that appeals to us.
elastigirl wrote:
It’s not enough to do something because it’s the right thing to do you must want to do it from the core of your soul. Sounds exhausting.
@ burnrnorton:
yes. I can’t imagine that the happiness to misery ratio is all that nice an experience for these folks. but then it is very possible to derive some kind of pleasure and satisfaction from self-flaggelation.
I’m sure Neocalvinism preaches this verse but their should be a clause at the end
0 If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the universe, why do you live as if you still belonged to the world? Why do you submit to regulations, 21 “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” 22 (referring to things which all perish as they are used), according to human precepts and doctrines? 23 These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting rigor of devotion and self-abasement and severity to the body, but they are of no value in checking the indulgence of the flesh.[b] (Except the Rules which we think make better sheeple)
I stumbled across Jen Wilkins last week sometime. I noticed on The Resurgence’s website that they had a topic on ‘mutual submission’. I was intrigued so I clicked on it and two Jen Wilkins articles popped up. One was titled ‘a warning to women’. Don’t recall what the other one was called. Let’s just say, neither article even touched on ‘mutual submission’. Big surprise, right? Lol. With all due respect, not a fan of ol’ Wilkins’ musings. It just makes me ill to see a woman espousing this calvinista garbage.
Nancy wrote:
Sounds like an old Dr Pepper commercial:
“I’M SO SINFUL
YOU’RE SO SINFUL
HE’S SO SINFUL
SHE’S SO SINFUL
WOULDN’T YOU LIKE TO BE SO SINFUL TOO?????”
elastigirl wrote:
It’s like the Dream Police:
“The Motives Police
They live inside of my head;
The Motives Police
They come to me in my bed;
The Motives Police
They’re coming to arrest me — Whoa Ho!”
Hmm….legalism is the same, whether Neo-Calvinist in flavor, or Pentecostal Holiness, Assemblies of God, or (in the case of my former church/cult) Word of Faith.
They all take the OT Law and try to somehow make us still ruled by it. I grew up with this idea that the Law still applied, we just had the will and ability to fulfill it in Christ. So, AofG is similar in this respect to Wilkins’ argument (as is the Word of Faith I experienced).
My former pastor went so far to teach that if it was not explicitly spelled out in the NT that it was done away with, then it was still in effect. He then said that basically, the only things done away with were circumcision and food restrictions. This was usually emphasized during the ‘exhortation’ to Tithe™….
Words can’t express the feeling of chains snapping when I read, with new eyes, Hebrews 8:13
It seems to me that the main issue in this (as it spans denominational barriers): the idea of being in control of our own destinies. The irony of this lies in the Calivinsta doctrine of predestination that states we have no control over our destination or outcome, while at the same time insisting that in order to be a true Christian™, you must obey the law + + +…which means that the one in control of the outcome is the one choosing to ‘obey.’
I think that rather than being a sign of superior spirituality, this doctrine is a sign of spiritual immaturity – or even apostasy (I know, I know – I’m using their own words on purpose), as it is an attempt to take the reins of sovereignty over life into one’s own hands and refuse to give them to God…..
Cassie wrote:
Whoops, flubbed up again. I got Wilkin mixed up with Jen Schmidt. My bad. Lol.
Jen Wilkins makes me feel oppressed with her emphasis on law, law and more law. Like I should hit myself over the head with the two-volume English translation of Calvin’s Institutes. (I read them for *light* reading when I was in law school back in the 1980s. I should have done mysteries and bodice-rippers, like my classmates.)
But seriously: Whatever happened to dying and rising with Christ? Being filled with the Holy Spirit and walking in the Spirit? Putting on Christ? Galatians 2:21: “I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”
Jen Wilkins would make a good wardon!!
gus wrote:
Mais Oui!!
Vous avez dit que c’est meilleur d’être second….Alors, je t’aide encore….
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Well, yeah….you had said that it’s better to be second, so I am helping you once again….
Not as funny as the subtitles for the cockney cursing in a Sean Ritchie movie (according to my husband, someone tells person B to “F-off”, so the translation is, “Please go away to somewhere else,” but hopefully just as enlightening. 🙂
Eagle wrote:
Amen. Let’s make signs, and start a campaign!! Jen Wilkins for Warden!!!
@ Marie2:
Jen Wilkins for Dog Catcher!!!
@ Nancy:
I am really appreciating your “sin” insights in evangelicalism. I had a friend tell me how sinful she was for wanting to go on a vacation becasue that meant she wasn’t being satisfied and she was coveting what others could do. Mind you, she had extreme financial/job issues and hadn’t been on a trip in 5 years. People are calling normal desires sinful and beating themselves over the head. It’s normal sometimes to wish you could do something.
So many issues with this kind of thinking…I would want to sum it all up with ‘where is the love?’ I’d rather hang out with the terrible sinners out feeding the hungry & visiting the lonely (lonely old sinners, obvs) than spending so much time looking at my own (abundant) sin.
Let’s go straight to the heart of the matter – am I loving? Am I living a life of love? How would anyone outside my own head know that?
Anything else makes me so tired I could cry.
mirele FKA Southwestern Discomfort wrote:
Beakerj wrote:
Bingo.
I notice that Paul used the word “righteousness” and not the word “salvation.” The lovers of the law emphasize that they believe that salvation is by grace through faith but then they proceed to pursue individual righteousness through the law all the while denying that this is what they are doing. Surprisingly, it would seem they actually deceive themselves in the process. Why would they do this? Have they really taken a look at the law? Have they really taken a look at Jesus? Did they actually find something lacking in Jesus that they thought they needed the law also?
Maybe. It certainly looks like perhaps they can’t give up a certain feeling of being in control, to some extent, at least of perfecting some level of God-pleasing righteousness in themselves by their own efforts. They say it is not that, they say how could that be so since the law was God’s idea in the first place, but it does look like that might be what they are doing, protests to the contrary or not.
Again, why would they do that? Perhaps they do not really think that God can be trusted all that much. Or perhaps the God-man was not quite God and did not have the authority to pour out the new wine of the new covenant after all. What if “love” as Jesus used the word time and again is just a euphemism for keeping the old law. What if the “Spirit” is just another word for attitude, the attitude of willingness to keep the old law. What if by “my” commandments Jesus really meant the old law and not something as nebulous as love one another. Maybe you can’t trust Jesus all that much in any case.
Yes, I think they may have found something lacking in Him and are playing CYA just in case.
@ Jeannette Altes:
I come from a rather different church background than yours but the results of legalism are pretty much the same.
Seventh Day Adventist theology says that the Holy Spirit makes us able to keep the Law, just as Jesus did it. Because don’t you know that he didn’t simply come to die for our sins, but to give us an example about keeping God’s Law? Of course the OT Law still applies, especially the 10 Commandments as written in stone. The only things that were abandoned were those associated with circumcision, sacrifices and a few other things… For us, food restrictions still applied, as well as what you could and couldn’t do on the Sabbath, among other things. Basically, the Law initially pointed us to Jesus and then he pointed us back to the Law.
To make a long story short, I left that aside several years ago, even before I asked to be removed from SDA membership due to various reasons.
My reaction when I read what Wilkin said was of surprise because it sounded so similar to what I used to believe… And it was even more surprising because during the last few years I’ve been part of a church where Neo-Calvinist names are pretty well known and promoted, but never before came across this association so clearly. I still think that my current church is healthier than others I’ve seen online: lots of good people in there, the range of belief within the congregation is rather broad and the leadership have not generally tried to push the Neo-Cal dogmas down our throats… But I’ve seen some things, maybe minor, maybe not, that have been bothering me for a while… Mostly some attitudes and maybe a possible turn towards a bit more rigid line… In any case, I don’t find this easy as I’ve been struggling quite a lot with my faith for some time and been wondering what to do.
Martos wrote:
Might I make a suggestion? If you sense any rigidity, do not go to those pastors with your faith struggles. Those guys know how to pile it on. Many of these guys are so insecure that they will be threatened that you have been attending their church and still have questions.
Instead, i would try to find a local church which is less rigid with a really nice pastor who seems to enjoy spending time with the people in the congregation. This is usually seen a smaller church. Within the context of being a visitor, approach the pastor and ask him if he could help you with a few things with which you have been struggling.
I am not saying to leave your other church. I am just encouraging you to seek out some other supports. If there is anything that I can do to help, please left me know.
I had to leave the PCA last year because I was done with being reminded 24/7 what a wretched worm and sinner I am. I had been in the reformed faith since I was 9 and I could not handle it any more. The fact is, I KNOW I am a sinner, I do not need to be reminded over and over and over and over and over again. Deep down I know it. I was not ready to receive God’s grace and love because honestly, why should I because that takes away from all of the navel-gazing I should be doing.
I am still not sure how or what the law really is. Is it the OT laws? They don’t apply anymore. Is it the ten commandments? That can’t be it because we don’t even follow the one about the Sabbath being on the seventh day anymore; the ten commandments can apparently be changed. If anyone has a way to give me that answer in layman’s terms (mother of 6 over here, I don’t have much time to think deeply lately), I’d appreciate it. As it is, I will still slowly but surely be reading the gospels to figure out what Jesus thinks it is.
I am STILL, over a year later, learning about grace, which I believe reflects poorly on the evangelical church that claims to teach it. I have contemplated leaving the faith because of the false gospel I saw in the church. Then, of course, I stupidly made the decision to be part of patriarchy/FIC and the healing isn’t even close to being over.
I would appreciate prayers for my faith. I have seen how the prayers and love from TWW were so powerful in the life of Eagle. I hope for the same for me.
@ Nancy:
Then, there is the “I am better than those people outside the church and surely God is appreciative of that fact. For some proof of their election in this system is showing just how much better they are than those heathens out there. I think this is why they spend so much time pointing outward to “pagan” society.
It’s the old “I may be totally depraved but I am less totally depraved than those guys so I must be elect, right?”
Then, to really get their election groove on, they have the “I am the worst sinner I know” wars which appear to have started with CJ Mahaney. If one can “prove” they are the worst sinner by saying it loud enough and often enough, they must be saved and be worth of being followed.
Aside on the Mahaney thing: i have decided to take him at his word. I will accept that he is the worst sinner. Therefore I believe the abuse victims over him. It is only logical.
No More Perfect wrote:
I just want to clarify that it isn’t the teaching of grace that I found a poor reflection on the evangelical church, but that there is a very weak focus on it in the church so that someone such as myself who has been in it since a child still cannot understand what it means when they are grown.
I am not very clear this morning, and I am sorry. No coffee yet, little sleep, and still trying to get settled into our new home.
@ dee:
You got that right!
@ No More Perfect:
You sure have a job on your hands. Kids, church, new home re-thinking some old ideas. It is a wonder you can find time for anything with all that. So let me ask you: In the midst of all that right this minute what do you need most, more focus on the law or more grace? If you said more grace, then I would suggest that you do know a lot about grace and are well on your way to a grace-overwhelmed life. I am happy for you.
dee wrote:
“I THANK THEE, LOOORD, THAT *I* AM NOTHING LIKE THAT FILTHY PUBLICAN OVER THERE!!!!!”
Marie2 wrote:
No, Jen Wilkins for the New Number Two! (Be seeing you…)
I’m not sure that grace is really the heart of this issue, but rather, love. Yes, it’s our confidence in grace that picks us up when we fall, but it is love that drives us to do good and shun evil. Legalism compels people to make THEMSELVES spotless. Legalism is selfish, self oriented, because it points the sinner back to himself, to keep examining himself for moral and/or spiritual cleanliness. Legalists are all wrapped up in themselves (which is why they lie like hell when their perverted sexual sins are made public.) The good news of grace frees us from that introspective lockdown. Under grace we can all stop worrying about ourselves.
But it is love that compels us to free our neighbor, feed our neighbor, speak on behalf of the oppressed, and assure justice and mercy for the people around us. Grace does not transpose the Law. *Love* transposes the Law. Or, to put it as Paul wrote, For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” The NeoCalvinists (speaking as a former NeoCalvinist) do preach Grace. They will tell you that you have a perfect standing with God in Christ. But they don’t preach Love. If they did, they would have to start being nice to gays and poor people. They would have to pay taxes for school lunches and universal health coverage without complaint. It’s so much easier to tell wives to submit to their husbands, yadda yadda yadda.
@ dee:
Following up on that idea of being better than, or more chosen than or less depraved than. They also seem to be defining themselves not only as better christians but also as the only christians. Here is something I have become aware of.
The local SBC mega (increasingly neo-cal) has joined with the North American Mission Board of the SBC to plant churches in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. The church website says they want to plant a church which will itself send out church planters and eventually the project will become an avenue through which more church planters will go to Calgary. But here is the thing. The church website states that 95% of the people in Calgary are not christians. Wikipedia states that christians make up 54.9% of the population. Somebody is defining christian according to different criteria. Who do they consider christian and who not?
This is the second time I have heard this sort of thing from that church. The other time was when they wanted to open another local campus and they declared that the vast majority of people right here were not christians. I figured it out, more or less, and they had to have left out almost everybody but a select few churches to come up with that figure back then.
Here is the current statement from the church website.
SEND>>NORTH AMERICA
SEND North America (SNA) is an effort of the North American Mission Board, of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), to penetrate the lostness of the 32 most unreached cities in North America by providing access to the Gospel where it has not been available.
So, the 54.9% in Calgary who claim to be christians are deceived, perhaps, because they have not heard the real gospel? That seems to be what they are saying. And the 32 cities in North America which have no access to the gospel? It has not been available? At all? Really? That has to mean the gospel as defined by them, because no access means no, none and not at all. This is not your father’s missions outreach. This is part evangelism and part fundamentalist takeover financed in part with missions money.
I have no quarrel with missions outreach. I have a huge quarrel with defining who is and who is not a christian based on the neo-cal understanding of the gospel because it apparently leaves out everybody but them. Hogwash.
Welcome to the new SBC.
@ dee:
Where is the like button:-)
Yawn… I have heard the Jen Wilken crowd so long that it is just a clanging gong at this point. They are some of the most delusional people on the planet. It is so weird how they run around every five seconds screaming “Look at me I’m the biggest sinner!!” Why are you bragging about this? Oh St. Paul said that? Yes he did but he didn’t write a paragraph of scripture followed up by the phrase “Look how sinful I am!” over and over and over did he? Sheesh. I could go on and on about how I disagree with them theologically but honestly, they are just plain weird and obsessive. I am pretty sure all of them have some seriously, unresolved psychological issues.
Then we bring in Tullian. Praise God! He is a Calvinist who is challenging some of the bizarro made up rules and boy are they unhappy! Pray for him. Tullian’s sermons are jammed pack with some great stuff and his main objective is to tell you (a sinner) that Jesus came to save you. Christian or not you need to know that. Oddly enough, Matt Chandler spoke at his last conference so I am not sure why a Matt Chandler parishioner is attack Tchvidijian… who stinking knows. It is too twisted to figure out.
Also, Fundystan if you read this, have heard Tchvidijian making the circuit on the LCMS podcasts? Also, he has done a few interviews with Lutherans and those comments I think have been published.
__
“Theological Hoods Running A Sin-Sniffing 501(c)3 Control Racket, Perhaps?”
hmmm…
A religious sin-sniffing 501(c)3 control racket, is an extra-biblical soul corrupting lottery played mostly in spiritually poor neo-cal communities, wherein a local sin-sniffer attempts to pick three sins to match those that will be randomly preached about from the Calvinesta pulpit the following Sunday.
-snicker-
A sinner-sniffer places a tithe (price of admission) with a calvinesta pastor at a religious 501(c)3 neo-cal not-for-profit or other semi-private religious establishment that acts as a sin-sniffing parlor.
-snark-
A runner carries the tithe money (price of admission) and sin slips between the neo-cal establishment (sin-sniffing parlor) and the headquarters, called a sin-sniffing bank or religious sin policy bank. (The name “sin policy” is from a similarity to cheap religious grace insurance, both seen as a questionable gamble on one’s eternal future.)
(grin)
hahahahahahaha
*
Skreeeeeeeeeeeetch !
(bump)
Crash.
“For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. But NOW we have been ‘released’ from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit…” – Apostle Paul
“In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus” !
YeeHaaaaaaaaa!
“Grace means to get something that you do not deserve; unmerited favor. Mercy means you do not get a punishment that you deserve; compassion, forbearance. God is abundant in grace and mercy and we can read about it in the Bible. His greatest act of grace is the gift of salvation that is available for all people through faith (Eph 2:8-9). When the gift is accepted, eternal life is promised to the recipient. This eternal life is a promise of a home one day in heaven with God. The promise to the believer is sealed with the Holy Spirit as a guarantee that one day Jesus the Christ will return to earth to claim His purchased possession (Eph 1:12-14; 4:30). Jesus purchased every sinner with His own blood on the cross at Calvary.”
Ref:
http://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com/20-inspirational-bible-verses-about-grace/
*
Fear not, the word of His grace is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified!
Remember, …by works of the law no human being will be justified in His sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it — the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the glorious redemption that is in Christ Jesus.
Remember, the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.
What?
That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all His offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, as it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations”— in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist.
Be reminded, dat since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
huh?
Yep, through Him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
Be reminded, dat just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. But the free gift is not like the trespass.
Zip…Nada!
For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.
Wonderful !
Remember also, the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.
Whew!
Remember, the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
oh goodie!
Remember, dat God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses (sins), made us alive together with Christ— by grace you have been saved—and raised us up with Him and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages He might show the immeasurable riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. —> For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing dear heart; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast if they have a mind to do so…
*
FYI: Caution —> Obey them NOT dat attempt to religiously ‘lord’ over you, and submit NOT yourselves: for these proverbial religious wolves do NOT watch for your souls, and they have NO real intention of giving an account, but deceive the un-suspecting as to receive praise of men.
“The cross is the lightning rod of grace that short-circuits God’s wrath to Christ so that only the light of His love remains for believers.” ~ A. W. Tozer
Dis li’t lite oh’ mine…hum, hum, hum, hum, hum…
🙂
Sopy
__
Comic relief: Jamm’in in Roland’s Basement – (Doobie Brother Cover) “Need A Little Taste Of Love?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsQDgl9CT6E
Bonus: Jennifer Jeon – 그 사랑 얼마나 “How Great His Love Is…”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vteDJ9er0AA
;~)
—
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
HUG, the Neo-Cals LOVE the Puritans – esp. Jonathan Edwards.
A grace overwhelmed life means that grace is like a warm comforter (the HS) wrapped all around you so that you experience the love the God has for you all the time! When things get bad, I pull up a mental image of my 6’4″ friend, kneeling down and picking up his small child, and wrapping the child in his arms so that the child basically disappeared in his father’s loving embrace. And I pray, imagining myself sitting on the lap of my heavenly father wrapped in his loving embrace, and peace floods my soul.
Robin wrote:
That is a good possibility. Glad you brought that up. They cannot be thinking that obsessing about how sinful they are defines the gospel /good news in their lives. Man has messed up and God is none too happy about that is neither good nor is it new. Why they get hung up at that point must surely be some unresolved personal issues.
@No more perfect – being told over and over what a rotten sinner I was is part of the reason I left CLC years ago. Every time I talked to anyone in church, I thought I had to include the word “sin” in the conversation at least once. Very tiring.
@Dee – I liked your commentary on C.J.
In other news, I have been having a very weird thing happen lately. Don’t know if it’s because my own schedule is a bit freer lately and I go out to stores, etc. a bit more, even though I was still doing errands when I was busy. Anyway, I have run into a bunch of CLC people and just think it’s kind of weird. Included in that was D. Adams’ wife and another lady who, let’s say her husband was part of the controversy at CLC re: medication/counseling. I also was going through some old pictures and came across a picture of C.J. and CArolyn when they just had two babies. I didn’t even know I’d taken that. It’s all kind of surreal and I don’t know how to process it.
No More Perfect wrote:
The OT law has been replaced by the NT, and I still remember the bible study (Roamans 7) where I finally realised I was not under the OT law at all! It was very liberating – also liberating from any ‘law’ such as evangelical hang-ups and churchy rules and traditions. The OT law continues to tell us what is morally right from what is wrong and therefore what is loving, and still useful, but is irrelevant as far as my standing with God is concerned as a NT believer.
My understanding of total depravity is that it means in our unconverted, natural state no part of us is free from the effects of indwelling sin. It doesn’t mean we are all as bad as we could be, or that we cannot do anything good at any time. Our natural tendency is to break God’s law, but once we realise this and come to Christ, the law has done it’s job.
I have never heard anyone say that total depravity continues after conversion, though it would appear some do. How could it? What about the new creation we are in Christ? Total depravity is replaced by total forgivenness and total righteousness. Such perfect righteousness credited to us does not need topping up by our own efforts or someone else’s churchianity. Isn’t the absolute essence of the gospel ‘we are put right with God through faith in Jesus Christ’? If his blood cleanses us from all sin and unrighteousness, there is nothing left to be cleansed from. You can’t add to it, and it cannot possibly leave you ‘unworthy’.
Believe me you are not the only one to be in a church for years before someone opened up a bible and said all this, and the truth really does then set you free. (Till you forget it again and need reminding …. :-))
Of course the Christian life is a battle, we still sin and fail, and we do need to change and this isn’t always pleasant. But if we look inside (everyone does this from time to time!) all we will find is rottenness and weakness, but the gospel as I see it means despite all the muck in our lives, God sees us as though we were as righteous as his own Son, and deals with us on this basis and not our own achievements or more often lack of them.
A former pastor of mine used to do his crunch over worm theology – ‘you are no longer an “unworthy sinner”, but one of the King’s kids. You’ve been adopted’!!
If ever ‘I’m not worthy’ starts creeping back in again and I bet it happens to all of us, I’ll give you a clue as where this is coming from – he was a liar from the beginning.
@ Sopwith:
You have a good mind, so answer me this. When this is so o-b-v-i-o-u-s in scripture, how is it that some folks do not see this? How can they miss it? What is their problem? How do you see it?
Robin wrote:
Yes, Tullian is what we call a “crypto-Lutheran” because of his understanding of the difference between law and grace. I actually know a few professors who fit this category as well, although they are generally very, very careful to keep it on the DL.
Nancy wrote:
This is old fashioned fundamentalism wrapped in calvinist garb. What seems to be lost is that God’s wrath was satisfied at Calvary. Oddly, this should be even more front and center for a true Calvinist – if you are elect, then God has eternally decreed your salvation, loves you, and holds nothing to your account. Unfortunately, in my experience, many Calvinists turn this on its head by implying (or even saying outright) that if you sin too much, maybe you are not elect. it becomes the same works-righteousness hamster wheel that the reformation was supposed to have addressed.
@ No More Perfect:
It is great to hear that you are experiencing grace and learning about our loving God. And I completely understand your confusion with the law. The fact is, after years of seminary and countless tens of thousands of pages of theology behind me, I’m not sure I’m ny closer in understanding than you are. The most accessible explanation I have heard goes something like this:
The great ethical imperative is to love God and love your neighbor. The OT laws were given to Israel as a theocracy not to establish righteousness, but to restrain wickedness – this is the primary function of law. However, the OT law also included ceremonial instruction, etc., that both helped Israel form a religious identity, and served as a pedagogical tool regarding God’s nature and actions. Jesus fulfilled the law, and all who are in Christ are quite simply not under the law. However, the law can still be helpful in three ways:
1) The law still serves to show us that God is perfect and has standards. It also shows us how we fall short of those standards.
2) The law can also still serve to restrain evil. We don’t use the OT law in this regard, but regular civil laws serve this purpose.
3) The law can also still serve to show us what is pleasing to God. This gets more tricky because we obviously disagree with a great deal of what is in the OT law, and even Jesus contradicted the “plain meaning of the text” on several occasions.
I think me general position at this time is that our purpose as Christ followers is to be positively oriented toward who and what we are supposed to be, rather than being oriented toward what we are against or not supposed to be. Loving God and neighbor is a positive command. It is my belief that the overwhelming love of God which led him to shower his grace on us and save us “while we were yet sinners” works in our hearts to produce love which we then show to others. Even with a “proper” understanding of the law, it should not be our focus.
@ Jeri Massi:
I don’t see any quarrel between grace and love. We love him because he first loved us. And the name of that being the first to do the loving is grace. I think the two are inseparable, because grace is from God who is himself love. We cannot love as God loves unless God himself enables us to do so, and again we call that enabling “grace.” We are given what we did not have and what we could not procure for ourselves (the ability to love). That gifting and receiving we call an act of grace.
But I think that if I say grace and you say love we are both referring to the same complex divine/human interaction.
@ No More Perfect:
“I just want to clarify that it isn’t the teaching of grace that I found a poor reflection on the evangelical church, but that there is a very weak focus on it in the church so that someone such as myself who has been in it since a child still cannot understand what it means when they are grown.”
+++++++++++++++++++
I think I understand. the way i see it, when we mess up (bad choices, sin, omission/commission, whatever), we can acknowledge it and simply move on.
as i go through my day, when i mess up I say “I’m sorry God” (maybe a bit more), but then i get up and go on with my day. it’s done.
how can all this analysis on how terrible we are be productive? it’s a time-waster, that’s what it is. an energy-eater. i simply can’t imagine that it’s any fun for God, either.
“yes, dear, we’ve been through this… you can stop now. darling… look at me — i couldn’t love more if i tried. no need to keep digging this hole. i filled it up a while ago. come on, let’s build a fabulous sandcastle, you & me!!”
it’s a given that i will mess up. what a waste of time to dwell on it. how much we miss of life, in our experience of what is good and in our energy & time help make someone else’s life good.
At this point in my life, i’m going for good use of my time, joy, peace, happiness, fun times, enjoyable conversations, laughter (which doesn’t preclude giving of my time and energy to give help and care where it is needed). as i go through my day, when i mess up i acknowledge it with God, pick myself up and get back on track, and get back to a productive and positive partnership with God/Jesus/Holy Spirit. i consider every good feeling, every moment of happiness as a power vitamin.
__
“Where R’ da Rainbows?”
Nancy wrote:
hmmm…
o-b-v-i-o-u-s-l-y ,
-snicker-
Theological systems INHO invariably over time make for staid ‘closed’ religious conformity, i..e. a color-less bland kind of religious-correctness- ‘performance’, with one foot in da legalism ditch, n’ one foot on da proverbial ‘path’ of righteousness.
[…whereas the ‘path of the righteous’ is like the light of God’s grace dawning, that shines brighter and brighter until the full day (Jesus’ glorious return) ]
Alas, the way of the Calvinesta is like the absence of rainbows; they simply do not know what they are missing…
They forgot ta follow dat ‘star’…
(sadface)
Sopy
__
Inspirational relief: Michael McDonald – “Go Tell It on the Mountain”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPYTMXn7aAk
Inspirational conversation: Nicole : ” I believe in sunshine and rainbows after the rain!”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-AO9RXDGYk
🙂
—
@ elastigirl:
Preach it sister! You might enjoy reading Schmuley Boteach’s essay on:
The Tyranny of Perfection
Here’s the link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmuley-boteach/the-tyranny-of-perfection_b_514338.html
@ Nancy:
nailed it
@ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist: hah! I bet there are lots more cryptic out her and out there, though facing up to the Lutheran understanding of the Eucharist is likely difficult for many, no matter whether they lean toward the LCMS or the ELCA.
@ numo: crypto-Lutherans out there.
Blasted Android autocorrect!
@ elastigirl: preach it!!!
I honestly don’t see anything in the NT that even suggests the rumination over sin plus mental gyrations that so many (not just evangelicals) engage in. Jesus certainly didn’t teach/command it!
I lived this way – like running on a hamster wheel wi hour being able to stop or even slow down – for several decades, and when I’m really tired/feeling low in general, the whole pattern tries to reassert itself. That said, I truly am off that wheel, and out of the never ending cycle of guilt.
How? It began when I was in very difficult circumstances and met privately with a local Lutheran pastor for communion, a bit of talk and some prayer. Instead of blame (which I was hearing a lot, from others and myself), he spoke in love and with grace. That was the start of my journey through – and out of – the internal wilderness and pain I had experienced via my long time in serially abusive churches.
I am a revert to Lutheranism, as I believe it’s predicated on the kind of balance you describe, elastigirl. So freeing!
__
“Have You Heard The Wonderful Words Of Jesus?”
hmmm…
I have a dream, a song to sing,
To help me cope with anything,
If you see the wonder of Jesus’ words,
You can take the future even if you ‘fail’,
I believe in Jesus,
Something good in everything He says… (1)
*
“Christ came into this world as King. It is not the kingdom of this world but it is the kingdom of God within us—within our hearts. It is the kingdom of truth—the kingdom of grace.” (2)
In John 18:37, Jesus answered to the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate, saying:
“You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me…”
*
C’est mon fils bien-aimé, l’entendre ! -Dieu
__
(1) (1) Lyrics reflect fair use adaptation:
http://www.lyricsfreak.com/a/abba/i+have+a+dream_20002830.html
ABBA – “I Have A Dream”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r82fyOb8F5w
Songwriters: Benny Andersson, Bjoern Ulvaeus; I Have A Dream lyrics © Universal Music Publishing Group; all rights reserved, U.S. Title 17 copyright infringement unintended.
(2) Ref: http://www.sermoncentral.com/sermons/the-seven-famous-words-of-jesus-cristopher-luaya-sermon-on-basics-of-christianity-147304.asp
;~)
—
@ numo:
” I truly am off that wheel, and out of the never ending cycle of guilt.
How? It began when I was in very difficult circumstances and met privately with a local Lutheran pastor for communion, a bit of talk and some prayer. Instead of blame (which I was hearing a lot, from others and myself), he spoke in love and with grace.”
+++++++++++++++++
yes, love with grace.
but more than that, I think, it’s simply being objective.
all this motives-analysis & sin-sifting is superstition. gives you a feeling of being religious, of tapping in to something mysteriously greater than you.
but it is superstition.
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
I had one professor in seminary who discussed and REALLY understood grace.
As he always said, “we are sinners and will always sin, but grace makes us whole. “
From Wilkin’s article:
– Earnest Christians look to their church leaders and ask, “Teach me to walk in his ways.” –
I’m trying to find the reference, but isn’t this from a Psalm, and doesn’t the Psalmist request “Teach me to walk in YOUR ways”? There’s a world of difference, and a subtle undermining of orthodox Christian belief in this kind of thing.
Similarly, an article in Christianity Today (http://tinyurl.com/l8gvuz6) on Matt Chandler:
– Recently, as Chandler prayed before a large audience, he said, “What is . . . exciting in my heart is that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of men and women who do not yet know you; have not yet worshiped you; have not yet exalted you as God; who will in the future because of your Spirit’s work.” –
God doesn’t HAVE a Spirit; God IS Spirit. The Spirit IS God. The Trinity and all that. But of course, in the neo-Cal version of the Trinity, they cannot be one because of the Eternal Submission of the Son (and also the Spirit).
@ elastigirl: yep.
@ dee:
Thank you very much Dee! I really appreciate your advice and your offer of help. I’ll certainly ask if I need it 🙂
I’ve been thinking about moving to a smaller church for a while, as my current one is pretty large and I’ve felt that it would be nice being part of a smaller congregation. I also like to do what I call ‘church tourism’, visiting other churches from time to time and seeing how they do things… It helps me to get out of my own ‘Christian ghetto’ and I find it very refreshing, especially if I go to a church with a pretty different background. I can think now of at least one church where, maybe, I could talk with the pastor about any issues.
Eagle wrote:
HUMBLY, of course.
(chuckle chuckle)
Nancy wrote:
I think they left out everybody but ONE particular church, if you get my drift.
I wrote a response as well
http://sanctifiedbygrace.org/what-does-a-celebretory-failurist-need-to-change-his-heart/
Help me out here please someone: Why is it that folks seem to want to “preach the Bible” but so conveniently want to throw Scripture entirely out of context for their own personal gain; while at the same time pointing he finger at their neighbor accusing them of being the world’s worst sinner. It’s not new by any means, Puritans were REALLY good at this and it seems to be resurfacing with a vengence.
Resurgence + vengence = resurvengence
leholmes wrote:
It might have to do with the last five words of that quote…
@ leholmes:
Indeed so. If you figure it out, let me know. I have several theories but none of them is very good.
@ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:
Yes. Now take it a step further, if you will. Why is this particular style of religious thinking selling so well now? If somebody wanted a religion to sell to the masses, why this and why now?
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
I wonder about that myself, Insert Narcissism and Diagnosis of Sociopathy here….
@ Nancy:
“Why is this particular style of religious thinking selling so well now? If somebody wanted a religion to sell to the masses, why this and why now?”
++++++++++++
I’m sure it comes down to marketing by the powerbrokers (which was part ingenious and part luck). they and their materials are everywhere. Very easy for churches to implement their material at their churches. There is credibility attached to their names (regardless of how merited). If they say such & such is true, then it must be. If they say so & so is a heretic, then it must be.
perhaps it’s more an issue of lack of critical thinking skills. where in the cultural past exactly did that come from?
is there a sociologist in the house? (I know there is… I just can’t remember her name… is it “marie”?)
@ elastigirl: I believe that a lack of critical thinking skills has a *lot* to do with this as well as with many other problems in society. Being told that you’re “sinning through questioning” certainly makes it difficult for anyone to raise their voice, even in the privacy of their own heads. And group dynamics – disapproval, friends pulling back etc – is a very, very powerful force per keeping people in line.
Been there, done that, and somehow escaped to tell you…
No More Perfect wrote: “I am STILL, over a year later, learning about grace, which I believe reflects poorly on the evangelical church that claims to teach it. I have contemplated leaving the faith because of the false gospel I saw in the church. Then, of course, I stupidly made the decision to be part of patriarchy/FIC and the healing isn’t even close to being over.
I would appreciate prayers for my faith. I have seen how the prayers and love from TWW were so powerful in the life of Eagle. I hope for the same for me.”
No More Perfect, I will pray for you. Reading the Gospels is a wonderful choice. Also, be very gentle with yourself. It sounds like you have been on survival mode for quite awhile. Rather than considering your past choices to be “stupid,” apply the fruit of the Spirit — love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, etc., to your own soul. Take the best of the gentleness and encouragement you give to your own kids and apply them also to your own heart. Look at how Jesus treated the little children. He sees you the very same way he sees them — and he always will. He will never leave you or forsake you.
@ No More Perfect:
The following was meant for you. Sorry I botched the reference at the time. Grace is the experience of the love God has for you.
An Attorney wrote:
@ elastigirl:
@ Nancy:
“Why is this particular style of religious thinking selling so well now? If somebody wanted a religion to sell to the masses, why this and why now?”
++++++++++++
Fear also factors in somehow.
*fear of collapse of the Christian church industry
*fear of losing one’s empire
*fear of losing power
perhaps those with fear of losing power, they have instilled all manner of fear in their underlings of being presumptuous and entitled. humility is drilled in to them. “You’re a worm!” So, those whose tithes pay the salaries, and who if they were determined enough could oust the leader and indeed strip him of power, are shackled with this mindset. what’s that word…. milieu control.
perhaps this is what everyone has already figured out and i’m just now getting it.
carole ryan wrote:
I love this. No More Perfect, you will be encouraged by the people here at TWW. If you find a good church the spirit there will be like those who have encouraged you here, and you will get to be yourself again. I am very thankful for my denomination (the PCA), but I know there are some horrible, horrible, horrible churches in her, sadly.
http://www.wjla.com/articles/2014/05/nathaniel-morales-trial-begins-jury-selection-process-103048.html
The latest.
Reminds me of a song… Don Francisco:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZvNL_ACvJs
and by the way… it was the *discussion* that reminded me of the song… not the wjla article.
Muff Potter wrote:
There are only two Christians in this generation who have reached complete sanctification, that is, attained a state of spriritual perfection that I know of.
I am one, and Dee is the other. And frankly, Dee is dodgy …..
“Why is it that folks seem to want to “preach the Bible” but so conveniently want to throw Scripture entirely out of context for their own personal gain; while at the same time pointing he finger at their neighbor accusing them of being the world’s worst sinner.”
I think one of the reasons is that the “leaders” know that relatively few of their listeners will check out what they say with Scripture. Too many believers today do not know how to study the Bible and have no desire to learn to do so. So any preacher with a forceful personality will be believed by them. Mark Driscoll is annoyed when people go to the original languages to question what he says. I think we know where he is coming from.
@ mirele FKA Southwestern Discomfort:
“Jen Wilkins makes me feel oppressed with her emphasis on law, law and more law. Like I should hit myself over the head with the two-volume English translation of Calvin’s Institutes. (I read them for *light* reading when I was in law school back in the 1980s. I should have done mysteries and bodice-rippers, like my classmates.)”
“Christian liberty seems to me to consist of three parts. First, the consciences of believers, while seeking the assurance of their justification before God, must rise above the law, and think no more of obtaining justification by it. For while the law, as has already been demonstrated leaves not one man righteous, we are either excluded from all hope of justification, or we must be loosed from the law, and so loosed as that no account at all shall be taken of works. For he who imagines that in order to obtain justification he must bring any degree of works whatever, cannot fix any mode or limit, but makes himself debtor to the whole law. Therefore, laying aside all mention of the law, and all idea of works, we must in the matter of justification have recourse to the mercy of God only; turning away our regard from ourselves, we must look only to Christ. For the question is, not how we may be righteous, but how, though unworthy and unrighteous, we may be regarded as righteous. If consciences would obtain any assurance of this, they must give no place to the law.” (Calvin, Institutes, 3.19.2)
@ JeffB:
So how does this current bunch, who seem to perceive themselves as being in the footsteps of Calvin, and who advertise themselves as preachers of the doctrines of grace, get to the place of adding on the law and glorifying works as a path to individual righteousness?
JeffB wrote:
It is a theological shell game. Step right up, ladies and gents, and guess under which walnut shell lies your individual righteousness/justification!! So they desperately play the ongoing shell game when the answer is, there is nothing under any of the shells. Calvin nailed it. It is about mercy, not how good somebody can try to be. But you can tell people all day long it is not about you it is about Jesus and they still don’t get it.
And I am not a calvinist, but he was dead right (and straight out of Galations) in that quote.
Ken wrote:
And just how dodgy, you will never know!
J@ Nancy:
Unfortunately, that’s not all that Calvin wrote and most of his writing leads one to a myriad of places. Why quote him when we can quote scripture just as easily?
For instance, when you start mixing grace and mercy with some are elected and some aren’t — the grace and mercy (love exhibited) get lost in the grand shuffle of Calvin’s doctrines. When people start quoting him I want to run the other way. IMO he wrote so much that he contradicts himself constantly.
Bridget wrote:
Yep, and like I said I an not a Calvinist, But I see your point. On the other hand. though, some people who are calvinists might listen to Calvin even if they won’t listen to scripture, and if he is right about something, why not. Especially since people reference also Luther or Wesley or Spurgeon or Edwards etc all the time. Even so, I have never personally had to deal with actual calvinism itself, so I am not in much of a position to even talk about the bigger picture of calvin and all he said.
But if what for are saying is that Paul said that following people as in I am of Apollos or I am of Paul was wrong in itself, then I have to agree with you on that one.
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
No, no, no. That’s 80’s thinking.
mirele FKA Southwestern Discomfort wrote:
Please don’t, Mirele. You’ll probably wind up like these poor suckers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgYEuJ5u1K0
Or, even worse, like Jen Wilkins. 😉
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
I can’t help my generational impetus…
numo wrote:
I had often heard that myself, that “questioning” scripture, faith or doctrine was somehow a sin. What I learned was to be paranoid of any church leader, as they would be quick to label anyone a hypocrite. What is not stated: Questioning “our ideas” is a sin. Thinking for oneself is a sin. I luckily had parents that encouraged exploration within Christian philosophy, though they were still fundamentalist to a certain extent for a time. Though not now.
@ leholmes:
Fwiw, I was quoting Mark Driscoll, who stated that people who disagreed with him were “sinning through questioning.” But then, I think he ruins a full-fledged cult, not a church.
__
“A Theological Square Peg In A Proverbial Scriptural Round Hole, Perhaps?” ©
Q. “Why is it that folks seem to want to “preach the Bible” but so conveniently want to ‘throw Scripture entirely out of context’…?” – leholmes
hmmm…
Ans: aka reinterpretation of scripture in light of a particular system of theology becomes of necessity, r-e-q-u-i-r-e-d.
huh?
i.e. upon close examination, it soon becomes evident that the Neo -Calvinist must ignore the clear language and obvious sense of many of the passages of the Holy Scriptures.
What?
The Neo Calvinist must also then ‘force’ certain Bible Scriptures and make them ‘fit’ into their own theological systematic construct.
Krunch.
Hence, ‘a theological square peg in a proverbial scriptural round hole.’ ©
Crack, Crack, Crack, Crack, Crack…
Thud.
Pounding the pulpit repetitiously and exactingly with an ear-marked bible simply does the rest.
(sadface)
Sopy
—
__
“If The Son Of God Shall Make You Free, You Shall Be Free Indeed?”
hmmm…
No more runnin’ down the wrong scriptural road,
Dancin’ to a false religious drum,
Can’t you see what’s goin’ on,
Deep inside your heart?
Always searchin’ for the real thing (Jesus),
Livin’ like He’s far away,
Just leave all this religion madness in yesterday,
You’re holdin’ the key,
When you believe in da Son of God,
From the scriptures on da printed bible page…
Shine sweet Jesus!,
Shine your light on me,
You bring the wonderful Word that I need,
It takes me right where I want to be,
Oh sweet Jesus carry me along,
You can keep my spirit alive …on and on…
We’ll be dancin’ in the church- isles,
Smilin’ with da risin’ Son,
Livin’ like we’ve never done,
Goin’ all the way,
Reachin’ out to the Scriptures where we really live,
Absorbing every printed verse,
Till, the light of Your Word, is right where we are,
There’s no turnin’ back,
From what the church is needing…
The Son of God! (1)
Bless’ins,
Sopy
__
(1) (1) Lyrics reflect fair use parody adaptation:
http://www.lyrics.com/sweet-freedom-lyrics-michael-mcdonald.html
Michael McDonald – “Sweet Freedom”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCXWAZMYBJQ
SongWriter: Rodney Temperton;
“Sweet Freedom”; Lyrics © Universal Music Publishing Group, EMI Music Publishing, Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC ; All rights reserved, U.S. Title 17 copyright infringement unintended.
Inspirational relief: Jennifer Jeon – (보혈을 지나 ) – “By the Blood of Jesus”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXEV-AgV7oY
;~)
—
__
“Creeds, Bible Commentary, A View Of History, And Present-Day Protestant Christianity, Perhaps?”
hmmm…
Calvin long dead, his ICR (1) is but a Christian commentary, a proverbially bible ‘helps’ guide.
huh?
It (ICR) was never meant to replace the Holy Scriptures, only to expound upon the Apostles’ Creed, as a means of expanding Church reform, through-out France.
What?
That effort of Church reform in France was a dismal failure, as the Crown, who’s dedication it (ICR) received, was determined to defend the only officially established Church in France, at that time.
And as such, John Calvin was forced to flee with several of his friends, continuing his writings and efforts at church reform from his new adopted home of Geneva.
He was later able, with the help of several men to establish the Holy Scriptures, and not ‘the established Church’s tradition to the Scriptures’ or the the papal monarchal supremacy as the new rule of faith and practice, the basis of all legal laws and community moral and ethical behavior.
(see note 2)
In this endeavor, he and the reform he so fervently sought was becoming a successful reality in a number of nations, later to include the spread to England and Scotland (after the publication of the Act of Supremacy) expanded through the assistance of John Knox, the Westminster Confession Of Faith, and William Tyndale’s original language(s) simi-complete scriptural translation(s) (later completed by others).
Later the thorough inner-workings of Dort (3), in his (Calvin’s) absence (death had taken him) , was to effectively establish his teachings, and not catholicism as standard of scriptural interpretation, throughout much of sixteenth century Europe, a counter reformation, not withstanding.
Hence the foundation of all law and religious practice was moved by reform, from the word of the bishop of Rome to the words of the Holy Scriptures. Soon all law throughout much of Europe was to see the Holy Scripture, and not the words of a religious official as their basis.
Much of the trouble the Protestant church faces today, is a hearty reversal of that process noted above, i.e. the scriptures becoming more and more relegated to the dustbowl of history, and not common societal foundational legal or ecclesiastical practice, with the basis of law becoming (in a word) arbitrary (subject to the whims of men, and not securely founded upon Holy Scripture).
Again, in the West, we are seeing and witnessing the Reformation in reverse, i.e. the laws of men, and not the Holy Scriptures, being re-elevated and enthroned, with the ensued confusion measured as a mere felonious byproduct. This arbitrary process is expected to continue. As present day Neo-Calvinists would have it, Calvinism (a religious theological system) and not Holy Scripture would seek to fill the void (vacuum) ; hence much of the confusion of applying the Old Testament Law to their current effort(s) to pursue religious faith and common practice.
___
Notes:
(1) (ICR) “Institutes Of The Christian Religion” http://m.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.toc.html
(2) As you may recall, the Reformation finds it’s humble beginnings “on the 10th of December 1520, when a professor (Martin Luther) in the university of Wittenberg invited all the friends of evangelical truth among his students to assemble outside the wall at the ninth hour to witness a pious spectacle the burning of the “godless book of the papal ecclesiastical state of which the bishop of Rome was head.” He ( ed. Luther) committed to the flames the whole body of the canon law, together with an edict of the head of the Church which had recently been issued against his teachings. In this manner Martin Luther, with the hearty sympathy of a considerable number of his countrymen, publicly proclaimed and illustrated his repudiation of ‘the papal government’ under which western Europe had lived for centuries… ” – Chisholm, Hugh, General Editor. Entry for ‘The Reformation’ ; 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica.
(3) Dort.
http://www.reformed.org/documents/canons_of_dordt.html
See also:
http://www.reformed.org/index.html
Further Resources:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_0_20/191-7940543-1479565?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=history+of+the+reformation&sprefix=History+of+the+refor%2Caps%2C647
http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?ds=20&kn=History+of+the+reformation&sts=t
http://www.ebay.com/bhp/history-of-the-reformation
https://www.logos.com/products/search?q=Reformation&start=0&sort=rel&pageSize=60
;~)
—
For those interested in pursuing more study re “free to obey”, you might read up on the early Quakers. That would be quite in line with some of their teachings.
Also the very non Calvinist Wesleyan Holiness stream of the faith teaches the same idea–not a sinless perfection where we cannot sin, but rather a freeing of the soul to desire to obey and to obey.
Probably the truth is somewhere in between the extreme of “obey to be justified” and “you can’t and never will obey, but you can be justified.”
Personally, I take scripture at its word that there is no temptation we face but such is common to all humans, and that God always makes a way of escape. Hence we are free to obey.
In our fallen humanness, we often choose not to obey.
numo wrote:
Interesting. I had only been vaguely familiar with Driscoll until the past 4 months or so, and the name popped up in some discussions. Sad. Utterly saddened and disheartening in so many ways.
@ leholmes:
There’s plenty in the archives here – see the drop down menu on the upper right for a listing.
Nancy wrote:
I am of Muff. That’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it.
===> (smiley face goes here)
@ Muff Potter:
good one
Nancy wrote:
except these days instead of Paul or Apollos it’s Calvin or Luther or Driscoll or Pearl or Mahaney or Gothard or…
@ Ken:
Like!
Deebs, momentous things happening in SGM/CLC land as the Morales trial is in its third day.
Read SGM Survivors and Brent Detwiler for updates.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
That’s the way I see it.
@ Hester:
I’m not sure about Flag Ken or Dee, but I have by God’s grace discovered the secret of infallible perfection. It is that, whilst all others simply pluck doctrines out of thin air in order to satisfy their own desires to sin, I alone base everything I believe on the Word of God as revealed in Biblical Scripture.
You may by God’s grace understand how that makes me perfect and infallible: my opinions and practices are not my own, but God’s. Thus, people may appear to disagree with me; but in truth, they are only expressing their sinfulness and their disagreement with God himself, who is the source of all my doctrine. It follows that anybody who questions anything I say or do is shaking his or her fist in Christ’s face.
Aye, right…
@ linda:
For me the being free to obey line just puts a knot in my stomach. I do know however the complete difference of trying to ‘obey’ and having a hunger for righteousness that immediately flooded my spirit after knowing Jesus Christ and that hunger for it has never left. I think the free to obey line bothers me because it sounds so programmed like you will just be free to obey whoever is in charge without regard to that ruler being righteous or not. Satan’s only hope against the righteous is to convince them that God is not good all the time. I don’t obey God because God is in charge, I obey God because God is good and God is righteous and God is good all the time. I feel like so many Christian leaders have no clue what I am talking about and if Satan were to win they would follow him.
Patti–you just preached a pretty good Wesleyan Holiness sermon!
Freedom to obey is just that–like the song says, the chains are gone. Of course, Jesus is who we obey, not earthly leaders.
For me, I love knowing that no matter how strong a temptation may be, God is willing and able to help me resist.
Note I like knowing that–doesn’t mean I never get selfish and refuse His help and do what I dang well please.
But the truth is we are free to obey Christ if we are saved. I cannot for the life of me imagine telling someone addicted to drugs, or a child abuser, or whatever “God can forgive you but He is gonna leave you without a hope of healing or change.”
And thanks for you post–you described the holiness “new wanter” to a T! The old saw of “I can sin all I want, but since I got a new wanter when Jesus touched me I just don’t want to.”
Jen Wilkin relies on the Sermon on the Mount for her argument that we need to follow the law? Doesn’t she know that it’s a pre-cross sermon explaining Old Covenant standards? Sheesh.
Tim
P.S. I posted today on one aspect of all this rule-keeping and lack of grace, this time in the context of the Purity Movement and how impure it really is
Another image for those who are still in the healing process. Jesus said that he would send a comforter, the Holy Spirit. Sometimes when I have hurts, I think of the HS as something like a literal comforter, you know a big quilted, overstuffed thing that you can wrap up in from head to toe while waiting for the fire to warm the cabin on a cold and windy evening while sipping hot chocolate or hot cider. Imagine the living Spirit so engulfing and protecting you from the attacks of the world while God is at work dealing with the miscreants around you.
Dee,
As a Reformed (in the historic/old school sense) reader of TWW, I definitely appreciate your comments here. What the folks at the Gospel Coalition (aka The Gospel Industrial Complex in our old school Reformed circles) promote is often a cheap facsimile of historic Calvinism. They like Calvinist notions of God’s sovereignty, but they recoil from Calvin’s teachings on the Law, and on the lingering effects of sin in the life of the believer.
Wilkins says, Through the gospel our God, whose Law and whose character do not change, changes us into those who obey in both motive and deed.
Of course Christians can have the beginnings of proper motivations, but if we think that our motives for obedience are pure, we are kidding ourselves. Even our very best intentioned obedience suffers from the taint of sin and selfishness in some way. This shouldn’t discourage us, rather it should encourage us to have our eyes fixed on Jesus who alone is our righteousness. Knowing we are weak, and so prone to sin isn’t a way of waiving the white flag, rather it is an acknowledgment that we are free to pursue God and his righteousness on the basis of grace, without constant navel-gazing to figure out if we have the right motivations. My bad motives, just like all of the rest of my sin was nailed to the cross and dealt with at Calvary 2000 years ago.
I think the Westminster Confession of Faith has a far more realistic assesment of the Christian life:
5.5. The most wise, righteous, and gracious God doth oftentimes leave, for a season, his own children to manifold temptations, and the corruption of their own hearts, to chastise them for their former sins, or to discover unto them the hidden strength of corruption and deceitfulness of their hearts, that they may be humbled; and, to raise them to a more close and constant dependence for their support upon himself, and to make them more watchful against all future occasions of sin, and for sundry other just and holy ends.
18.4. True believers may have the assurance of their salvation divers ways shaken, diminished, and intermitted; as, by negligence in preserving of it, by falling into some special sin which woundeth the conscience and grieveth the Spirit; by some sudden or vehement temptation, by God’s withdrawing the light of his countenance, and suffering even such as fear him to walk in darkness and to have no light: yet are they never utterly destitute of that seed of God, and life of faith, that love of Christ and the brethren, that sincerity of heart, and conscience of duty, out of which, by the operation of the Spirit, this assurance may, in due time, be revived; and by the which, in the meantime, they are supported from utter despair.
@ Dr. Fundystain:
There are far worse things than being called a crypto-Lutheran. knowing Tchividjian’s teaching on grace, I suspect he’d take it as a compliment. However, for those in the Gospel Industrial Complex, “Lutheran” is a a pejorative describing either those who sin too boldly, and whose reliance on grace makes them uncomfortable, or it describes someone who drinks too much beer!
Whenever I am accused of being a crypto-Lutheran, I just start whistling to the tune of “This is the Feast of Victory for Our God”.
Tim wrote:
I actually completely disagree with this assessment on every level. The sermon on the mount was, however, both a redaction and repudiation of the law. Very subversive.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
So Nick, how long have you been a Southern Baptist?
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
A Jewish friend once told me of “the subversive wisdom of Torah” and gave me some examples regarding slavery and honor killing — both universal customs among Iron Age Semitic tribes. In neither case did Torah flat-out forbid them (this would have been so far out of Reality they’d just blow it off and do it anyway), but instead regulated them so tightly that they became impractical though legal. (Of course, everyone who could benefit from them looked hard and found loopholes, a subject of many Prophetic rants.)
@ Tim:
That was a good post on your blog, Tim. It doesn’t work, and that’s not what the bible says and while we are at it here is what the bible says will work; seems like that ought to be all that needs to be said.
@ Nancy:
Thanks, nancy!
The bigger question is whether the grace/obedience debate is central to salvation or peripheral. If it is central, then you better find the truth. If it is peripheral, then this is just cerebral. Just sayin’.
Mark, The Happy Catholic. (THC)
Tim wrote:
I, too, loved your post on the Purity Movement, Tim! Excellent thoughts! Checklists, rules, regulations, oaths, etc. sound more like the focus of Mosaic Law than the power and fruit of the Holy Spirit. It also underestimates young people’s ability to make responsible decisions imo. Good job!
True story.
Once upon a time long long ago and far far away, there was this lady I knew-well sort of knew. She liked rules. She was one of these people with a large purse and lots of things in it, and one of the things she carried around with her was her book of rules. What it was was one of those really small ring binders with special size ruled paper for notes and such. In it were the rules. She had collected them from various places, a book here, a sermon there, that sort of thing. Some of the rules, actually, were not bad as far as rules go. She liked the young people, and she would check her rule book when anything came up or when anybody asked her something, especially one of the young people. That is how the rest of us found out about the rule book.
She was quite sane and polite and all, but strange enough about religion that they ended up at some cult-like thing in an adjacent town. Not living there, just going to church there. At this point one must ask, so how was she better off because of the rules, whether she kept the rules or not?
IMO, wondering whether she was able or was not able to keep the rules is not the point. And for that matter, if she was able to keep the rules asking whether she did it because she wanted to or because she thought she had to also is beside the point. The point is, she apparently relied on rule-keeping and it let her down at a crucial moment in decision making–that would be whether to or not to get involved with the situation they subsequently got involved in.
If people think the rules, kept or not from either force or desire, are going to testify on their behalf at the judgment, they will not. Not much matter why they won’t, not much matter whether the rules are keepable or not or whether the rule followers are perfectible or not, that is not the problem. The problem is that the rules are not capable of making anybody justified in the sight of God. Paul broke himself up preaching this. It is Jesus or nothing. That is just how it is.
So this affects how I view the rules. I have seen a really bad example of it. Certainly there is good and bad, and certainly choose good. There are reasons to do that. But don’t link it with justification. That is not the purpose of the rules.
@ Nancy:
What I have said is, of course, thoroughly protestant. There are some catholics her who could state the catholic position with is different.
Nancy wrote:
here, not her
Nancy wrote:
which. which. confound it anyhow. I am going to be early. Obviously I need to.
@ Victorious:
Thanks so much!
Jed Paschall wrote:
🙂
Jen Wilkins’ definition of grace seems eerily similar to Bill Gothard’s redefined version of grace: “the desire and the power that God gives us to do His will.” http://www.recoveringgrace.org/2011/07/unredefining-grace/
We all know how THAT has turned out!
@ Nancy:
“So how does this current bunch, who seem to perceive themselves as being in the footsteps of Calvin, and who advertise themselves as preachers of the doctrines of grace, get to the place of adding on the law and glorifying works as a path to individual righteousness?”
That’s why we call them Neo-Calvinists and Calvinistas. They don’t get it. (Jed Paschall, in his 6:05 PM comment above, puts it well.) But some do – Michael Horton, for one. And we must remember that Tchividjian is a member of TGC; therefore, a Calvinist.
And, yes, it would be nice if all so-called Calvinists read Calvin.
@ Bridget:
“For instance, when you start mixing grace and mercy with some are elected and some aren’t — the grace and mercy (love exhibited) get lost in the grand shuffle of Calvin’s doctrines.”
Don’t worry – I won’t quote Calvin, but will refer to him.
If the doctrine of original sin is true, everyone born after the Fall is born into sin. Scripture says of everyone, “No one does good; no, not one.” If, as Calvin, and, most importantly, Scripture says, that *people are incapable of choosing God,* isn’t it incredibly merciful and loving of God to choose people? He was under no obligation to choose to save anyone. But He chose some. We don’t know why He didn’t choose everyone. But He could have chosen none at all.
Isn’t this at least one example of how grace and mercy can co-exist with election? Without election, no one would be saved.
JeffB wrote:
Hmm…Fair warning – this will be passionate and I am not attacking you, Jeff, but I do attack the doctrine: This is the doctrine that would drive me away from God if I believed it. It would mean that he is capricious and cannot be trusted, imo. To me, this not an example of grace and mercy, but of ‘carrot-on-a-stick’ cruelty.
How is it gracious and loving to look at someone who doesn’t believe or is maybe struggling with their faith and tell them, ‘well, God may not have chosen you. We don’t understand His reasons, but he chose me, so that’s mercy and grace.’ No. That is not mercy and grace. The is, imo, sick and twisted.
His grace makes us all able to choose Him. If that is not true, then it is not grace and it is not mercy. Seriously, how is it loving, merciful or gracious to extend freedom and embrace to this person and withhold it from this other person for no discernible reason? That is the behavior of a sociopathic narcissist – follow me, obey my rules and maybe, just maybe, you’ll be one of the lucky few I choose to not condemn to outer darkness for eternity.
If I were to be convinced that this is what the Christian God was, I would have no choice but to walk away. Because a god who would tell me that I was created for the purpose of being abused for a greater good and that regardless of that, he may or may not have chosen me to be saved, but I better act like he did, just in case….that is not Jesus, that is Zeus or Ra or Anu or one of the myriad other gods men created in their own image.
Where does Scripture say that, “people are incapable of choosing God?”
Admittedly, I am an equal-opportunity distrustor. Luther? Marx? Calvin? Darwin? Knox? Big Name Preachers (to whom I have paid no attention and about whom I am just becoming educated)? Shrug. Deception is a masterful and lethal weapon. Question everyone and everything.
As far as I can tell, God created human nature with innate volition. He created beings in His image and likeness who can choose to fellowship with Him. The personal responsibility for human choices manifests in real time in real life.
As an example, Jesus even submitted to those who chose to beat him to a pulp and nail him to a cross.
I ask because I am curious.
Obeying Jesus is awesome.
Jesus told a man to stretch out his arm. The man did, and Jesus healed him.
Jesuse told a lame man to pick up his pallet and walk. The man did and Jesus healed him.
Jesus told a man to return home, his son would be well. The man did as Jesus told him and found Jesus had healed his son.
Jesus told a blind man to wash the mud off of his eyes in a certain pool. The man did and Jesus healed him.
Pointing out how the Gentile rulers lorded it over and exercised authority over the people, Jesus said, “It shall NOT be so among you…” (Matthew 20:26)
Jeannette Altes wrote:
Agreed. And how does that jive with scripture that records the impartiality of God?
Rom_2:11 For there is no partiality with God.
latest on Morales. Latest person to testify lives in Raleigh, NC
http://www.wjla.com/articles/2014/05/nathaniel-morales-trial-victim-jeremy-cook-testifies-103128.html
Jeannette Altes wrote:
That’s just counting coup on the other guy.
“Me Sheep! You Goat! Haw! Haw! Haw!”
@ Jeannette Altes:
Amen and amen Jeannette. I walked away from both Calvin & Luther shortly after the turn of the century and haven’t looked back. And as for Jesus the son of Mary? Now that’s an entirely different story…
@ Victorious:
@ Muff Potter:
Hmm…to say that God created some that he chooses not to give grace to salvation seems to go against the concept that it is not his desire that anyone would be destroyed. (See 2 Peter 3:9). Does that mean all will choose to turn to him? No. We all have a choice. But I do not believe for a moment that he creates some with absolutely no hope or ability to choose him.
And it seems to me that if he gives us no choice but to choose him, that robs the choice of all value – to him or us. It means he created marionettes that cannot choose to do differently he wills. There is no love in that. That, to me, is cold, clinical, utilitarian, all the things that, in my experience, are the hallmarks of the truly evil.
Muff Potter wrote:
Muff, I am with you on this….
Just to be clear —
Jesus subjected Himself to the (violent) will of unrighteous people in order to fulfill God’s unique purposes for Him to “take away the sin of the world.”
My point is that the Person who gave people the will to choose, allowed Himself to be treated according to their decisions.
Expecting anyone to endure an ABUSIVE relationship is totally twisted. The more exposure of abusers, the better.
Ardiak wrote:
Yes indeed. And don’t let people tell you not to do that. And when you find somebody and something that does not disintegrate in the face of questioning (Jesus) stick around and see what else he has to say. At least, that is what seems to work.
It has been my experience that such questioning, however, sometimes leads to my believing some apparent truths which I never wanted to be true and with which I remain extremely uncomfortable. At that point the only thing that is stable is Jesus himself. Not some doctrine or understanding about Jesus, which might have to be changed, but the actual person of the god-man who is himself trustworthy. Which, I think, has been said by a lot of people a lot of times here at TWW.
There is a trap, however, for people who question. The trap is that we tend to think that once we have questioned and come up with an answer which seems right (and which we may like) then that answer must certainly be the correct answer. After all both my thinking (it seems correct) and my feeling (I like it) have been satisfied. I have wrapped myself around many an erroneous or incomplete conclusion by falling into this trap. Not talking about you here. I am talking about myself and all of us who believe that questioning is a necessity because as you said
Ardiak wrote:
I have played around with copy and paste and click here and not there. Hope this works.
I haven’t visited this site in quite some time and I’m sure Dee hasn’t missed me. I dropped by today to see if you have touched this and some related issues. I must say I am pleasantly surprised as I agree with Tullian and now Dee! I always thought Tullian was one of those you refer to as “Calvinistas” or “Neo Calvinist”. Our agreement on this only goes so far of course. Your suggestion that Wilken must be in lock step with her Pastor seems unfair as his preaching and conference choices would seem to suggest otherwise.Believe it or not there is room for disagreement on secondary issues within a healthy church! This is not Tullian vs. Chandler and any attempt to frame it up that way is uncalled for.
Jeannette Altes wrote:
They (reformed theologians) are only portraying what they believe to be true from Scripture, with a whole panoply of verses and advanced degrees to back it up with. I simply disagree with them on a fundamental and visceral level just as you do because it violates my inner moral compass and Jiminy Cricket.
John A. wrote:
I call ’em as I see ’em. I believe Tullian is breaking with his tribe. Perhaps his brother Boz has helped him to better see the nonsense inherent in that system.
John A. wrote:
I have read Wilkin at length as I do many others. She is a submissive follower and needs to be one in order for her stuff to be promoted.
John A. wrote:
i agree and have written extensively on this topic. However, we probably disagree on what constitutes a healthy church.
John A. wrote:
This is Tullian versus the NeoCal lockstep brigade. In fact, until the SGM thing broke, I had planned to discuss the calls to a debate because it appears that DeYoung and others are displeased.Healthy disagreement is not allowed in this group.
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2014/05/13/what-we-all-agree-on-and-what-we-probably-dont-in-this-sanctification-debate/
Nancy —
What you say is true. The relationship is the thing. Walking in the Spirit Who leads us into all truth (according to God’s Word) is the focus and the challenge. So freeing to know I am a “work in progress,” being changed “from glory to glory” as God works in my life. I’ll never get it totally right in this life, but I’m free to enjoy God’s goodness, grace, and love anyway, while I’m here.
“I know WHOM I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I’ve committed to Him.. . ”
SO cool how the truth in love comes through the postings here. whenever I post, I always want to say, “As others here have already said.. . ” The validation so builds me up.
You are doing better with the buttons than I am. lol
Dee, Deb, this post and responses highlights for me something I’ve thought of asking of you for some time. When you get the chance, would you by any stretch consider a post that shows the difference between historic SBC, as in Hershel Hobbs, E Y Mullins, etc and the current thinking? One that covers the old time Baptist teaching that Jesus is head of the church, the priesthood of THE believer, and congregational polity vs the current “every pastor a pope” mentality?
I think you have the platform to make a major difference in calling the SBC back to its roots, and cannot think of anyone who could do it so articulately.
My personal take is that so much of this kerfuffle, whether in the SBC or elsewhere, is that human beings, mostly males but not always, are trying to take on the role of the Holy Spirit. That holds true whether it is fundies telling us we have to believe in YEC or liberals telling us we must change and accept whatever culture accepts.
Baptists should be of all people most countercultural as in following and obeying Jesus, not religion.
linda wrote:
Having been there and done that, so to speak, back in the day, I have no desire to have the old SBC resurrected. It was different from now, but had a huge number of issues in the areas of both faith and practice. I was in school (elem and high) from 1940 to 1952 and no way do I think that era of baptist faith and practice should be resurrected. If there were a religious group identical to that era of baptist-dom I would not raise my children in that tradition. And I did not raise my children in what they became roughly beginning in the sixties. And my grandchildren are not being raised in what they have become now.
There are systemic problems that are embedded in the baptist culture that show no signs of going away. There are what I think are doctrinal errors which have been there all along and are still there. There is a sociocultural attitude of disdain for fellow believers of other traditions that is far too widespread. And there is the tendency to institute lists of rules and shibboleths (identifiers?) many of which are mere foolishness. None of this is new. This is baptist, as I experienced it, and baptist is my primary dialect of christian-ese. Thank God, people can, in fact, lear a new dialect.
My experience in the SBC started in the early 50’s, and I would have no problem at all with a return to the concept of the priesthood of THE believer, or soul competency, or of the church being under the leadership and rule of Christ, with the authority vested in the church rather than the pastor.
I’m not a liberal, but neither am I a fundamentalist. This hyper authority stuff started with the fundamentalist rise to power. In that sense it is, indeed, new. And unbaptistic to say the least.
@ linda:
You have to be careful when you talk of going back to the roots of the SBC. Racism. Landmarkism. And some other pesky details.
Those indeed were part of the roots–but only part of them. Landmarkism did not infest every bit of the SBC. Racism was indeed part of the roots in the civil war era, and in some parts of the country far beyond.
But don’t drink the Kool-Aid. Those were not the ONLY roots of the SBC. Read “The Axioms of Religion” by E Y Mullins. Those were also part of the historic roots. Read “Doctrines Baptists Believe” but make sure you get the one by Hershel Hobbs. Those were also part of the root.
Read the 1925 and 1963 BFM. Those were also part of the root, when the criterion of judging our faith was Jesus Christ, not whatever “timeless truths” the then current BFM contains.
The root of the SBC was soul competency. Was it used badly by some? Of course, but name me a denomination where that hasn’t happened. Some, both liberal and conservative, will always use that as license to sin.
But it sure beats the Bapto-Catholic church the SBC has become, where one answers not to God but to the pastor in his supposed role of authority.
I’m a product of the 50’s, wasn’t male and am not now, and not completely white. I’m well aware of bigotry. But it wasn’t all in the SBC.
And as to Landmarkism? Much silliness, and yet the idea that God has always had His remnant loving Him well inspite of institutional silliness bears some study.
linda wrote:
And in over 25 years in the RCC, I have never seen the Priesthood Pulling Rank at the level of these “Bapto-Catholics”. I’ve run into a couple control freaks, but none wearing a collar or in an official position. Neither have I seen the amount of Ex Cathedra proclamations.
Landmarkism is just another attempt to prove My Tribe is The Only True Church and All The Rest of you Are NOT. In the words of Thomas Merton:
“The most important thing in the Devil’s theology is to Be Absolutely Right and to prove everyone else to be Absolutely Wrong. This does not lead to peace and harmony among men.”
Tullian Tchividjian has been Purged from The Party.
He is now doubleplusunperson.
Like Lonnie Frisbee, he never existed.
Pingback: The Gospel Coalition Shake-Up – Tullian Tchividjian and Too Much Grace for The Gospel Coalition? | Spiritual Sounding Board
@ Marie2:
SEEKER FRIENDLY PREACHING BY STEVE FINNELL
There are more than a few who believe more people would be converted to the truth about Jesus and His gospel plan of salvation if preachers were nicer and more understanding in preaching the truth.
Is seeker friendly preaching the answer to evangelism?
Is the gospel of the Bible too narrow and restrictive to win the world to Christ?
Should the gospel be expanded to include, all men, no matter what doctrinal position they embrace?
Is God’s truth too offensive for that world to accept?
If Jesus and the apostles would have been more seeker friendly preachers would the world have already been converted to Christianity?
THE GOSPEL AS SEEKER FRIENDLY ADVOCATES SEE IT!
THE JESUS VERSION.
John 8:24 ‘Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.”(NASB)
THE SEEKER FRIENDLY VERSION.
John 8:24 ‘Therefore I judge no man. It is optional to believe or not believe if I am the Son of God.” (Seeker Friendly Handbook)
THE JESUS VERSION.
John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. (NASB)
THE SEEKER FRIENDLY VERSION.
John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am one of the ways, and I have partial truth, and there are many different roads that lead to the Father.” (Seeker Friendly Handbook)
THE JESUS VERSION.
John 8:44 You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.(NASB)
THE SEEKER FRIENDLY VERSION.
John 8:44 I will not make any judgment concerning any ones genealogy. Who is truthful is strictly a matter of opinion. (Seeker Friendly Handbook)
THE APOSTLE PETER VERSION.
Acts 2:36-37 Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ— this Jesus whom you crucified” 37 Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, Brethren, what shall we do?”(NASB)
THE SEEKER FRIENDLY VERSION.
Acts 2:36-37 Peter said, “Jesus loves you this I know.” 37 Then they were pierced to the heart and all recited the “Sinner’s Prayer.”(Seeker Friendly Handbook)
THE APOSTLE PAUL’S VERSION.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived ; neither fornicators, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.(NASB)
THE SEEKER FRIENDLY VERSION.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 I just preach Jesus, I am not the judge of sin nor sinners. Only God will decide who will enter the kingdom of God. (Seeker Friendly Handbook)
THE APOSTLE PAUL’S VERSION.
Galatians 1:6-9 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel;…….9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received he is to be accursed! (NASB)
Galatians 1:6-9……8 Let God’s cures fall on anyone, including myself, who preaches any other way to be saved than the one we told you about……(The Living Bible—Paraphrased)
THE SEEKER FRIENDLY VERSION.
Galatians 1:6-9 Let every denomination decide in their heart how to become saved and write it in their creed book. God will not judge those in error. (Seeker Friendly Handbook).
IS SEEKER FRIENDLY EVANGELISM THE WAY TO CHURCH GROWTH?
YOU ARE INVITED TO FOLLOW MY BLOG. http//:steve-finnell.blogspot.com/
Like almost every issue I find infecting the church today, there is some truth on both sides, and neither is 100% right. There is nothing wrong with obeying. Jesus says if you love Me, keep My commandments. And, there are way too many today who think obeying makes them better then everyone else and become too much like pharisees. I wish would could put aside labels, love God and others, we make following Christ so much more complicated then it needs to be.