|
|
The two-part article below is a keeper! (That means I agree with 97%+ of it. Of course, you may have a different definition of “keeper”!) I waited a few months to get Part 2 so I could post both of them together here.
Part 2 was worth waiting for! Don’t read it until you have time to think about it a little.
–Enjoy!
**********************************************************
What I Have Learned in 50 Years as a Theologian (Part 1)
Jack Cottrell
2/7/2010
Since receiving my AB degree from Cincinnati Bible Seminary in 1959, I have been either preparing to teach or teaching theology (Bible doctrine) in CBS’s (now Cincinnati Christian University’s) graduate school. I was recently challenged to sum up what I have learned during this lifetime of study. Here are my thoughts.
FADS vs. FUNDAMENTALS
First, I have learned that theological fads come and go, but the “fundamentals” are still fundamental. A fad is a seemingly new idea that bursts on the scene and receives lots of attention, especially by authors and publishers. Once the latter have milked the new theme for all it’s worth, it fades into the background and is replaced by something else.
Examples from the past include the “death of God” movement and secularization theology (1960s), the “Jesus movement” (1970s), liberation theology (1970s, 1980s), and the New Age movement (1980s, 1990s). Present examples include militant atheism, open theism, postmodernism, seeker-sensitive services (à la Willow Creek), and the emerging (emergent) church movement.
It is important to understand such challenges, but we must keep them in perspective. We make a big mistake when we look on such fads as either a fatal blow to Christianity or as the solution to all the church’s problems. We seriously err when we embrace such supposedly new ideas, and revise our thinking and practice to accommodate them.
For example, we must resist the temptation to redesign the church simply to fit the preferences of our pagan culture. Seeker-sensitive (i.e., evangelistic) programs are great, but they must not take the place of church services designed to edify the saints. An analysis of what the New Testament says about church assemblies shows their purpose was never evangelistic as such. The services described in the New Testament involved believer-to-God elements, God-to-believer elements, and believer-to-believer elements.
Unbelievers were welcome (1 Corinthians 14:20-25), but the services were not designed specifically to reach out to them. (For a more complete discussion of this, see chapter 26 of my book, The Faith Once for All, published by College Press in 2002.)
Even Willow Creek now realizes it was wrong to deviate from the biblical pattern: “After modeling a seeker-sensitive approach to church growth for three decades, Willow Creek Community Church now plans to gear its weekend services toward mature believers seeking to grow in their faith.”1 This fad has faded; so will the others: “This too shall pass.”
The fundamentals, however, are eternally true, having withstood one attack after another. A century ago, Christendom came under attack from within, as modernism or classical liberalism sought to strip the Christian faith of all its supernatural elements and leave it as nothing more than secular humanism disguised in biblical terminology. In response, those known as fundamentalists strongly defended orthodox Christian teachings. The term fundamentalist was not an insult then; to be a fundamentalist simply meant one was committed to believing and defending the fundamentals of the faith.
Especially in view of what liberalism was denying, the fundamentalists often compiled concise lists of the most basic doctrines—the beliefs without which Christianity simply would no longer be Christianity. The best-known list was this: the inspiration and authority of the Bible, the virgin birth of Jesus, the substitutionary atonement of Jesus, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the visible return of Jesus.
In the early 1990s, Gene Wigginton of Standard Publishing asked me if I would write a small book explaining “the fundamentals” for today. I was glad to oblige, and wrote Faith’s Fundamentals: Seven Essentials of Christian Belief (still available from Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2002). I included in one way or another the original five fundamentals in these chapters: “The Bible Is God’s Word,” “Jesus Is Our Savior,” “Jesus Is God’s Son,” and “Jesus Is Coming Again.” Having noted that the original list had nothing about salvation, I added this chapter: “We Are Saved by Grace, Through Faith, in Baptism.”
I also concluded that the original list omitted what I have discerned to be the most fundamental of all beliefs: first, the fact that there is such a thing as TRUTH as such; and second, the existence of the transcendent CREATOR-GOD of the Bible as the only possible source of such truth. This leads to the second thing I have learned in my career.
TRUTH vs. RELATIVISM
My 50 years as a theologian (43 of them as a professor) have been based on the firm conviction that there is such a thing as truth. And if there is truth, there is also falsehood. I have also worked under the conviction that human beings made in God’s image are able to receive and understand God’s communication of truth in his revealed and inspired Word.
I take seriously the teaching of Titus 1:9, that a leader in Christ’s church must be “holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.”2 Thus a main task of every Bible teacher (theologian, if you please) is to discern and teach truth (“sound doctrine”), and to expose and refute false doctrine.
As I have attempted to be faithful to this mandate of the apostle Paul, I have been pleased to find widespread agreement about the reality of truth and falsehood. But I have also learned over these five decades that a great many within Christendom, including our movement, and often in positions of leadership, do not accept this most fundamental of all beliefs.
I have learned this often in very personal and painful ways. Over the years I have taken very firm stands on important issues. The very fact that I have taken these firm stands has often caused others to put me in the role of a villain or adversary or troublemaker, and to characterize me as someone who is dogmatic and opinionated in the worst sort of way.
The problem is not just that I have taken certain views with which others disagree. On a more basic level I am criticized for having the arrogance to present my views and interpretations as the right and true ones, with the implication that alternative views are actually false!
This kind of criticism is symptomatic of what I have come to regard as one of the most sinister false doctrines, namely, the myth that there is no one right view of anything, that there is no one right position on any doctrinal issue, no one right interpretation of any Scripture. This view says that all personal convictions are “just your opinion,” with one opinion being as good or as valid as any other. This is in effect a substitution of relativism for truth.
Both in my writing and in the classroom, I have never hesitated to take a position on any crucial issue, to defend it from Scripture, to declare opposing views to be false, and to identify those who teach falsely. But one thing I have learned in 50 years of “doing theology” in this way is that it makes one very unpopular in certain circles! It puts me in conflict with what some regard as a more sophisticated and scholarly teaching methodology, namely, that a teacher should simply present the various major views on any issue without stating and defending his own personal view. To do the latter is regarded as “spoon-feeding” the students, and is characterized as a sign of anti-intellectual fundamentalism.
I will not attempt to defend my methodology here. I will simply affirm that my teaching and writing will continue to be based on the presuppositions that truth is real and that it can be known. I cannot do otherwise without going against what I believe Scripture teaches about God, about itself, about the nature of human beings, about truth, about sound doctrine, and about false doctrine.
Thus I affirm today that after doing theology for 50 years, I am more convinced than ever that the following (often-challenged) doctrines are TRUE:
1. The Bible is God’s inerrant Word.
2. The only true God is the Creator-God of the Bible.
3. The transcendent Creator-God knows the future, even future freewill choices.
4. Human beings do have truly free will; Calvinism is false.
5. Jesus is the only Savior, and salvation comes only by knowing and accepting him as such.
6. The Holy Spirit does not give miraculous gifts today.
7. Demonic spirits are real and active today, even in Christian circles and in some Christians.
8. Sinners are saved by grace, through faith, in baptism, for good works.
9. Baptism in water is the point of time when God gives the saving grace of forgiveness through Christ’s blood and regeneration through the gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit.
10. The Bible does not permit women to teach men, nor to have authority over men, in the church.
11. There is no such thing as a secret rapture.
12. The lost will suffer eternally in Hell.
13. The church is intended to be “the pillar and support of the truth” in this world of falsehood and relativism (1 Timothy 3:15).
5/30/2010
What I Have Learned in 50 Years as a Theologian (Part 2)
Previously (in the February 7 issue) I discussed what I have learned in 50 years as a theologian under two headings: Fads vs. Fundamentals, and Truth vs. Relativism. Here I will conclude by discussing Law vs. Grace.
In six years of seminary work (at Westminster and Princeton), I was especially drawn to Reformation studies and was thus introduced to the doctrine of grace in ways that were new to me. I also spent much time studying the book of Romans. In my first semester of teaching at Cincinnati Bible Seminary (fall 1967), Lewis Foster asked me to teach a course called New Testament Theology. I decided to focus on soteriology (sin and salvation), concentrating on grace and building the course on Romans 1-8.
After three years I changed the course name to The Doctrine of Grace, and have now taught it more than 70 times. I have also given scores of church seminars on grace. Thus this is the one subject I have probably learned the most about in my career as a theologian.
Reluctantly, I have concluded that traditional Restoration thinking is seriously flawed in reference to grace. We have embraced specific doctrines that are grace-denying and that communicate the idea of salvation by works. Some will feel insulted by this judgment, but I stand by my conclusion. Thus I have devoted much time and energy attempting to reshape the way we should be teaching about sin and salvation. Here I will summarize my main points.
Positive Principles
First I will list the main positive principles of grace salvation.
• Sin causes a tension within God’s nature, transforming his holiness into wrath and his love into grace—both of which are directed toward the individual sinner. The purpose of the incarnation is to resolve this tension via the substitutionary atonement of the God-man, Jesus Christ.
• Every sinner has two main problems: (a) guilt and condemnation in relation to God’s law, and (b) a sinful (depraved, sin-sick) condition of the soul. The content of saving grace is thus a double cure: (a) justification or forgiveness through Christ’s blood, and (b) regeneration and sanctification through the indwelling Holy Spirit.
• We sinners become and remain justified only by grace, through faith in Christ’s redemptive work. Everyone needs to rethink the doctrine of justification by faith. We in the Restoration Movement need to take it more seriously. Protestant churches in general need to understand it as Luther did, rather than in Zwingli’s perverted sense (which is the common view).
• Sinners are justified by the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ (his satisfaction of the law’s requirement for penalty), not by our own personal righteousness or law-keeping.
• Every Christian should have assurance of salvation; a right understanding of justification by faith is the key to this assurance.
• When Paul says we are not under law but under grace (Romans 6:14), the word law does not refer to any law code (especially the Mosaic law code), but to the law system of salvation. This distinction between law codes and the law system is crucial for a proper understanding of grace.
• There are two ways to enter Heaven: through the law system or through the grace system. The problem is that the former is no longer viable for anyone who has sinned (i.e., everyone, Romans 3:23). This is why anyone who is saved (in Old Testament times and New Testament times) is not under the law system, but under the grace system (Romans 6:14).
• Though we are not under the law system as a way of salvation, we are still under a law code that we are absolutely obligated to obey. In the New Testament era our law code is the moral law in general and all new covenant teaching about how to live a righteous, holy life. The faith that justifies is a faith that works, i.e., that makes every attempt to obey these law commands.
• Sinners are saved by grace (as the basis), through faith (as the means), in baptism (as the time), for good works (as the result). See Ephesians 2:8-10; Colossians 2:12.
• For its first 1,500 years, the Christian world (including Martin Luther) saw no contradiction between salvation by grace and salvation in baptism. Huldreich Zwingli, in 1523-25, created a whole new view of baptism that separated it from salvation.
• Salvation by grace through faith in no way contradicts salvation in baptism.
• The argument that baptism is a work and therefore cannot be for salvation is based on a false definition of works as Paul uses the term. Thus the key to accepting baptism as a grace event is a correct understanding of works. The key to this understanding is Paul’s distinction between “works of law” (Romans 3:20, 28; Galatians 2:16) and “obedience to the gospel” (Romans 10:16, English Standard Version; 2 Thessalonians 1:8).
Three Serious Errors
I will now briefly explain three serious and interrelated errors about salvation that are typical of Restoration thinking.
• “How the sinner becomes saved is different from how the Christian stays saved.” The idea is that we are initially saved by grace, but we are kept saved by our works. This is called Galatianism because it was basically the view of the Judaizers, against whom Paul wrote in his letter to the Galatians.
It was taught by Alexander Campbell, who said “sinners are justified by faith and Christians by works.” In the latter case, “nothing else comes in review on the day of judgment” (“To ‘Paulinus,’ Letter III,” Christian Baptist [IV:10], May 7, 1827). Campbell specifically taught that the “terms of admission” into the church are different from the terms of admission into Heaven (“The Three Kingdoms,” Christian Baptist [VI:11], June 1, 1829).
Though we probably do not realize it, our traditional “plan of salvation” implies this false distinction. We tell sinners that they may become Christians through faith, repentance, confession, and baptism (the first four fingers of the “five-finger exercise”), which in fact are the biblical acts of obedience to the gospel. But when we add the fifth finger of “holy living,” this switches gears completely, implying that we stay saved by obeying the commands of our law code (i.e., by “works of law”).
When Paul says we are justified by grace through faith apart from works of law (Romans 3:24, 28), he means we become justified and stay justified in this way. The latter point is especially important: as Christians we stay justified (forgiven) as long as we continue to trust in the saving blood of Jesus Christ.
• “Baptism is for the forgiveness of past sins only.” This false idea has been present in Christendom since the second century. It has always been common in the Restoration Movement. The idea is that in baptism all our past sins are washed away, and we thus enter the saved state. But the next time we sin, we lose our salvation status and are again under the wrath of God until we do something to become forgiven again. This unhappy cycle continues until we die, and we are constantly in fear that we will die when we are in the unforgiven stage of the cycle.
There is absolutely no biblical teaching that baptism is for the forgiveness of past sins only. We are baptized for the forgiveness of sins, period. In baptism we enter into a state of grace (Romans 5:1, 2), a state of forgiveness, a saving relationship with Jesus that continues as long as our faith in him remains alive. It is not just our sins that are forgiven; WE are forgiven persons—even when we sin—because of our faith in Jesus. One may cease believing and thus lose salvation, but individual sins cannot be equated with such apostasy.
• “Forgiveness for post-baptismal sins is possible only by obeying 1 John 1:9.” The early belief that baptism is for the forgiveness of past sins only, necessarily led to speculation as to how Christians can receive forgiveness for sins committed after baptism. This ongoing speculation ultimately led to the formulation of the Catholic sacrament of penance, which embodied most of the works-salvation views that the Reformation opposed.
In the Restoration Movement we have developed our own version of penance (a mini-penance!), based on 1 John 1:9. We have erroneously understood John to be teaching that each individual sin puts us as Christians back into the state of lostness, from which we can be rescued only by confessing that specific sin and by repentantly praying for its forgiveness. After committing such a sin, we are lost until we go through this ritual.
This false idea, along with the previous two, has probably done more to obscure grace in the Restoration Movement than anything else. And I believe it is the result of a wrong interpretation of this text. Verses 8 and 10 show that John is talking not about the confession of specific sins, but about the (ongoing) confession of the fact that we are sinners, as in the case of the tax collector in Jesus’ parable (Luke 18:9-14). In this parable, the Pharisee is the epitome of 1 John 1:8, 10 (“I have no sins!”), while the tax collector shows what 1 John 1:9 means (“I am a sinner!”).
In summary, we stay saved by continuing to trust in Christ’s atoning work; individual sins do not separate us from the grace of God. Part of this continuing trust is the continuing confession of our sinfulness and thus our continuing sense of need for grace.
What a treat we had May 1, 2010!
Seven of our eight elders, and half (that’s 2, by the way) of our ministers attended the ElderLink program in a neighboring town. ACU has hosted these events around the country for some years now, but this was my first chance to attend one. Wow! It was well worth our time.
Basically it was all day Saturday, with 6 “Plenary Sessions” (I need to look up “plenary,” but I guess that means “everyone together at once”) and one Q&A/Panel discussion. The program looked like this:
1 – “Moving from Managing Toward Shepherding” (David Wray)
2 – “Leading When Change Makes People Anxious” (Charles Siburt)
3 – “Five Things Elders Should Know About Ministers” (Eddie Sharp)
4 – “The Heart of a Shepherd” (David Wray)
5 – “Using Holy Manners With People Who Disagree” (Charles Siburt)
6 – Q&A/Panel Discussion (Sharp, Siburt, Wray)
7 – “Elders and Ministers: An Alliance of Gifts”
ALL the sessions were GOOD. Some of the sessions were extraordinary. The one that had my heart in my throat though was “Five Things Elders Should Know About Ministers.” Almost each point that the speaker raised had me thinking, “I am guilty of that!” My prayer is that, unlike New Year Resolutions, I actually DO something about the painful issues that were discussed. I hate to say it, because I indict myself, but most of the points had to do with treating ministers like PEOPLE instead of like PAID STAFF.
I’ve put the recordings where you can listen to them at your leisure. Most of them are about 35 – 40 minutes.
Here it is: www.leanderchurch.org/ElderLink2010
If you ever get the chance to attend an ACU ElderLink – GO!
I’ll leave you with one quote from the event that resonated strongly with me…
“Followers want comfort, stability, and solutions from their leaders. But that’s babysitting. Real leaders ask hard questions and knock people out of their comfort zones. Then they manage the resulting distress.”
Work of Leadership (HBR Classic) by Ronald A. Heifetz, Donald L. Laurie
Publication Date: December, 2001
The BibleWorks people sent me a copy of their new Version 8 software gratis in exchange for an unbiased review here on IronSharpensIron. Well, unbiased except for the fact that they did not send me an invoice! So over the next few weeks as I get the program installed and begin to put it through its paces I’ll be sharing those experiences with you here. I will mention up front however that if you’ve been looking for a program just to be able to have a few Bible versions on your PC to read, this is probably not what you want. BibleWorks 8 is a very high-end, extremely capable translation research tool – from what I’ve heard, anyway. I am really looking forward to seeing how far I can push it and how user-friendly (and smart!) it is.
Stay tuned.
God’s will does not always come to pass.
Does that sound… wrong… somehow?
How many times have we heard, though normally stated in softer, more compassionate terms, “Just get over it! It happened, so it was obviously God’s will; accept it and get on with your life!”?
Sometimes it takes the form of, “Don’t grieve about the loss of your child, God just needed another angel and called your child to Him.”
Sometimes it sounds like, “Of course it was God’s will that people flew those airplanes into those office buildings; they could not have done it were it not God’s will!”
Or have you heard, “That storm drowned all those people because they lived in such a sinful city! It was God’s punishment for their sin.”
Why would I suggest that God’s will is not the answer to everything that happens on the earth? Well, because He told me so. And He told you too.
The Bible is replete with references to the will of God. One such verse is 2 Peter 3:9, where the Lord uses Peter to tell us that it is not His will that “any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”
But Jesus tells us in Matthew 7:13-14 to “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
What is the will of God? That all be saved.
What will happen? Only a few will be saved.
Does the will of God come to pass in this instance? No.
Does that mean when we see tragedy occur we can say that it was NOT God’s will? No. But it does mean that we can not automatically say, “It happened, so it was the will of God.”
Does this mean that God is not all-powerful, or that God is not “in control?”
Let’s consider those two points separately.
Is God all-powerful? Omnipotent? Absolutely. Without question.
Does that mean He forces you to make good choices? That He prevents consequences of your actions from coming about? That He prevents consequences of sin in a person’s life from affecting bystanders innocent of that sin? In other words, does the omnipotence of God mean that He prevents bad things from happening to good people? (We’ll forego discussion that our definition of “good” does not align with Jesus’ definition of “good” in Luke 18:18.) The answer is “No!” to each question.
Does He WANT you to make good choices? YES. Does He MAKE you choose wisely? NO.
Does He abhor what Satan has done in this world by introducing sin and its wages? YES. Does He prevent sin, and eliminate its consequences? NO.
What about the “in control” comment? Is God in control? By definition, God’s omnipotence means that He is indeed “in control.” Perhaps the more relevant issue though is, “Does He choose to exercise that control?” Hmmm…
Consider Ephesians 6:12:
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
What are (who are) “the rulers of the darkness of this world?” What does “rule” mean? Might “control” be a good definition?
Was God “in control” of you the last time you disobeyed His will?
Was God “in control” of the drunk who killed the parents of a 3-year-old and crippled her for life?
Was God “in control” of the men who took over the airplanes on September 11, 2001?
Well, what about Romans 8:28? Doesn’t it say there that everything that happens is good? NO, it does not say that. It DOES say that whatever DOES happen, God is able to work out for good. Does it say that we will be able to understand the good that He works out? No. Does it say that “the good” will come about in our lifetime? No. This verse bears testimony that in the universal, grand, cosmic sense, God is indeed fully “in control” – else the promise that He can work “all things for good” could not be true. But it also bears testimony to the fact that He does NOT control the individual actions of every person, else there would be no “bad things” He would need to work towards good!
I don’t remember the source of this quote that I found a while back, but it expresses so well this concept: “God’s will does not prevent tragedy, but transforms it.”
You may think that I’ve avoided the real point to all this, the underlying question that can not help but be raised, and that is: “But then why do bad things happen?”
There is a one-word answer to that: Sin.
We live in a fallen world. A cursed world. Because of sin. (Read the first few chapters of Genesis again.) And the creation groans because of it. Even the saved, the redeemed, groan as we wait for our redemption.
Can God act in our behalf in this cursed world? Definitely.
Does God act in our behalf in this cursed world? Again, absolutely!
Does everything that happens in this cursed world:
-
- happen because God wills it? NO.
- happen because God causes it to happen? NO.
Grace? Or Faith? Or Works?
AND Works? ???
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.
Ephesians 2:8-9
How many times have you listened to a discussion, or been involved in one personally, where the topic of “Are we saved by belief or by works?” has been vigorously debated? Or sometimes the question is cast in the form of, “Do you believe we are saved by Faith Alone? Or is there something WE must do in order to be saved?”
Sometimes we are even so tradition-bound by our upbringing that we can’t hear the truth when it is spoken. Many of you will remember the reference that Willie Tollison made to this when he was speaking to us in Leander. (You can click HERE1 for a 49-second audio clip to refresh your memory – or to hear this for the first time.)
And sometimes when we look up the words (faith, grace, belief, …) in a modern-day dictionary they do not give us the “cultural” meaning they had during the times the Bible was being written, and so we miss out on the richness present in His Word.
When the words for Grace and Faith (charis and pistis) were used in the 1st Century they conveyed significantly more meaning than they do today, because of a particular cultural/societal practice referred to as the Patron-Client System.
What was that? And how is it relevant to our modern-day discussion of “Faith vs. Works”?
Oh, before I forget, those of you who prefer auditory or visual material instead of the written form may click HERE2 for an audio version of this discussion or, if you have a nice fast Internet connection, may click HERE3 for a 20MB video of this same topic. These links are each about 7 minutes long.
Most of us are probably more familiar with the system of feudalism than the Patron-Client system. There are many similarities, but the Patron-Client system in general pre-dated the development of the feudal system, and was different in several ways.
But underpinning any discussion of the Patron-Client system must be a discussion of the Honor-Shame system. In today’s time we see reminders again and again of the power of economics. We see people sacrificing honor to achieve more wealth. In 1st century Palestine (Israel) the more valuable commodity was honor. A man would expend vast sums of money to get honor. Conversely, he would do almost anything in order to avoid losing honor. If a man were shamed, he would lose honor. Not understanding this societal norm prevents us from fully understanding the depth of such statements as Hebrews 2:2 — Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. But that is a topic for another day. For now, know that one of the ways that a man could achieve honor was by having more Clients.
In 1st century Israel 2% of the population owned virtually 100% of the goods. They would hire 5% – 7% of the rest of the population to be their service providers – doctors, artists, builders, virtually anyone with marketable skills. The lowest 15% of the population were treated as expendable – prostitutes, the homeless, mentally retarded individuals, etc. The remaining 75% or so of the population were day laborers – they worked each day for the money it would take to eat that day – and there were a lot of days where they did not eat.
So, in order to survive, the 75% could see no higher possibility for their existence than to try to get into the good graces of the 2% who owned everything. If a person had a skill that was needed by a wealthy PATRON, that wealthy person would take on the poorer person as a CLIENT. What did that mean?
As a Patron, I want as many Clients as I can afford. I’ll provide them health care, a house, jobs, clothes, wife, i.e., all their daily needs. And what will my Clients do for me? They’ll come to my house every day and give me honor! They’ll praise me, they’ll tell anyone that walks by what a honorable man I am, they’ll tell about the time I sent my physician to heal their child, they’ll tell them about the year that the crops failed and I provided food for them, and so forth.
The Patron would supply all the needs of the Client, and the Client in turn would honor his Patron. The Patron gave gifts to his Client that were FREE. And the job of the Client was to make the Patron famous.
And the Patron was NEVER to mention the gifts he gave his Client; it would be RUDE for him ever to bring it up again. But the job of the Client was to NEVER CEASE praising his Patron.
So now we get to the good part! What do you suspect the Greek word for the gifts that the Patron gave his Clients was? GRACE (charis)
And what do you think the word was that described the job of the Patron’s Clients? FAITH (pistis)
When Paul says “by grace, through faith…” he was describing exactly this Patron-Client relationship that all of his readers were intimately familiar with. They were so familiar with it that they didn’t even have a name for it. It was just LIFE for them; it was “the way it was.” They knew no other way to live.
So, OF COURSE “works” are involved in the Client’s job! When the Patron gives you gifts, you will praise his name to all you meet, you’ll vote for him if he runs for office, you’ll provide any sort of service that the Patron asks for, you’ll follow him to the marketplace and tell the crowds what a magnificent honorable Patron he is… YOUR JOBS AS A CLIENT IS TO MAKE YOUR PATRON FAMOUS!
Does this relate to the “Faith vs. Works” argument? Of course! That is an argument that would not have even made sense to the 1st century reader. We get tied up in English, or in whatever language we read the Word, and we have little to no understanding of the sociological issues of the 1st century. The average 1st century “man in the street” would likely ask us, “What is your point? Faith vs. Works? How can they be different? It’s the same word!” Because they knew the job of a Client. They knew how the whole socioeconomic system worked. A Client would not be a Client for long if all he did was to receive the gifts of the Patron, and never fulfilled his responsibilities!
“For it is by GRACE you have been saved, through FAITH…
God has given us free gifts… but salvation is not by grace alone. Look at the verse again: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through FAITH…”
Our response to Him, as a Client to his Patron, MUST be “through faith!” We fulfill a Client’s responsibilities. We are to make Him famous. We are to direct all glory and honor and praise to Him. We are to be about our Father’s business.
So, is it by FAITH… or WORKS?
The question has no meaning; it is all the same.
Mark Morrow
9/7/2009
Footnotes:
1 – Willie Tollison, Leander, 2005
2 – Dr. Mark Moore, 2007
3 – Dr. Mark Moore, 2007
The short excerpts by Dr. Mark Moore are from a freely-distributable DVD he has produced, with the title “How to Interpret the Bible.” The video clip I placed on the web for this article is by nature low quality, to make it possible to download and view fairly quickly. The DVD, on the other hand, is a very high quality production. If you would like a copy I would be glad to obtain one for you.
Dear ISI’ers,
I saved this back in March from a posting by Jay Guin to put in the blog sometime. I was impressed all over again reading it just now, refreshing my memory as to why I had saved it in my “need to post someday” folder. Have you ever spoken with someone like the person who wrote the letter below to Jay? I have. Jay gives us an excellent way to respond to the issue of “I guess I’ve fallen from grace, so why try anymore?”
Here is the letter from his reader:
Jay,
I’ve been reading The Holy Spirit and Revolutionary Grace online, and based on what the bible says and your interpretation of what the Hebrews passages say about a Christian losing their salvation, I am pretty sure I fit into that category. I was raised in the church of Christ, baptized at eleven years of age (I am 53 now) but never grew or matured as a Christian. I have tried a few times but always end up giving in to temptation. In all these years I’ve committed many sins. I guess this would constitute rebelling against God.
I never stopped believing in God. At times I would feel extremely guilty, then other times I wouldn’t feel guilty. I’ve had a lot of depression over the guilt and longed to be able to be forgiven but deep inside I knew I couldn’t be forgiven because I sinned willingly and I knew the truth.
Now that I’ve read the book, I’m even more convinced that I cannot regain my salvation. Should I just assume I’m lost since a Christian who has lost their salvation cannot regain it?
A reader in Nashville.
No. No! And I’m very sorry that you’ve gotten that impression from my book.
Let me explain. You are surely thinking of my explanation of this passage –
(Heb 6:4-6) It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, 6 if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.
Now, my interpretation is pretty radical, because I think it means exactly what it says (which is how I get labeled at a “liberal” ). Therefore, if you fall away, it is indeed impossible to be brought back to repentance. That’s what it says, so it must be true.
But there’s an important conclusion we need to draw: if you repent, it wasn’t impossible to repent. As I wrote,
After all, if the Christian ultimately does repent, it must not have been impossible to repent. And if it was not impossible for the Christian to repent, he could not have fallen away.
(p. 72). In other words, the point is that grace is far, far broader that we are often willing to accept. Remember the Parable of the Prodigal Son. The Father was extremely patient with the younger son, and even though the younger son was quite the sinner, he did repent and he was forgiven.
Therefore, the question for you is not whether you can be saved, but whether you will repent. If you repent, God will be there for you. Don’t give up on God. He hasn’t given up on you.
Now, there’s another critically important lesson here. You see, the reason that some get so far from God that they can’t repent is not that God won’t take them back. He’ll always take us back. The problem is that the further we get from God, the harder it is for us to turn back. Our hearts grow hard. Our conscience becomes seared. God’s Spirit wrestles and strives with us, but he’ll eventually be quenched, never to return.
Therefore, it’s urgent that we repent quickly. Relying on God’s grace to continue in sin is far more dangerous than we often imagine, because coming back is much harder than we often imagine.
There’s not a lot for me to add to the plagiarized (well, it’s not plagiarized if I give credit to whom credit is due, right?) posting from Jay Guin except “Amen!”
I especially appreciate his definition of legalism; I think it pretty much hammers that nail down.
In Christ,
Mark
Falling from Grace: Why Legalism Can Damn
Posted: 20 Aug 2009 05:02 AM PDT by Jay Guin
While we have to accept Paul’s teaching of justification by faith on the strength of the inspiration and authority of scripture, we should pause to consider why the rule would be that adding works — any works — to faith/faithfulness as justifying the Christian creates a different gospel and causes the Christian to fall away. It’s a truly terrifying prospect that we need to reflect on in a bit more depth.
“Legalism”
When we speak of “legalism,” we don’t mean someone who insists on obedience to God’s commands. We insist on obedience to God’s commands. Rather, by “legalist” we mean someone guilty of the Galatian heresy — that is, insisting that we should add certain works to faith in Jesus as conditions for a Christian to remain saved.
Insisting on baptism is not legalism. Insisting on repentance is not legalism. Damning someone because they disagree with you over instrumental music or whether an elder may have only one child is the Galatian heresy and therefore is legalism.
The dangers of legalism
There are basically two ways that we might respond to being taught a works-based salvation. First, we can be as Martin Luther was before he discovered grace. We can very honestly examine ourselves and conclude we plainly do not merit salvation. If so, we’d live ourselves in constant fear of hellfire — a truly miserable condition. And we’ve known countless good people in the Churches of Christ in this wretched state — unable to believe that their doctrine can possibly be pure enough to be saved and so despondent at their hopelessly damned condition.
But most of us, unable to bear the thought of damnation, respond to works-based salvation by rationalizing that we aren’t as bad as the lost people who surround us, and we are actually better than most. Worse yet, we go looking for concrete evidence that we are indeed better than others. As we often can’t prove our superiority by our morality (are we really morally better than Mother Teresa? A better evangelist than Billy Graham?), we turn to doctrine and claim we in fact have an absolutely pure and perfect understanding of Scripture — at least the parts that really matter — and so we surely merit salvation (though very few would ever say it that way).
Thus, legalism leads to an arrogance that not only damns but is extraordinarily unattractive to the world around us.
Worse yet, legalism inevitably leads to the sin of division. After all, if I have to be right on every point of doctrine that could lead to sin, and if I can’t treat those who disagree with me as saved, then I soon find the church an awfully lonely place, as there will be few, if any, who completely agree with me on every single doctrine.
The divisions have often been hidden by the use of a common name, but every congregation knows the unofficial list of local Churches of Christ that don’t recognize their congregation’s salvation, that refuse cooperation, and that bitterly attack the others in their bulletins and from their pulpits. If we can’t see this as evil, then we really haven’t been reading our Bibles.
This is all in marked contrast to Jesus’ teachings on the unity of believers. In fact, just before his crucifixion, Jesus prayed for the unity of all believers –
(John 17:20-23) “My prayer is not for [my apostles]alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.”
One of Jesus’ reasons for desiring unity among his followers was so the world would recognize us as his followers. He knew that division and discord would only make us look foolish to those we seek to convert.
And even a slight knowledge of the history of the Churches of Christ (and many other denominations) shows that drawing salvation lines contrary to the Biblical lines of faith and penitence leads to division. The result has been an embarrassment to the body of Christ and a major impediment to evangelism.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the solution we propose is the same solution that Alexander Campbell proposed nearly 100 years ago. As he states in The Christian System,
The principle which was inscribed upon our banners when we withdrew from the ranks of the sects was, “Faith in Jesus as the true Messiah, and obedience to him as our Lawgiver and King, the ONLY TEST of Christian character, and the ONLY BOND of Christian union, communion, and co-operation, irrespective of all creeds, opinions, commandments, and traditions of men.“
Preface to First Edition (1839)(emphasis in original).
Campbell later notes the problems that arise when we try to create unity based on agreement on a system of doctrines —
To establish what is called a system of orthodox opinions as the bond of union was, in fact, offering a premium for new diversities in opinion, and for increasing, ad infinitum, opinions, sects, and divisions. And, what is worse than all, it was establishing self-love and pride as religious principles, as fundamental to salvation; for a love regulated by similarity of opinion is only a love to one’s own opinion; and all the zeal exhibited in the defense of it is but the workings of the pride of opinion.
Pride, Campbell argued, arises when we define salvation as based upon an elaborate doctrinal system.
But the grandeur, sublimity, and beauty of the foundation of hope, and of ecclesiastical or social union, established by the author and founder of Christianity consisted in this, — that THE BELIEF OF ONE FACT, and that upon the best evidence in the world, is all that is requisite, as far as faith goes, to salvation. The belief of this ONE FACT, and submission to ONE INSTITUTION expressive of it, is all that is required of Heaven to admission into the church. A Christian … is one that believes this one fact, and has submitted to one institution, and whose deportment accords with the morality and virtue of the great Prophet. The one fact is expressed in a single proposition – that Jesus the Nazarene is the Messiah.
The Christian System, pages 125-126 (emphasis in original).
Falling from Grace: Seeking to be Justified Other Than by Faith
Posted: 20 Aug 2009 05:00 AM PDT by Jay Guin
We’ve gone halfway around the world to make a point.
You see, being penitent and being led by the Spirit all lead to the same place — a devout life of love and fruits of the Spirit. It all ties together in a perfect, beautiful unity.
But there is a very real concern here. Paul says that if you add any law to the gospel as a condition to salvation, then you’ve made yourself accountable for every law as a condition to salvation, and thereby you’ve fallen from grace. Thus, there’s no apostasy in insisting on worshipping a cappella or insisting that instrumental music is acceptable. But declaring that all who worship with an instrument are outside the church and therefore damned may well cause one to fall away. That’s not to say that there is no error possible on the instrumental music issue; only that the error does not cause one to lose his soul — provided he continues in his faith and faithfulness/penitence.
Understand that being wrong and being lost are two very different things, and we sometimes get them confused. If being wrong damns, then there is no grace and Christ died for nothing.
You see, in teaching that certain doctrines other than the gospel are essential to salvation, we’re effectively saying that to be saved, you not only must hear, believe, repent, confess, and be baptized, you must also join a congregation with a scriptural name, with a scriptural organization, and with a scriptural pattern of worship. Thus, if your home church has an elder who might not be properly qualified, or your church does something in worship that might lack authorization, you must change congregations or else lose your soul! I know Christians who have left their local congregation and take communion weekly at home rather than risk damnation by joining an unscriptural Church of Christ.
I fail to see how insisting on these rules as conditions to salvation is any different from insisting on circumcision as a condition to salvation. Either way, you’re insisting on obedience to a law in addition to the gospel. The gospel is meant to take us away from legalism, and the imposition of any rule as a requirement for salvation—even a single morally neutral rule—beyond the gospel is a return to legalism and damnation.
As the Churches of Christ have more than amply proven, legalism breeds division and bitterness. Which of all the divisions we’ve suffered has ever been fully healed? Which fight proved to be worth the cost? What verse in Scripture more pointedly speaks to the Churches of Christ than Galatians 5:15?
If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.
Does this mean that most members of the Churches of Christ are lost? It’s a fair question. And it’s not inconsistent for me to question the salvation of those who’ve added to the gospel while I simultaneously urge us not to condemn one another over the many issues that divide us. After all, Paul is quite plain in declaring that adding to the gospel makes the gospel “no gospel at all” and that his readers have “fallen from grace” and have been “alienated from Christ.”
But nowhere does Scripture deny salvation to those who worship with an instrument, or speak in tongues, or create a missionary society. Even if such actions are unauthorized, it’s an impermissible leap to go from “unauthorized” to “damned.” We should be silent where the Scriptures are silent.
Fortunately, Galatians does admit of a different interpretation. For example, in Galatians 3:26-27, Paul declares that his readers are “all sons of God.” In several verses, he calls his readers “brothers.”
Paul does not consider his readers lost—yet—but urges them with the strongest words and greatest passion possible to turn from an extraordinarily dangerous path.
But Paul squarely condemns the false teachers. Perhaps the key verses are —
(Gal. 1:8) But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!
(Gal 5:10) I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is throwing you into confusion will pay the penalty, whoever he may be.
And Paul declares that his readers are in real jeopardy of hellfire if they don’t turn away from this error—
(Gal. 5:2) Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all.
(Gal. 5:15) If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.
Nowhere else does Paul write with such fervor, with such urgency, with such fear for his readers’ souls.
I am not qualified to judge the fate of those among us who teach modern equivalents of circumcision, and less so to judge those who’ve been deceived by such teachers. I only know that having become aware of the problem, I must speak out and call for repentance—urgently—desperately, out of love, not condemnation—out of concern for souls.
It is not enough to be less legalistic than the church down the road. It’s not enough to be less legalistic than you used to be. There is only one gospel, and it won’t admit of any additions at all. Nothing is required to be saved or to stay saved other than the gospel. Those who teach otherwise have been cursed by Paul in the most unambiguous terms. I pray daily for the souls of my brothers and sisters in the Churches of Christ.
Please, let’s stop biting and devouring each other and learn to accept one another just as Jesus accepted us.
I had never heard the discussion of “disputable matters” and “matters of indifference” presented in the way Jay does below. It hangs together for me. What about you?
In Him,
Mark
Falling from Grace: The Paradox of Romans 14 and Galatians
Posted: 17 Aug 2009 05:02 AM PDT (Jay Guin)
Of course, I don’t really think that Romans and Galatians contradict each other. But we in the Churches of Christ often argue and act as though they do. You see, we’ve never really wrestled with the paradox of Romans 14 and Galatians. Let me explain.
In Romans 14, Paul deals with Christians who insist that Christians must celebrate certain holy days.
(Rom 14:5) One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.
Paul declines to take sides in the controversy, concluding that neither side should judge nor look down on the other.
(Rom 14:4-13a) One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. 5 Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. … 10 You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. … 13 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another.
In Galatians, the Christians were struggling with a very similar issue —
(Gal 4:10) You are observing special days and months and seasons and years!
However, in Galatians, Paul makes a dramatically different argument.
(Gal 4:9-11) But now that you know God–or rather are known by God–how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? 10 You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! 11 I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you.
(Gal 5:1, 4) It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. … 4 You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.
In Galatians, observing holy days is a salvation issue. In Romans, it’s a “don’t judge” issue. In Galatians, Paul fears for the salvation of his readers. In Romans, he tells them not to judge each other over such things. Why the difference?
Is Romans 14 about matters of indifference?
Before we can answer that question, we need to dispense with some arguments routinely made in this context. It’s routinely argued within the conservative Churches of Christ that Romans 14 deals with matters of indifference.
Roy C. Deaver argues in ”Who Is the ‘Weak Brother’?” The Spiritual Sword (Oct. 1986, vol. 18, no. 1, p. 28),
It must be stressed that this section deals with matters of opinion and matters of indifference—things which are right if done, and right if they are not done.
Is Paul really speaking only of matters of indifference? Well, he addresses both the question of eating meat and the question of holy days. He definitively concludes that there is no sin in eating meat. However, he gives no answer as to holy days. Indeed, he doesn’t address the merits of the argument at all — only insisting that both sides should not judge or look down on the other side.
Can we just presume that Paul reached his conclusion by finding the holy day question one of indifference? Surely not! After all, in Galatians, he referred to celebrating holy days as enslaving and even threatening to cause the church to fall from grace.
And there’s another serious problem with Deaver’s analysis. Consider every issue that the Churches of Christ have split over during the last 120 years — going back to Daniel Sommer’s 1889 “Sand Creek Address and Declaration.” Nearly all have been over issues where one side said the question is a matter of indifference and the other said it’s not! Daniel Sommer considered located preachers a sin that damned. The rest of the Churches concluded that located preachers are a matter of indifference. Just so, those who split over one cup, support for orphans homes, and the Sunday school all divided over whether the issue is a matter of indifference or a matter of doctrine.
As a result, Romans 14, which was written for us to help us maintain the unity Jesus died to bring us, has not worked to bring unity to the Churches of Christ at all. Those who see the Sunday school as a matter of indifference are glad to extend fellowship to those who disagree, but those who see the Sunday school as sin see the question as doctrinal, not indifference, and therefore find nothing in Romans 14 to require them to be united with those they disagree with.
In short, under this interpretation of Romans 14, nearly every disagreement among us is over whether a teaching is a matter of indifference and so nearly every disagreement becomes a salvation issue to at least one side of the dispute.
And so, we really need to get past the cliché level of analysis. What’s really going on here?
Well, for the it’s-wrong-to-eat-meat camp, abstention from meat eating was not a matter of indifference. It was doctrinally required? Why?
Paul doesn’t give us a final answer, but it’s surely the same issue we see elsewhere in the New Testament: meat sacrificed to idols. If not that, it’s about keeping kosher, as in many cities a Jew could not find meat prepared in accordance with Mosaic food laws and so couldn’t eat meat. In either case, the anti-meat brother was arguing from doctrine. He would have argued that it’s sin to worship an idol by eating meat dedicated to an idol, or else that it’s sin to violate God’s will for our diet revealed in the Law of Moses.
Just so, the holy day question appears to be an effort to keep the holy days prescribed by the Law of Moses. But Paul does not give the answer on this question! Rather, he jumps directly to the conclusion: don’t look down or judge your brother!
Paul’s logic is that both issues are “disputable” — even though he gives the answer on the meat question. Both questions remained disputable even though Paul had given the answer!
Now, let’s bring the questions up to current times. Suppose an eldership gets up and announces that they’ve concluded all Christians must eat only vegetables. Would we consider their decision a matter of indifference?
More realistically, we dispute even today over whether to celebrate Christmas or Easter. Some argue that every day is equally holy. Some disagree. Some of our members see Sunday as the Christian Sabbath and consider it wrong to work on Sundays. Others see every day as equally holy. Are these doctrinal questions? Or matters of indifference? If your elders told you not to work on Sunday would you consider that a matter of indifference, like what color to paint the foyer? If they insisted that you honor the Mosaic Sabbath regulations — no food preparation, no travel beyond one mile, no lifting of burdens, no healing — would that be a matter of indifference or a matter of doctrine?
Therefore, you see, the distinction between indifference and doctrine is no difference at all when one or the other of us believes it’s a doctrinal issue. A matter is truly indifferent only when both parties consider it indifferent, which is certainly not what Paul was talking about.
What’s a “disputable matter”?
Another approach taken by many is to focus on “disputable matters” (NIV) or “doubtful disputations” (KJV) in 14:1. The idea is that I should not judge you on a matter that seems doubtful to me. However, if it’s doubtful to you but I’m certain, I may certainly judge and condemn you.
I have a friend who was unsure about instrumental music before he went to college. At that point, he didn’t see the instrument as a salvation issue. To him, it was a disputable matter. After taking some classes, he found the arguments of Justin Martyr and Thomas Aquinas convincing, and so concluded that it is a salvation issue. One year, those using the instrument were going to heaven. The next year, they were going to hell, their eternal fate being determined by the level of my friend’s education.
You see, we tend to judge the doubtfulness of the issue subjectively — whether it’s doubtful to me. And that means that the lines of fellowship depend entirely on how certain we are of our convictions. And we can be very, very certain of some very, very doubtful things.
Obviously, God never intended for the lines of fellowship to depend on our level of certitude.
“Accept one another”
What very few among us will do is allow the text to answer the question. You see, Paul’s discussion doesn’t end at the last verse of chapter 14. The discussion continues into chapter 15, where Paul writes,
(Rom 15:5-6) May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you a spirit of unity among yourselves as you follow Christ Jesus, 6 so that with one heart and mouth you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
What’s the cure for our lack of unity? It’s a gift from God — an attitude from God himself: “the spirit of unity.” It’s all about having the right heart. Paul continues,
(Rom 15:7) Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God.
We considered this verse in an earlier post, where we demonstrated that the verse can be properly translated,
(Rom. 15:7) Continually accept one another, then, [in the same way] Christ accepted you [when you were first saved], in order to bring praise to God.
We concluded,
The standard by which we stay saved today is the same standard by which we are first saved! (Other passages that teach this include Romans 11:20; Galatians 3:2-3; 1 Peter 1:5.)
Now, that means that “disputable matter” means anything that we dispute over — other than the things we have to agree on to first be saved: particularly faith in Jesus and repentance.
Or let’s look at this way. If you and I are disputing over a matter, it’s disputable. We may both be 100% certain as to what we think the answer is, but we are disputing, and so it’s disputable.
However, we can’t still both be Christians and dispute over whether Jesus is the Messiah or whether we must submit to him as Lord. We have to believe those things to be baptized. Those are not disputable among Christians.
That’s, of course, an extremely broad definition of “disputable matter,” but it does have limits. Not just everything qualifies.
Now, imagine that the Churches of Christ had understood this in 1889. How many divisions would we have suffered?
Sorry, don’t have much time to expound on this right now, but listen to this sermon (really more of a “talk”) when you get time!
Why? Because this “What is…?” talk is from someone with a lot of credibility with the “The Church of Christ IS The Kingdom, inclusively and exclusively” group… and he basically demolishes that concept.
Is he THE John Smith who wrote “My Mother Played the Piano”? Yes.
My Mother Played the Piano
Here are the links –
What Is a Restoration Church? (Full talk by John Smith – 42 minutes)
Extract #1 (4 minutes)
Extract #2 (5 minutes)
Extract #3 (6 minutes)
Extract #4 (5 minutes)
Sheila explains why she published her Diary:
The Diary of a Believer also includes the events that encouraged, and sometimes forced me to examine my faith, figuring out exactly what I believed and why. These were the same events that slowly opened my spiritual eyes, leading me out of my incorrect assessment of the Lord, and into the type of relationship that one might expect upon embracing something called “The Good News of the Gospel”.
The Diary of a Believer explores the blueprints commonly used to seek God through established religion, which often leaves its seekers doubting and unfulfilled in their faith. Formulas breed complacency, and complacency breeds mediocrity. Mediocre is what I found my own spiritual life to be until I began searching outside the spiritual fences erected long ago by well intentioned, albeit misguided brethren. If at the age of 39, I find myself in the same spiritual position I was in at 25, then I’ve cheated myself of the many things that God desires to reveal to me along the journey I was intended to walk. And if I’ve done so, I’ve probably passed that spiritual mediocrity along to my children as well.
The composition of this book was inspired by the desire to share what I’ve learned along my journey with my children, family and friends. But I also find it fitting for others who feel lost in the maze of Christian tradition. It’s for those who’ve bought into the lie that says you must earn your salvation under the guidance of specific church doctrine. It’s for those who’ve been taught that the Holy Spirit is retired, and encourages seekers of Christ to go about their journey without Him. It’s for those who’ve been taught to love and revere the Word of the Lord, yet dismiss major portions of it as being no longer applicable in the lives of today’s believers.
If you’re in any of those positions, don’t feel alone. This personal collection of stories was also written for you.
The “stories” she mentions are not fictional — they are real! You may find that her story is your story too!
Blessings in Christ,
Mark
|
|
Latest Comments