We must at all times show Christian character even with those with whom
we vehemently oppose
No name calling or backhanded insulting
No ad hominem attacks
No theological cuss-words
Our Purpose
Unashamed of Grace is a friendly place to boldly proclaim, carefully study
and openly engage our respective views: Dispensationalism; Free Grace
Theology; and Old-School Non-Calvinism.
What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to
the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast
about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham
believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness." Now to the one
who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the
one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is
counted as righteousness ...
(Romans 4:1-5)
Monday, February 11, 2013
Is This So What?
To: UOG readers
From:the blogger Johanna
Sawyer (formerly HK Flynn; from back in the day when some of us kept our
personal information off the internet.)
Here’s my premise:
The tribulation
judgments are far more central to the Gospel & evangelism in the NT, than to the Gospel in today's churches.
Eschatology is now thought
of as a very separate topic from the Gospel message. But this means there is a sharp difference
between NT evangelism and our own evangelism. The tribulation/day of the Lord judgments have gone missing from our Gospel.
Is this a big, So What??
No, it really isn't, in my not so humble opinion.
It’s not a small shift.
Because of it, we distort
the Gospel.
Objection
#1 might be, Isn't the day of the Lord a vague expression with several
meanings?
I agree that it and
similar expressions, that day, the day of wrath, the day of Christ, have a
range of meanings. Bob Wilkin has shown
that the day of Christ is a term pointing to the Bema seat judgment where
believer’s deeds will be judged by their Savior. And the day of the Lord can mean the
tribulation judgments (Daniel’s [final] week), but also the final war that apparently
takes place at the end of the Millennial Kingdom.
Objection
#2 might be, Isn't all of eschatology an absolute distraction from the discipleship
issues we desperately need to focus on?
I agree that
discipleship issues are urgent and central, but see NT eschatology as key to
filtering discipleship through a thoroughly biblical perspective that has the potential to add turbo-ness to all of our pathetically lame efforts. (I'm an expert I'm afraid in that latter department.) And I would have to agree that eschatology is often weirdly severed from a devotional perspective.
But even if a pastor decides he does not want the
coming judgments as part of evangelism in his church, there
is still a reason for close study of this Gospel shift out, where we shift out the topic of the day of the lord
judgments, and shift in the topic of Hell. The Apostles clearly taught Hell. But they usually preached Joel’s day
of wrath in their Gospel preaching. This
can be seen in the Acts sermons of Peter (in Acts Ch 2) and Paul (Ch 16), in
Romans, and in John the Baptist’s preaching.
For the Apostles, the day
of wrath prophesies of Joel were solidly linked with the coming of the Holy
Spirit and the Gospel in general.
But again, many will
ask, So what?
This is what. We risk falsifying the Gospel whenever we fully conflate ideas the NT writers did not.
What two ideas do we conflate?
When we conflate Hell with the judgments of the Earth, we pull in repentance to a place the NT writers never brooked.
Don't get me wrong. The urgent message of repentance is necessary
to prepare for the Kingdom. Repentance
gets regenerate individuals ready for being presented with all the church as
the bride. Repentance gets nations to give thanks to the One true Creator and worship Him, and
this worship gives God an opportunity to continue to delay His judgments.
But... when we say that turning from sin is part of the free offer of eternal
life, we have gotten creative with the stern and authoritative promise Jesus
makes to the readers of John’s Gospel. And that is not okay. Repentance (as turning from sin) and belief are two things not one.
Jesus sternly offers
life freely.
By first conflating Hell with the day of wrath we end up conflating repentance with belief.
Offer of life Illustration: A (Catholic) Christian missionary lives in
the Philippines. She works and lives in poverty in order to bring the love of
Christ to the poor. But if that missionary
is stopped on the sidewalk and encouraged to receive eternal life by faith alone, or
to be justified by faith alone, she may be less than Christian in her verbal
response. She might be totally outraged
by the idea of not relying partly on the sacraments and partly on good works—both
as gritty expressions of her deep faith in Christ and His atoning grace for her. She'd likely be insulted.
Regarding Hell, Free Grace believers put
all their eggs in one basket. We cling
to Jesus and His offer of life because of the finality of His work on the Cross.
Regarding the day of wrath, we teach repentance. Repentance is most desperately needed in many situations, personal, relational, local, regional, cultural, and
(yes, even) political. We need to realize that
if we keep clarifying and re-clarifying grace and leave repentance as a minor point to be slipped into our evangelism near the end, we are not teaching the whole Gospel that Jesus left us with.
In my next post I hope to give
an example of how the day of wrath might connect powerfully in modern evangelism.
There are essentially three positions on those who have not heard, though these can be subdivided. They are Restrictivist, Agnostic and Opportunist. With regard to the deductive argument I outlined in the last post.
Restrictivists- Do not accept the conclusion.
Agnostics- Consider that the conclusion opens up the possibility of a means of salvation for the unevangelised.
Opportunists- Accept the conclusion and are confident in expecting a means of salvation for the unevangelised.
Let us get a little more specific and look at the specific positions.
Restrictivists
Restrictivists hold that the only means to obtain eternal life is through the witness of believers.
The majority of Calivinists take this view. Some Arminians also share it, though they may be accused of inconistency in doing so.
Calvinists who adopt the Restrictivist view do so because they see only those who hear the Gospel message as falling within the scope of God's salvific decree. Arminian Restrictivists do so for two main reasons; firstly because they do not see evidence in Scripture to the contrary and secondly because they believe the responsibility to share the Gospel has been given to believers.
Pessimistic Agnostics
Pessmistic agnostics believe that God's merciful character raises the hope of some means of the unevangelised being saved, but the apparent silence of the Scriptures disinclines them to the idea.
J.I. Packer, a Calvinist, takes this view.
Simple Agnostics
Simple agnostics acknowledge both the lack of Scriptural data and God's merciful character, but refuse to take a position either way. They are often concerned that discussion of this issue will hinder missionary endeavour.
Optimistic Agnostics
Optimistic agnostics acknowledge the lack of Scriptural data, but are hopeful that God may have provided a means of saving the unevangelized.
John Stott takes this view.
Inclusivists
Inclusivists hold that God's revelation in nature is sufficent to enable a person to find salvation. They are argue that all or most religions provide some knowledge of God's character and therefore a person can come to know Christ implicitly through faith in these religions.
This view is prominent amongst Roman Catholics and is highly favoured by those who are more liberally inclined in theology. Nevertheless, it was held by such a conservative one as John Wesley.
Postmortem Evangelisation
Some who are not convinced by Inclusivism suggest that perhaps God may give a second chance after death to the heathen.
While this view accounts for God's merciful character it is seriously lacking in Scriptural support.
Universal Premortem Opportunism
This view holds that God most likely provides special revelation to the unevangelised before their death. The granting of such revelation may be conditional upon a positive response to natural revelation.
This view was advocated by Thomas Aquinas, Jacob Arminius and the Calvinist J. Oliver Buswell. There is an Eastern Orthodox tradition that John the Baptist appears to the heathen before they die to preach Christ.
This is the view that I will defend in this series.
RIGHTLY DIVIDING FORGIVENESS OF SIN, by Joey Faust
by Joe D Faust
RIGHTLY DIVIDING FORGIVENESS OF SIN
Every Christian has the ETERNAL debt of sin paid in full. This is the forgiveness of a LOST SINNER which makes the sinner a SON. But when a SON sins, this sin may no longer merit an eternal penalty. But mystical antinomians and modern, Gnostic psychobabblers refuse to admit that God recognizes SIN in the saint! They refuse to see that the saint is responsible for his or her actions and that there are temporal consequences for evil conduct both here (1 Cor.11) and at the judgment seat (2 Cor.5:9-11).
Some teach that a Christian cannot sin "greatly," and that the "little sins" still in the saint are simply a result of GOD withholding His grace. Therefore, there can be no consequences for sin since these little sins are God's fault. But this is a misuse and abuse of the doctrine of God's sovereignty. Others teach that these little sins are the old man's problem, and that the new man is certainly not responsible for them. But we simply answer that the Christian who failed to "put on" the new man is the one who is responsible (Ephesians 4:23-24)!
Notice the Scriptures that teach that New Testament believers must still seek forgiveness for the sins they commit as SONS:
James 2:12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. 13 For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.
Colossians 3:23 And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men; 24 Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ. 25 But HE THAT DOETH WRONG shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons.
1 John 1:9 If WE confess our sins, he is faithful and just to FORGIVE us our SINS, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
Luke 11:4 And FORGIVE us our SINS; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us...
"To say that they [believers' sins] are to be recognized as sins, and yet that no acknowledgment is to be made, and no forgiveness sought for them, is a statement so monstrous as to carry its own refutation." -B.W. Newton (1807-1899)
"It is not the sinner who is in view, but the failing believer. If we will not forgive, we cannot be forgiven (Mark 11:26). This is an unalterable principle in God's government of His family. When a believer has SINNED and seeks restoration, he is forgiven as he forgives. This is not the same thing as the justification of a sinner, which is by faith alone....what we have here is the Father's forgiveness when His own children fail, and if we forgive not our brethren then the Father will not grant us restorative forgiveness." (H.A. Ironside, "Addresses on Luke")
"The term 'forgive' is used in two senses in the Scripture. There is forgiveness in the sense of God's daily approval and fellowship of people already saved...The term is also used of salvation, in the sense that all our sins were laid on the Lord Jesus...One who has trusted Christ for salvation has his sins already forgiven, AS FAR AS HIS ETERNAL DESTINY IS CONCERNED....Dr. Scofield here, in the older Scofield Bible notes on this passage [Luke 11], is mistaken..." (John Rice, Commentary on Luke)
So many of God's children have become very confused and rebellious in these last days. They don't even ask God for forgiveness as SONS! This is the day of God's long-suffering. Yet, in 1 Corinthians 11, God made some saints sick, and others He killed for not discerning the Lord's Body in the Supper! What then will God do to Christian sinners on the day of judgment when Paul says we can experience the terror of the Lord (2 Cor.5:9-11)? The Holy Spirit provides a remedy, if we will pay attention to it:
1 Corinthians 11:30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. 31 For IF WE WOULD JUDGE OURSELVES, we should not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.
If we would examine our lives by the Word and confess our failings, and beseech God for mercy, He would not have to judge us. But some despise His chastenings. These unfaithful sons do not confess their sins and ask God for mercy. They boast that they are no longer responsible for sin, in any sense; they use the truths of justification in eternity as a buffer against any doctrine of accountability. Stripes will surely be waiting for them at the Judgment Seat.
“[i]t can easily be proved from Scripture that the gospel is more than faith alone in Christ alone. Much more.
…It includes everything from the ‘eschatological expectation, the proclamation of the kingdom of God, … the introduction of the gentiles into salvation history, the rejection of the ordinary religion of cult and Law.’”
(The quote he uses here is from an article called “euangelion” by Freidrich, from Kittel.)
Jeremy's article has a lot of helpful detail. He shows that there are either multiple gospel messages (about future reign and present empowerment for instance) or better, that there is one broad NT gospel which covers a lot of territory. Very helpfully, he includes a chart that demonstrates 50 truths, with some overlap, that the NT includes in the definition of the gospel: Jesus born in Bethlehem (Luke 2:10), Mary’s virgin conception (Luke 1:19), the coming baptism of the Holy Spirit (Luke 3:18) Entering God’s Rest (Hebrews 4:2) Sufferings of Christ (1 Peter 1:10), etc. The article and the chart are worth reading through.
For a while now I’ve been mulling over what the relationship is between the gospel, and the offer of eternal life, and the call to discipleship, and the New Covenant, with the hope of getting a more crisp definition of each element. So in that spirit, the following definitions are tentative and I’ve included scripture more as examples than evidence…
(1) The New Covenant is the eternal promise made by God to Israel that enables and empowers the kingdom.
Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance (Hebrews 9)
Now may the God of peace who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the eternal covenant, equip you with everything good that you may do his will, working in us that which is pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever and ever. (Hebrews 13)
(2) The Offer of Eternal Life is how the kingdom is populated. (Basically a rephrase of what Hodges says)
"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." John 3
(3) The Gospel is the announcement of the arrival and future arrival of the kingdom or some aspect of it.
In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." For this is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah when he said, "The voice of one crying in the wilderness: 'Prepare the way of the Lord; make his paths straight.'" (Matthew 3)
(4) The Call to Discipleship is how to live in it.
And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said: "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. (Luke 6)
(5) The Call to Repentance is how to launch or reenter a kingdom-ready lifestyle.
Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel." (Mark 1)