Comments on: Change

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 21:42:00 +0000

I mentioned non-Evangelical not Evangelical and the growing non-Evangelical idea and the concern thereof. I hope that helps. I personally think we shouldn’t move away from afterdeath. I agree we need to focus on this life but to have no focus on something the bible says “encouragre each other with these words” and/or not be encouraged by something God’s Word tells us to, seem odd to me. For me Faith is for Living and for dying. To me eternal life is just that eternal life and it is beyond just this life but includes this life. I just don’t feel Faith and works are two sides of the same coin in that many work but have no Faith and those who say they have Faith but have no works at all have no Faith at all in the first place for true Godly works are a confirmation of the Faith that is already there. To me it is what you say AND what happens after this physical life. why else would a good amount of the NT mentions what happens after this life. Heck, even Martha said (paraphrase) ” I know Jesus I will see my brother Lazerus at the resurrection from the dead.” To me not to encourage people at all about eternal life andfocus only on this life does a disservice to people and is another “cliff-hanger” in the whole discussion. I just don’t feel that mentioning eternal life and/or the life afterdeath leads to what you are concluding. I do feel that focusing on works leads to people to not turn their lives over to Christ heart, soul and mind. dh

By: Matt

Matt — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 21:03:00 +0000

I’m not sure that anybody in the evangelical church thinks that good works will get them to heaven. There are people who are moving to a more Catholic understanding of salvation, but nobody would say that works without faith would get them into heaven.

And I agree that we can’t become so obsessed with either faith or works that we lose sight of the other. Total agreement there.

One of the problems in the EC is certainly that, in trying to restate and reformulate Christian thinking and expression, the baby can easily be thrown out with the bathwater. In moving towards people actually starting to take the teachings of Jesus seriously as statements about how life should be lived, we can lose how necessary faith is in that. I’d like to think of faith and works as two sides of the same coin. And I’d also like to move away from thinking about going to heaven as what is gained in salvation, but rather to think that we have entered into the eternal life of the kingdom of God that begins right here, right now. Life in the kingdom includes a life that continues past death, but it starts now, and is embodied in a life filled with faith and works. Faith is for living, not for dying.

And yeah, I agree that this is a great discussion. :)

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 18:33:00 +0000

I think Matt we are doing a little coming together. I still trhink the bigger problem then the problems of the Evangelical church are people who think good works get them to heaven, aka works without Faith. I think if we recognize both of these problems with equal emphesis, like I think we do, then I think the Body of Christ will be edified more. I only mention this because it seems the problems of the Evangelical church are the only ones focused on or at least emphesized greater. I feel we need to focus and address on ALL of the problems rather than just one. Does that makes sense?

To me this is just as much a problem as what you are addressing but theEC type church never acknowledges this that I mentioned in the previous responsee already know they need to do good things but the explaination of Faith is just not presented in many non-Evangelical churches and projects a works based Salvation that is dangerous.” What are your thoughts on this? I’m not trying to argue but see if even greater agreement than the wonderful one we have already can be obtained. dh
Fabulous discussion. I really appreciate this “iron sharpening iron”. :) dh

By: Matt

Matt — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 17:19:00 +0000

DH:

Thanks again for keeping this dialogue going. I appreciate it.

I could find a thing or two to keep arguing about here, but I don’t think that I’ll bother because I’m convinced that we’re after the same thing and we agree with what the spirit of the other is saying, even if we disagree on some details.

And you are of course spot-on when you say that any theology formulated as a reaction to something runs the risk of swinging the pendulum too far in the other direction. The last thing I want to do is forget grace, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. So, thanks for the reminder.

I’d still recommend giving Willard’s “Divine Conspiracy” a read if you’re interested in thinking about these issues more.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 16:44:00 +0000

Matt, I think we are coming together. I totally agree. However, I feel that your approach can also have thesame affect in the reverse. If people believe all they have to do is “following him” or doeverything God wants them to do but doesn’t acknowledge Jesus is God, has risen and is alive today, never repented of their sin, never had a personal relationship with God then it also gives people a false sense of security. (kind of like works without Faith). So I think theextremes of both sides should beequally acknowledged. However, I do think lead people to accept Christ is important but that the follow up with regard to Discipleship and Sanctification are so important. From my experience of churches with “alter calls” I see churches making Discipleship, home groups and the like but that the lay people who accept Christ don’t desire to do these things. My 20 year experience in Evangelical churches doesn’t have what you are facing at all of “alter calls and thats it”. I know no church that states this type of theology. However, I do think thateven though Discipleship is preached regularly, that Sanctification isn’t preached or is indirectly mentioned in a less way without the importance. If more sermons on Sanctification with the Holy Spirit convicting Believers about personal sin, like they did in the middle of this century, were preached to go in conjunction with the Salvation message I think you would see more Believers doing what they are supposed to do. To me not giving a plan of Salvation leaves the person with a “cliff hanger mentality”. People already know they need to do good things but the explaination of Faith is just not presented in many non-Evangelical churches and projects a works based Salvation that is dangerous. dh

By: Matt

Matt — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 01:39:00 +0000

Well, to me we basically seem to be in agreement in spirit, but our basic disagreements are centred around methodology and semantics.

So, allow me to take a step back here. If I’m telling somebody about following Jesus, I don’t want them to just “get saved.” I want them to understand that Jesus calls them to a life of following him, not merely to a salvation that is too easily understood as a moment in time.

I’m not as concerned with people who have a more nuanced understanding of salvation such as yours. I’m more concerned with people who understand salvation as a moment in time and tell others that Jesus just “wants them to get saved” as a singular moment where their sins are taken care of. This kind of thing just doesn’t have much to say about salvation for all of life.

It does not seem like you have this understanding that I’m opposed to. But still, I believe that your terminology is too easily taken in that direction and that is why I’m advocating a restating of these things.

Make sense?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 21:43:00 +0000

I still think we need to use Salvation as the entrance point. Why not just say to Believers be Sanctified (be ye Holy even as I am Holy) and Salvation as the entrance point. Why push away from the terms when in fact there are multiple words to say the terms to explain them deeper and to understand that un-Believers need to first Believe and Believers nned to live for Christ and be as Sanctified as possibly as they can be. BI feel this works because if we do your way people would get a false sense of security into thinking they are “saved” when they aren’t or my point using your terminology “have no entrance point in Faith”. The overruling thing is “Without Faith it is impossible to please God.” This isn’t doctrine but understanding of the Scriptures what is literally being said. There is a difference.

Does that make sense? dh

By: Matt

Matt — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 20:08:00 +0000

I’ve gone back and more carefully read the paragraph I was having trouble understanding and I basically see what you were getting at. All of the Salvation vs salvation stuff was doing my head in, but now that I’ve gone back, I believe I understand you to mean that salvation is something that includes Salvation and Sanctification. Salvation itself is defined as the entrance to following Jesus. Do I have that right?

For me, it’s fine for the sake of a systematic theology to split things up like this to make them understandable, but my concern is that, when we try to apply this stuff to life, it gets really confusing. When I have to distinguish between Salvation (as a doctrine) and salvation in its myriad forms in the Scriptures, I get all kinds of confused and upset.

I would propose that we stop calling “Salvation” (the entrance to the faith) that at all, since it just confuses people when put next to all of the senses in which salvation is biblically used. Rather, let salvation — in all of its diversity and richness — speak for itself, while we use other terms to explain the fullness and richness of the great salvation that God has granted us in Christ.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 17:20:00 +0000

I don’t feel it is eisegesis in that the definition of salvation and within the context of scripture in light of scripture is how I said what I said. dh

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 17:18:00 +0000

Matt he did say it that is why there are multiple definitions for the word salvation. One must look at the context of salvation. I just don’t believe that it is Salvation but salvation.

I think that is the problem people don’t understand the concept of multiple definitions and just stick to the 1st definition rather than looking at the second and tertiary definitions of the word.

I would be interested inwhat the misunderstanding is on thelast paragraph. I think we can discuss this. I see a greater coming together not 100% and more like 75% but a cmoing together none the less. In my understanding John MacArthur in many of his sermons and books has some wonderful things to say about Salvation vs salvation or how I would state Salvation vs Sanctification. (Howpefully this will help you onthe last paragraph.) :) DH