The other day I posted some links to Royce Ogle’s blog where he passed on some writings by Edward Fudge. Fudge argues that passages in the New Testament which speak of falling away actually address “unbelievers who claim to be believers.” This is sort of a variation of the argumentation I addressed in the last post.
I can’t buy this reasoning either. Look, for example at the beginning of 1 Corinthians: “To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours:” (1 Corinthians 1:2) Does that description not fit “the elect”? It takes some fancy word wrangling to say that some of the verses in the book apply to Christians and others apply to pseudo-Christians.
Or let’s take Galatians, for example. Fudge refers to this passage: “You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace” (Galatians 5:4) By implication, he says that this is addressed to these unbelievers in the church. Problem is, reading the verse in context pretty much rules that out. A few verses later, Paul writes: “You were running a good race. Who cut in on you and kept you from obeying the truth?” (Galatians 5:7) These are not unbelievers, they are believers. And Paul says that it is possible for someone to keep them from obeying the truth, a fact which some Calvinists would deny.
Back in Chapter 3 of Galatians, Paul says: “Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? Have you suffered so much for nothing—if it really was for nothing?” (Galatians 3:2-4) These Galatians had received the Spirit… yet it could be “for nothing.” Believers whose faith could be in vain. Further down Paul says, “All who rely on observing the law are under a curse.” (Galatians 3:10) Under a curse… but saved? Doesn’t make sense.
To the Romans, Paul wrote: “Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off.” (Romans 11:22)
To the Corinthians he wrote: “No, I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize.” (1 Corinthians 9:27) And: “By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.” (1 Corinthians 15:2)
To the Galatians he wrote: “Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.” (Galatians 6:9)
To the Colossians: “But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation— if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel.” (Colossians 1:22-23)
To the Thessalonians: “For this reason, when I could stand it no longer, I sent to find out about your faith. I was afraid that in some way the tempter might have tempted you and our efforts might have been useless.” (1 Thessalonians 3:5)
To Timothy: “holding on to faith and a good conscience. Some have rejected these and so have shipwrecked their faith.” (1 Timothy 1:19) and “The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.” (1 Timothy 4:1)
I’ll leave the other letters for now. Paul writes to Christians, warning them against falling away. We should heed his warnings as well.
With one more post you could possibly exhaust the standard proof texts of those that deny POTS. Some of these have been lifted from their contexts so that they sound very different that if they had been read in their original contexts. I suppose a Calvinist could then list 40 or 50 proof texts that are frequently used to support POTS. That would enable us to continue to talk past each other and avoid a meaningful conversation – just a war of you give me your scriptures and I’ll give you mine. I thought you wanted more than that.
In your post on some initial thoughts you said:
“As we explore the topic of saints ceasing to be saints, let me encourage us all to proceed with caution. I see no profit in a war of proof texts. Those that disagree with us don’t do so out of ignorance of any certain biblical text, so comments like “You obviously haven’t read…” don’t add anything to the discussion.”
You added:
“If Christian history teaches us anything, it’s that godly, intelligent men have come to different conclusions on this. Differing views are not the private property of any one group, not even the fellowship we call the church of Christ.”
Do you feel this post is consitent with your stated original intent? Is sounds pretty much like a one sided bombardment expressing no room for intelligent thought on the other side. How would one respond to this post, perhaps takes each text in its original context and discuss what how it is understood by a proponent of POTS. Might be so long absolutely no one would read it.
I feel that anyone that grew up in a CofC, went to a CofC university, and spent the nest 20 to 50 years in a CofC has a pretty good idea of the CofC beliefs, what tests they use and how they use them. Do you feel like you have a good handle going the other way on Calvinism, particularly POTS. Have you read some of their books, spent substantial time on their websites, attended their fellowships for at least a couple or three years, fellowshipped with believes that affirm POTS. Do you understand the doctrine well enough to discuss it fairly? Is it your desire to learn the doctrine, to understand it the ways that those that affirm it understand it, or simply refute it? If all that is desired is to build a straw man and then blow him down, you could have done that in a just a post or two.
Maybe your next post will be titled Persevering in the Faith and you will take the opposite point of view than is expressed here. There could be mention of being upheld by God’s righteous, omnipotent hand.
Peace,
Randall
Randall; (you better watch it ) I do believe I was rebuked for mentioning this very thing, which I had the foresight to see happening. “How can anyone discuss religion without quoting scripture.”
Seems someone changed their mind on tit for tat scriptures battle.
Randall, no offense, but the “Yeah, those are the arguments we always hear…”, “Yes that’s a standard caricature…”, “Oh, that’s what everybody that doesn’t understand says…” gets a bit old. There’s a possible reason why everybody says those things.
I hesitated about including the texts. But you have to understand that I’m answering a post, hoping that people either read it on Friday or will read it today. I didn’t publish the other side, because it’s already published. Fudge didn’t present the other side, as far as I know. Between the two, there’s an attempt at balance.
On Jay’s blog, you complained about him trying to limit the discussion to Hebrews. So what’s your proposal? We don’t just focus on one book, but we don’t give examples from many.
I’m not ready to write a book on this subject. I’m presenting my ideas. That’s what this blog is for. One reason it’s called The Kitchen is because I want to present my ideas and have other people help me process them. Believe it or not, my experience in the churches of Christ isn’t the same as yours. Most people I know that have some beef with churches of Christ think they are all alike. That’s kind of like looking at some Baptist church burning Bibles and saying that all Baptists burn Bibles. I don’t remember EVER sitting through a study on this subject at church. I’ve read a couple. I was made to purchase one of Robert Shank’s books as part of a class on Romans, but we never used the book, and I never got around to it. I won’t be arrogant enough to say, “This just comes from studying the Bible,” but most of these thoughts came to me from considering the texts themselves.
I’m human. I’m fallible. I could be wrong. I’m open to correction.
Write a blog. I’ll promote it. I promise. I’ve already linked to some who disagreed. Look back at my series on alcohol. I put a link to posts by my most vigorous opponent. You keep saying that all I’m presenting are misunderstandings, caricatures, etc. Why not take the time and energy you’re using to comment here and write what you see to be the truth? That would be a help to us all.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Thanks for the recent visit, Tim. I’ll try to read some of your previous posts on this theme. wb
Tim: Falling away from grace, is that the same as losing salvation?
Falling away could mean becoming distant in your relationship with God?
Grace is something called unmerited favor. Does this mean if i fall from grace God won’t love me anymore. Do I lose favor as a result of my action or does God draw away from me? How do I get to be part of the blessing and is that conditional from your point of view. Is your love for your wife and children conditional? Then if it is they are under a relationship that is based on the if then proposition. If you love me you get the blessing it you disobey you get the curse. I am sorry but that relationship went by the wayside with the cross. That is my perspective
Perhaps a discussion of human nature is appropriate to understanding what we can and can not accomplish by ourselves. On another blog there are some that affirm that the notion that we have a sinful or fallen nature is absurd. At least one person asserts that Adam did not have a sinful nature before or after the fall. He chose to sin b/c he is flesh even though he was good. It is also asserted that since Jesus was flesh he had exactly the same nature as us and we as him. This person asserts that having a fallen nature is a poor translation of the Greek word “sarx” which literally means flesh. Other think flesh is a metaphor for our fallen nature and contarst it with spirit. When I was in high school one Sunday School teacher (also an elder) taught us the doctrine that all mankind fell in Adam was wrong. He asserted the only harm done to us by Adam was that he set a bad example and we should not follow it. This doctrine, known as Pelagianism, still survives in the CofC today.
At the other end of the theological spectrum is the doctrine of Total Depravity. This is the “T” in TULIP and if one accepts Total Depravity (TD) then the other four points logically follow. Calvinists and classic Arminians accept TD. This does NOT mean that they believe man is as bad as he could be which is a common misunderstanding in the CofC. TD means that every aspect of a man’s being has been touched by sin to the extent that he is totally unable to choose God all by himself. One internet sight defines it this way “Sin has affected all parts of man. The heart, emotions, will, mind, and body are all affected by sin. We are completely sinful. We are not as sinful as we could be, but we are completely affected by sin. ” read more if interested at http://www.calvinistcorner.com/tulip.htm
Wiki defines TD as “The doctrine of total depravity (also called “total inability”) asserts that, as a consequence of the fall of man into sin, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin. People are not by nature inclined to love God with their whole heart, mind, or strength, but rather all are inclined to serve their own interests over those of their neighbour and to reject the rule of God. Thus, all people by their own faculties are morally unable to choose to follow God and be saved because they are unwilling to do so out of the necessity of their own natures. (The term “total” in this context refers to sin affecting every part of a person, not that every person is as evil as possible.)[5]
Jacob Arminius himself and some of his later followers, such as John Wesley, also claimed to affirm total depravity. However, they did not affirm it in the Calvinistic sense, for if they had, they could not logically hold to their views on election and the other four points of Calvinism.” if interested read more at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism
I provide the following illustration regarding how far man fell: Let’s say I fell into a muddy bar ditch along the side of the road. It was an ugly mess, but I pulled myself out by my bootstraps and climbed back onto the road and went home and took a shower. Or perhaps a fell down a 100 foot cliff. There I lay bruised and a little broken, dazed, even perhaps unconscious for a while. But I came to andbegan to climb back up the cliff. It was tough going and there were places it was so rough I could not have made it, but God helped me or even carried me through those rough spots and eventually I reached the top. The final illustration is to imagine that I fell into the abyss. There I was utterly, hopelessly, helplessly, lost but Jesus saved me. This is the way a Calvinist looks at his nature and his salvation. All the credit logically goes to God for the special grace he showed to me which he did not necessarily show to another. I would guess that in the CofC one of the first two examples will describe the vast majority of the members.
There are not many classic Arminians in the CofC, though some semi-Pelagians describe themselves as Arminian because they are not all that familiar with descriptive names for the other positions and they simply want to make a distinction between themselves and Calvinists. But to call oneself an Arminian when you are not one is to mislead, even if it is unintentional – back to the idea that words mean something, not just what we choose to want them to mean.
It is my opinion that the mainstream point of view in all the CofC is semi-Pelagian. There are relatively few Calvinists in the CofC but a few have chosen to tough it out. Thomas Campbell, Alexander’s father, was a Calvinist all his life but he chose to not make an issue of it. I believe he once wrote that the Westminster Confession of Faith was the finest exposition of scripture ever penned by man.
Classic Arminians affirm the doctrine of TD. However they believe in prevenient or prevailing grace. That is, God works equally effectively on the heart of every person w/o exception to the extent that they could overcome the impact of TD and choose God, but man’s will is able to withstand this work of God and man has the ability to reject God’s efforts. So the Calvinists believe in special grace which is efficacious to salvation but the effectiveness of prevenient/prevailing grace may be withstood by the human will. IMO, there are almost as few classic Arminians in the CofC as there are Calvinists.
I’ll do another comment on Free Will as It is my hope that others would understand Calvinism better, whether they agree with it or not.
Sir Archer,
I too believe we must heed the warnings of Paul. The writings of this man of God as he was moved by the Spirit are powerful words continuing to speak of the choices we make on a daily basis.
Just because we became a Christian does not reserve us as a Christian. There are still some supreme choices to make. Like James said, “faith without works is dead.” The works present in our lives are those in which cause us to bear the fruit the world sees. Jesus said, “you shall know them by the fruit they bear.” When unbelievers see our lights shining, they glorify God; hence our actions (works) share the message with others around us.
I typically think of hotel reservations. Even thought I have made the reservation, confirmed the reservation and show up at the hotel, that does not mean I get the room for the entire week. In signing for the room, I make a contract to abide by the guidelines of the hotel policy. When I, notice the word “I”, break the policy, I am no longer allow to stay at the hotel. It is still my choice in what I make, not the hotels. Their policy is clear.
Ok, I have rambled enough. Maybe more later, but I need more coffee. Keep up the good work!
One other point I forgot to mention. Are we on some short account system in our faith with the creator? I mean if today I was involved in some sort of lust of the flesh and I die. Based on the proposition of falling from grace is my salvation in doubt? The apostle Paul states I do the things I wish I wouldnot do and don’t do the things I wish I would do.
We are human by nature and subject to the failings of our existence.
That is why grace is not and cannot be something we earn or lose. If it were we would be in a hopeless state. What kind of state of mind would you be in if at any moment your standing in your relationship could be
challenged at any given time by God an be taken away?
H.B., that would be a sad way to live. I’ve known a few people who believed in such a “short account system,” as you describe. It would be pretty miserable.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Thanks for the longer explanation Randall. I still think you should set up a blog and fully explain your thoughts on this matter. Not everyone reads the comment section. Set one up at WordPress or Blogger, and I’ll let people know.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Randall,
Let me share with you my view of your man falling illustration. I fell into the abyss. There I was utterly, hopelessly, helplessly, lost but Jesus came and said, “The only way out of this abyss is for me to lift you out. Are you willing to let me do that?” I can say no. I can say yes, then change my mind at the top and choose to jump back into the abyss. Or I can trust in Jesus from then on and be rescued.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
I am so tempted to write on unconditional love, but not right now. Back to my assertion that words mean something. I know of CofC congregations that intentionally do not use the term “unconditional love” precisely b/c they understand it and recognize that they don’t believe in it. A few years ago it was common to hear it spoken of in the CofC. When leading a Bible study at church I have even asked “What conditions do we have to meet to be recipients of unconditional love?” Sometimes I get lists with four or five items on the list. Of course, if the love is unconditional, then definitionally zero conditions have to be met to receive unconditional love.
Free Will: Where does one begin. To some this is so important that I half jokingly talk of people bowing down and worshiping at the altar of Free Will – and I am only HALF joking in some cases. As Americans we instinctively KNOW we have free will and it is responsible in large part for our greatness. We believe that there are no limitations on our will. We can set our minds to do and accomplish anything that is important enough to us. We can choose God or choose to reject him, or first one and then the other and perhaps even repeat that process.
Calvinists believe our will is damaged, especially with regard to the things of God. Calvinists believe man makes choices every day and man is accountable for the choices he makes. However, there are choices that man can not make. There are things that cripple or encumber our wills. I believe that the term free will is almost absent from scripture. Granted, there is a free will offering spoken of in the OT meaning that the sacrifice is not obligatory. None of us come to scripture in a vacuum. We bring tons of baggage with us and it shades the way we read scripture. That is just as true for me as anyone else. The intellectual currents of the past few hundred years color so much of what and how we think that I could scarcely begin to describe it.
What could we not accomplish by our “free” will? There are obvious things like we could not will to be born in a certain or time or place or to a certain family. We can’t just will to go to the moon. But how about being good? Could we do that? The great commandment is to love God with all our being and the second is to love our neighbor. Do you know of anyone on earth that you know that for just 24 hours could love God with all of mind, heart, soul and strength and love their neighbor as themselves? Of course not, and why is that? Because we are all in bondage – we are NOT free.
Either we are slaves to sin or we have been set free from sin and become slaves to Christ. Either way we are not free, not absolutely free, though perhaps we are more free as slaves to Christ than we were as slaves to sin. So when we talk about free will we really mean relative free will. If a man can choose to be good that what did we need Christ for? Why don’t we just go out and be good if we are able. Clearly we are not able, even with the aid of the HS we perform poorly. Look at Paul’s discussion in Romans seven. He doesn’t do what he would do, instead he does the very thing he would not do and then says it is not him doing it, but sin which dwells in him. Every last one of us can identify with Paul on a daily basis – and I mean now as Christians. It is not limited to before our conversion.
Calvinists believe that men come to faith through the efficacious grace of God. That is, his grace works effectively to bring about the desired end. I did not come to Christ under compulsion. I am no puppet or robot. My faith is my own and my choice is my own, but the ultimate cause of my choosing God is his work in me to make me willing to come. Left to his own devices, man would choose to serve himself, not God nor his neighbor. When people talk about robots or puppets or being forced to make a choice or being denied making a choice they otherwise would have wanted to make they show only that they do NOT understand Calvinism.
Still not convince that our will is encumbered by sin? How about God – can God sin? Can God lie? No, b/c his nature is altogether pure and holy and he will act in accordance with his nature. We also act in accordance with our nature, so we sin and he does not. We sin b/c we are sinful and he does not sin b/c he is not sinful. I have actually heard it taught at church that our will is more free that God’s b/c we can choose to do good or evil and he can only choose to do good. This is to confuse license with freedom.
How about during the eschaton? When we have been saved from the penalty of sin, and the current process of being saved from the pleasure and power of sin are completed we hope to be saved from the presence of sin. Right now we sin b/c we WANT to do it. No one puts a gun to our head or twists our arm behind our back and forces us to be unloving, greedy, arrogant, lustful or whatever. We do it b/c we take pleasure in it and b/c still has some degree of power over us. Junkies and alcoholics LIKE getting high. Illicit sex feels good to the adulterer. They take pleasure in it. But God is cleaning us up. We are in the process of being sanctified, and he is doing it though we participate with him. God is removing the pleasure we found in sin and he is replacing it with pleasure in serving him. The power sin exerted over us is being replaced by the power of the HS in our lives and we are now producing fruit of the Spirit to the glory of God. Eventually we shall be in his presence and there is no sin there. Imagine if we were in the presence of God and still had the ability to sin. How long would we remain in his presence? First sin and we are thrown out the door. We don’t want the “freedom” to sin which is what we have now b/c that supposed freedom is really bondage. We want to be like God and unable to sin b/c our nature (our will) will be so pure and holy that we will never again want to sin. There will be no allure in sin. The former drug addict will not want his drug. We will not want to wander away from the Great Shepherd like the relatively stupid, smelly sheep we are now.
Will our current “free will” be gone? Oh how I hope so. I trust this demonstrates a little bit what Calvinists mean when they deny free will and helps some to avoid presenting caricatures of the doctrine.
Tim,
Thanks for being so gracious in your suggestion that I set up a blog. I hope it is not that you feel like I am trying to hijack yours. ;-) I do realize my posts are long as I am rather wordy and have a huge tendency to digress.
I have recently retired and we plan to move to a different state. When we make that move I do not plan to attend a CofC. For now we stay at one b/c that is where we have long term relationships with Christian friends. When we move we will be starting over, new relationships in a new place. We visited a large CofC congregation at the new location that has a rep for being progressive. On the wall of the auditorium they had their core beliefs which included the statement that Man is Basically Good. I have no desire to attend a church where I would have to hide my beliefs in order to avoid creating a controversy. Most likely we will end up at something like a Bible church or community church – probably kind of a Calminian place with a healthy small group program.
The CofC is my church family since birth, but I regard it as my dysfunctional family. I will always wish them well and look forward to news from home, and I pray all the news from home will be good news. But I can’t spend too much time with my dysfunctional family. It is just too much work and too much discord; and there are plenty of younger people with a desire to carry on now. I happily step aside to get out of their way as they want the best for the church and are not tied so tightly to our traditions and ways of thinking. It might surprise you (maybe not) that a significant minority affirm sovereign grace.
I have had these Calvinist vs semi-Pelagian conversations for decades. They are long and grow tiresome. Usually they grind down to arguments and people stop discussing and go a little on the attack and defend their home ground. That is a two way street as I am not more holy than you or anyone else. When I feel the discussions are no longer edifying or encouraging I drop out of them.
This one and the one on Jay’s blog are kind of a last effort before I relocate and walk out the door. It is my desire to have people understand Calvinism rather than the caricatures they have been taught all their lives. Whether they accept it or not is entirely up to them, under the leading of the HS. I feel that if they understand better their misrepresentation of the doctrines of sovereign grace may diminish. But like I said, the CofC is my dysfunctional family so I don’t get my hopes too high. We have held ourselves apart from the rest of mainstream Christianity for so long that even with the movement I see in that direction I am not optimistic we are on the verge of a real change in the tide. I have heard rumors that ACU is moving towards being simply a Christian school rather than a CofC school – and that scares many of our older brothers and sisters.
Also I do not have the energy or interest required to have my own blog. Why would anyone would read it? My computer skills are limited. I am much more interested in developing personal relationships, teaching classes at church than committing to cyberland activities. I certainly don’t want to obligate a lot of time over the long run to explaining Calvinism unless there is an audience that is interested enough to have real conversations. There is a lot of important theology out there besides sovereign grace, but who God is, his nature and attributes are the foundation of how we think about him and Christianity; and how we think affects how we act. WE have focused on the minors for so long and I look forward to having more study and discussion time devoted to more significant issues than has been the norm in the CofC.
Whenever I take up too much of your blog please comment in the blog or send me a private note and I’ll quit taking up the space.
Peace,
Randall
Randall,
I’m glad to have someone reasonably state the counterpoint to my views. I think that you can provide this balance better than if I tried to state these things myself.
In retrospect, I probably should have ended this post without the list of verses starting with Romans.
Oh well… live and don’t learn, that’s what I always say.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Randall said; “How about God – can God sin? Can God lie? No, b/c his nature is altogether pure and holy and he will act in accordance with his nature. We also act in accordance with our nature, so we sin and he does not. We sin b/c we are sinful and he does not sin b/c he is not sinful.”
Job: 38:1: Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,
2: Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?
Randall you could be making the same mistake Job made, judging God by man’s standards.
No God does not sin, there is a good reason he does not “BECAUSE HE IS GOD” what is sin for man is not such for GOD. You shall not kill— did God kill many. You shall not judge—God will judge all.
Maybe we should all read “Job” now and then to get the difference between God and man, his creation.
Man has already lifted Jesus up to God’s level, now he is working on mankind. If you make the rules, you can’t be accused of breaking those rules. God does not live under the same rules as imposed on man.
Kind of like Tim, he don’t live under the same rules as he imposed on everyone else.
Tim , I’m glad you have finally found someone on your intellectual level.
I hope my current free will is never gone. If salvation includes destroying what makes me, me, I might as well be a Buddhist and seek to be lost in Nirvana.
I don’t ever want to lose any part of my image-of-God-ness. I want to will what God wills — I want to partner with Him like He wanted Adam to partner with him in love and creation and sovereignty.
I imagine what it will be like to be in the presence of God and still have the ability to sin ALL THE TIME. It will be amazing! Because, being in the living presence of God, living by the power of the Holy Spirit, I will be empowered to be Just Like Jesus with regard to sin. I’ll have the ability to sin — I just won’t DO IT!
Salvation is not being freed from being human. As Irenaeus wrote, “The glory of God is man fully alive.” Some people excuse sin by saying, “What’d you expect? They’re human.”
I don’t. Not anymore. When I see someone do something awesome and Godly and beautiful, THAT’S when I say, “What’d you expect? They’re human!” Genesis 1&2, Psalm 8, and the life of Jesus, seen through passages like 1 Cor 15 and Rom 8, have begun to transform my weak and pitiful understanding of what it means to be human, and I bless God for making me this way!
I won’t presume to speak for Edward Fudge, but I’d be willing to bet that his view is based on the idea of a believer as someone who lives Christ, rather than someone who has just confessed mental assent to the concept of Jesus as the Son of God and Savior required of him/her before being immersed. A believer is someone who has been changed.
I think there were lots of folks in the New Testament who fell from grace. Those who taught a Jesus who didn’t come in the flesh, but was purely spiritual – introducing a heresy John battled. Those who taught circumcision as co-equally necessary with faith – introducing a heresy Paul battled. They gave up grace for a different gospel, a different Christ. Falling from grace is simply a matter of refusing or denying its power, rather than being changed by it. Corinth’s congregation was apparently full of believers who never stopped believing, but weren’t changed by their faith … yet.
But people who truly believe are changed by their faith; changed by the Spirit of the living Christ within them. They live their faith, profess their faith. They do things contrary to human nature. They sell their possessions and give to the poor. They take in plague victims and nurse them to health. They refuse to deny the Name even in the face of torture and death.
It has become their new nature. They are new creatures. It’s simply not within their will or character anymore to fall from the grace bought with Christ’s blood. For such a believer, God’s promise is sure: they can have confidence in what He has done for them because they continue to let Him work His will through them.
Randall says “People are not by nature inclined to love God with their whole heart, mind, or strength, but rather all are inclined to serve their own interests over those of their neighbour and to reject the rule of God.”
Paul says Rom 2:14 “For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which show the work of the law written in their hearts….”
Who should I believe?
When studying the Bible and Bible doctrine you “must” consider alternative views to your own. Why, because the scriptures support them. Every theological camp arrived at their positions because of their understanding of scripture. Even Jim Jones and David Koresh claimed biblical grounds for what they taught and practiced.
So, there must be more than quoting proof texts. There must be some critical thought processes where you try the best you can to find a value that best fits with the “weight of scripture”. For example, I can list a handful of verses that I could use to teach that man is justified by works. But to be intellectually honest and a good student of the Bible I must consider the mountain of biblical evidence to the contrary. And so it is with most other subjects. It is the task of the Bible student to reconcile those passages that “seem” to contradict each other in light of the rest of the narrative.
We will not get far taking pot shots with our favorite proof texts and calling those who disagree with our positions names. “IF” we could have some dialog in the spirit of 1 Cor 13 we might just find some agreement and resolve some differences.
As one who is out of step with conventional coc thinking I am disappointed that I have been called a Satanist, unsaved, and more. Are we as a fellowship gracious enough to allow others to reach different conclusions than we? Do I not have a right to study my Bible and teach what I find there? Unfortunately, for many the answer is no.
Tim I wish you and Randall success in having a civil forum.
Royce
Keith, in other words people change to fit their true belief, no matter what that belief is. If we truly believe in Christ we try to do good. If we truly believe others are out to get us, we become rebellious, In other words whatever we believe is what we become. I think that is one of the main things the bible teaches. If we see a thing as good we accept it, if we see it as bad , we fight back. now that is human nature. and it does not respond in a uniform way even on the same thing, lets take taxes for example, if we see those taxes as doing good for people less fortunate than ourself, we accept that as a good sacrifice. If we see taxes as something taken against our will, and distributed wrongly, we fight them. Government in general is seen in just that way, when it does what you want it is good, when it defies your wishes to help others, it is bad. human nature. To love your enemy, goes against human nature, to love your neighbor as yourself/family, goes against human nature. A holy spirit dwells within a person, or an unholy spirit dwells in us, that is the only choice. but God himself does not dwell upon this earth, how do I know this, because he said so. And his son Jesus stands by his side.
Thanks, Keith, for the reply. I too believe that we are being transformed into the image of Christ. The further along we are in that transformation, the harder it is to go back. Harder, I believe, just not impossible. Which explains the existence of most of the New Testament letters.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Thanks Royce. And I did get carried away with the verse quoting yesterday. Apologies again to all.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Well, I can say one thing is for sure, some of your commenter’s are pretty long winded. I didn’t quite read all of it..just too much to process, but I figured I’d give my amateur 2 cents on the matter.
I see true Biblical repentance and faith as a lifelong life-altering action. I think there is a great deal of confusion about the concept of re-dedication or coming back to the Lord…I see nothing in the scripture that would support that. Instead, I feel that the church has equated repentance with faith and faith with believing. In reality these are all very distinct and separate actions that a person must understand and achieve on the path to Christ. I know there has been many scriptures shared so I won’t beat that horse anymore than I must, but I will mention the two that have helped me come to my understanding. This issue is directly addressed in 1 John 2;18 and following. Even more convincing for me is the Parable of the Sower…which in reality is not about the sower but a parable about soils. We see there are 3 categories of soil that show some response, but in the end they do not bear fruit. There are also three categories that do bear fruit in differing yields. As he goes on to explain this parable…and other teachings through out the gospel, I can’t help but come to the conclusion that even those that are once believers, once accepted by the church, once even doing miracles in the Lord’s name…in the end if they are not Faithful till the end…”they went out from us, but they did not really belong to us”. They don’t need a lesson on re-dedication (not sure what that looks like anyway)…instead they need to become a Christian….hearing the Gospel and truly repenting and becoming faithful.
Thanks Skye. I do recognize that there is a point where, practically speaking, the two lines of thinking basically converge. I don’t know that anyone would treat a struggler differently based on their theology.
In reading the letters of Revelation, as in my next post, I see that there are people that Jesus accepted as forming part of the church who still needed to repent. Taking the human element out of it, we see that Jesus saw them as forming part of His body, yet still urged them to change their ways or fail to receive the prize.
Don’t know if all of that adds up to 2 cents, but it’s what I’ve got. :-)
Grace and peace,
Tim