Blog Archive

The Gift & the Prize is no longer active. The articles I have kept are here for you to peruse.

My new blog is The Free Range, and it roams many diverse pastures.

Come check it out!

On Hiatus

Yesterday I published my first post since April. It had sat as a draft for a long time awaiting completion. This hiatus was not planned, but a combination of busy-ness and deflation kept me away.

I was less than enthusaistic about the five months I had blogged. Among the small number of people visiting were a few who were only scoping out a fight, and I was not very successful in avoiding them. While I did not start a blog to become enmeshed in controversy, it did not escape my notice that visits to my blog spiked only when I wrote a rather harsh criticism of a position taken by the FGA. Otherwise about 20 people visited per day.

On the other hand, I met some wonderful people, whom I hope to meet someday in person, and I am genuinely richer for having connected with them.

I noticed that a few people have checked my site regularly, only to find the same old post from April. I appreciate that. They must have thought eventually something new would show up, and unfortunately it never did.

When I am inspired again I will resume more frequent posts, but I hope that when I do I can find some way to reach a broader readership. In the meantime, I am building a house, and I am chronicling the progress of constuction on my Facebook page. If you want to follow it (and who wouldn’t?) and are not yet my FB friend, friend me and you can view the adventure from a safe distance.

It is the Gift of God: Part Two

II: What will you give in exchange for your life?

Rent-to-Own Christianity
In my last post I looked at the nature of giving, and contended that God’s gift, like any gift freely offered out of love, comes without strings attached. This offends the sensibilities of many people who look upon the demands of God – obedience, virtue, holiness – as reasonable expectations of those who have been so showered with His grace. As I said, God can demand whatever He chooses, and by definition it would be reasonable. In fact, He does command us, but He does not connect it to the gift of salvation in the way these folks want to. They would see the transaction like this:

God has given you: [ life] [salvation] [Himself]
Therefore you must render to Him [your life] [obedience] [your self]

It is usually framed like this: “God gave me His Son (of eternal life, or saved me); the least I owe Him is my life.

This makes the transaction a trade. Why is that a problem?

First, we are not in commerce with God; we are not trading partners. This would require that we could offer something of comparable value to what He has offered. As I said, we can’t.

Second, it nullifies the gift. If He meant to trade on what He offered, fine. But it would not be called a gift.

Third, since God has purchased us and already rightfully owns us, our response only reflects what is already true. We are in effect pretending it is repayment plan, when it is a completed purchase! No more payments can be made, or will be received. Eternal life is not rent-to-own.

Fourth, it perverts the true nature of both our relationship to Him, and the motivation to live for Him. That’s what I want to discuss here.

Justification
We know that what God has given us in justifying, forgiving and granting us eternal life is not deserved. But I feel most strongly that many of us fail to see clearly what God has done, and what the ramifications are for us. Let’s look at a two examples.

1. God justified us out of love. He desired to rescue us, have communion with us and live with us forever. The result is a relationship that did not exist before, as His children. He adopted us into His family.

2. In resurrecting us from the dead (regenerating us) He gave us His very own life, breathing into us His life-giving Spirit. The result of this is that a people who were dead now live only by the life of God given to us. He is your life.

If we really reflect on just these two truths (for starters) — our filial union and resurrection — I believe we’ll see how ridiculous it is think that our actions or lifestyle could be taken in repayment of our debt to him. He wasn’t looking to make us His debtors. He meant to free us from an unpayable debt, so that we could serve Him as reborn, transformed, free sons and daughters full of love and thankfulness toward their Father!

There is no more radical transformation in all the universe than to make the dead alive again. As a manner of responding to the One who has done this, only love and gratitude make sense.

Sanctification
This will hopefully shed a little more daylight on our sanctification, where there is so much confusion about the relationship of works, faith, and spiritual and moral progress. Everything I have said up to the this point will no doubt be obvious. I hope you kept reading anyway.

My challenge is to simplify what amounts to the greater balance of teaching in the New Testament about how Christians are to live, think and believe.

If our life in Christ is a gift we cannot and should not even attempt to repay, then how do we view our responsibility to obey His commands?

Allow me some shorthand. I will call this obedience, meaning it in the broadest sense of conforming our selves in the power of the Holy Spirit to all that he wants of of us, our actions, our beliefs, thoughts, motivations, priorities and desires.

Obedience is broader than any definition of law, because it law can’t touch every part of God’s will.

Obedience even goes beyond what His word contains, because we face situations in which only His Spirit can guide us into the best application of its principles. Being able to do this is what we call wisdom.

The pursuit of obedience it would appear, is intended by God to happen in this life when failure and sin are inevitable. Fortunately He has not established a fixed standard of perfection in this life, but rather progress toward conformity with the character of Jesus Christ.

We pursue obedience that is pleasing to our Father.
We seek to be like Jesus.
We express our love and gratitude by our willingness to freely answer His call to obedience.
He is our loving Father who gives us all things, and He wishes us to be and we ought to be His loving and grateful children seeking to please Him with our lives.

Now to my point. This process of growing as His children to more fully obedient, more like Jesus, we often call sanctification. It too is a gift.

But unlike the gift of justification-salvation, sanctification-salvation is something we fully participate in. Our progress depends on the way in which we receive the gift. That is NOT because our obedience goes to buy our progress, but because our sojourn in this life is a stewardship. Along with the gift came the power to live a God-pleasing life. This means our obedience is not repayment, but stewardship of the gift. The gift is not an idle keepsake; it is making us what God always intended and willed us to be: people conformed to the image of Christ, to the praise of His glory and grace. That process does depend on receiving the gift and administering its limitless resources, which can only be manifested in the life of the believer who is walking as a faithful disciple. The disciple works, and as she does, she finds all the power and strength she needs to fulfill God’s purpose of a life that prepares her for eternity.

Glorification
For what has she been prepared in eternity? The culmination, the full fruition of God’s gift is realized then to be far beyond human imagining, and we will see what Paul meant when he wrote,

Eye has not seen, nor ear heard,
Nor have entered in to heart of man
the things God has prepared for those who love Him – 1 Cor. 2:9

When we stand before the judgment seat of Christ many will understand of the first time that eternal rewards did depend on their faithfulness, “and each one will receive his own reward according to his own labor” (I Cor. 3:8b). I believe the works both good and bad that will be the basis of this judgment don’t amount to a measurement of moral points earned, but rather to a measure of the faithfulness of our stewardship of His gift to us. Remember, there is a purpose to the gift. It is irrevocable, so that if we do not see to the realiztion of that purpose in our earthly lives, we still have a home with Christ in the life to come. But the failure, the refusal to answer His call to discipleship will amount to “bad works,” useless works, without eternal value. This is faithless stewardship, as seen in the parable of the talents (Mt. 25:14-30).

On the other hand, the faithful steward, who took up his cross daily and followed Jesus, can look forward to hearing Him say, “‘Well done, good and faithful servant; you were faithful over a few things, I will make you ruler over many things. Enter into the joy of your lord’” (Mt. 25:21).

Even though God has said that the rewards given out at this time are earned
by good works, I cannot help but see the whole arrangement as the entry into a infinite new realm of divine grace. It’s like being given a job by your father that pays a salary far beyond what your labor could possible deserve. Yes, he says you’ll earn your paycheck, buy the job itself is a gift.

The earning, receiving and enjoyment of rewards in eternity is all of His grace, too!

Truly all of eternity will ring with the praise of the Lord in His glory and grace. Love and thankfulness toward our amazing God should propel our service and fire our hearts.

It is the Gift of God: Part One

I: The Nature of a Gift
The conception a Christian has of God’s grace, I believe, correlates closely to what they believe is the nature of a gift. Is a gift a means of earning favor with the recipient? Does a gift obligate the recipient to the giver? If the gift is an expression of love, does the giver expect an expression of love to be reciprocated? Is there an even more specific expectation of reciprocation — a gift in return, a favor, a closer relationship?

I think if we give gifts with this frame of mind, even secretly, we may think God does, too.

He doesn’t.

Let’s take a look at how God does give out of His grace. If He gives the way I have described above, His giving is more a means to His ends: He wants something from us — whether a little or a lot — in return or as a result of the gift. Is God entitled to do this? Of course! He is God. But should we still call it a gift? I don’t think so. There are so many reasons for this. I’d like to consider a few.

Plain Manners
First, there is the normal understanding we have of what it means to make a gift to another. Most people would regard ‘giving to get’ as so inherently selfish as to remove any virtue in such giving. In a certain context it would be bribe. In others, the means of a gift to place someone under obligation to the giver is manipulative. The strings attached to the gift cause it to not truly be a gift. Yet we all have heard from teachers that God’s gift comes with a stiff price tag: your life, your complete obedience, your total submission, everything you have and are. Does a true gift come with a price tag?

It does not matter whether the giver expects something before, during or after the gift.

“If you do this for me, I have a gift for you.”

“I’ll give you this for that.”

“Since I gave to that to you, you owe me.”

A true gift is free and clear of any encumbrances; it expects nothing in return. We all know this.

When You Give
Second, there is the teaching of Scripture about giving. It tells us that God is pleased by giving that is:

• Voluntary, Ex. 25:2, 1 Chr. 29:9
• Cheerful, 2 Cor. 9:7
• Generous, Prov. 22:9, Acts 10:2, 2 Cor. 9:5, and
• Sacrificial, Mk. 12:42-44, 2 Cor. 8:1-3

We are also taught that real giving is not looking for something in return.

Then He (Jesus) also said to him who invited Him, “When you give a dinner or a supper, do not ask your friends, your brothers, your relatives, nor rich neighbors, lest they also invite you back, and you be repaid.

But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind.

And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you; for you shall be repaid at the resurrection of the just.”

Does God do the same thing? Does He give to us without requiring something in return?

When we consider the greatest gift, eternal life in Christ, we see that He gives to those who do not deserve His goodness and generosity. Look at it this way:

1. Before the fact (of receiving life): we don’t deserve it / we can’t earn it

2. After the fact: we don’t deserve it / we can’t repay it

If we are not deserving before we receive, how can we become deserving after we receive? Answer: we cannot. And that’s for two simple reasons: One, we have no more merit than we did before; and two, what God gives us we cannot repay, not in the least measure. Not to even the most infinitesimal fraction of its worth.

• Attempts at repayment amount to a denial of the freeness of the gift. For example, grace is given to the one who only believes, but wages are owed to the one who works. Rom. 4:4-5.
• We have nothing even remotely near its value. If we think our paltry works and sacrifices are somehow that valuable, we need to downsize our estimation.
• Finally, we have no personal merit, even as believers, that we could claim as making us deserving.

His Indescribable Gift
Third, there is the working out of God’s grace in our salvation, in which God shows us the real nature of grace by what He has done, is doing and will do.

This will inevitably raise the question, “What about God’s demands, His requirements and expectations? Are they not made of us who received His mercy and grace?” To answer this we will have to understand the relationship between what He has given us in salvation, and what He asks of us. There is such a relationship, but it is not an exchange.

I will address this in Part Two.

So What?
The astonishing truth that God has given more than we can comprehend, to us who have nothing of any worth to offer in kind — How should we respond to this?

First, we should be free of the thought that we can match His gift. Or do we devalue it to level of our offerings? May it never be!

Second, we should be filled with gratitude for His gifts, especially the gift of eternal life. And we should be overflowing with love for Him, since He has poured out His love on us to overflowing. And the outpouring of our love and gratitude, as meager as it may seem, turns out to be what He wants from us: worship, trust, love and obedience. Offered as repayment or merit for what He freely gave us, they are an offense. As a response to Him and all He has done, they are pleasing to Him. In this our joy is complete: a full realization of the infinite value of His grace, and the privilege of knowing He is pleased by our response.

“Thanks be to God for His indescribable gift!”
2 Cor. 9:15

The Long Night

After Jesus’ sacrificial death on Friday, the next day that we observe on the Christian calendar is Sunday when He arose. We usually pass over any consideration of the dark hours that intervened.

Jesus’ lifeless body lay within the garden tomb. The City of the Great King was quiet in observance of the Feast. The ground on Golgotha was stained with the blood of the Lamb that was slain; graves were opened; the earth was broken; the veil in the Most Holy Place was torn down the middle. And the disciples were hidden away, tormented by fear, guilt, grief and despair. Death and defeat hung over them all. Though daylight came again on Saturday, the darkness had not lifted.

I call it the long night.

How horrific it must have been, to know the Messiah of Israel, the Light – the Resurrection and the Life! – lay dead, the One in whom all their hopes had rested.

The hours crept. Shock, disbelief and dread blanketed the hearts of those who believed the Kingdom was about to come. Judas, the most hopeless of all, swung at the end of a rope. For the disciples, cowardice had owned the night; now despair owned the day.

We pass from Friday to Sunday without pausing because the rising sun on the third day pours its beautiful light all over an empty tomb, and greets a risen Lord whose victory makes the long night of the grave seem a fleeting sorrow. It is not only soon forgotten; it is nullified. Life swallows up death! The Prince of Life lives.

But I see some reason for pausing just a moment to consider the dark pit that held the disciples in the long night of their lost hope and shattered faith. It’s this: for many of our lost neighbors, life itself is a long night. The tomb is not empty; Jesus is not alive. They live in a Saturday world, without God, without hope. Where will they take their fear, guilt and despair? They know Good Fridays and fresh graves and earthquakes and lonely streets and someone at the end of a rope. But they don’t know Resurrection Sunday. Some are cowering in a darkened house, like Peter and John. Some are out wandering, like Thomas.

I say this to inspire compassion for those people for whom Sunday has not come, and for whom Saturday darkness is the inescapable, soul-crushing reality. Some of them feel it; a few feel it all of the time. Many may laugh at the shadows, but they don’t have the Light to dispel them.

We have the good news our friends, family and neighbors living the long night need to hear: Dawn has come; the bondage that once held the world is broken. Because He died, Jesus secured our forgiveness, and because He rose again we know we can have eternal life by simply believing in Him.

And one Day we will all rise from our graves, like Jesus on the third day – and live in the light of His glory forever.

Counting on Grace

Whew. I had a hard week. I let my focus slip, life started to become very stressful, my attitude became rather stinky, and I realized I needed to twist that focus ring back into position: fixed on Jesus, the originator and completer of my faith.

I am considering today how my attitude of faith relates to my view of God’s grace. We believe that God is at His very center gracious. That is, He gives where it is not deserved. We receive out of His limitless giving while we do not in any way have it coming.

But there is a little voice in my head that says, Don’t be greedy, always taking and taking. Hasn’t He given you enough? Will you keep coming back to the well, presuming on His grace?

What a hellish little voice. Shouldn’t I trust him for everything? Do I not acknowledge every good thing as a gift from His hand? Must I not lean on Him every moment of the day?

When can I turn from His grace and think I don’t have any more trips to the well of the water of His life-giving Spirit?

If I am to walk by faith, trusting completely in the Lord, how can I not presume upon what He has already given? Did He not promise a spring of life that would never run out? (John 4:14)

I am thirsty today! Where will I drink? Isn’t it the nature of faith to believe He gives what He has promised, and that what He calls limitless and eternal, truly is? This week I was able to count on this truth about Him: when I lose my step and stumble, I can fall into His arms. And I’ll tell you something: it causes my love for Him to grow.

If I really see His grace as clearly as I claim to, then I will see that my walk must reflect it. In loving Him as I ought to and trusting Him, receiving what He graciously gives – everything that is needed for life and godliness (2 Pe. 1:3) – is both a necessity and an obligation. I cannot get what He gives anywhere else and it is wrong to seek it anywhere else. I need what He gives, and I cannot – No, I am a fool if I try to – walk one step without His power, His presence, His very Self.

Jesus is eternal life (1 Jn. 5:20). The infinite nature of His grace is seen in His giving us Himself. If I presume upon anything, it is His own promise: that I will have Him forever. Faith, if I am to live by it, obliges me to receive Him and all He offers me by His grace, everywhere and everyday.

A Program for the Free Grace Movement

I want to see the message of the freeness of God’s grace in the gospel of Jesus Christ spread to people who have not heard it.

I believe the free grace message wins unbelievers to Christ with a clear gospel, and sets believers free who are bound up in works theology and who are confused by a gospel encrusted with unscriptural requirements.

Free grace theology upholds the clarity, simplicity and beauty of the message of eternal life by the grace of God through simple faith alone in Jesus, the only Savior. It holds forth the promises of God as the true basis of of the Christian’s assurance of salvation. It restores the lost and neglected doctrine of rewards at the judgment seat of Christ.

We who so believe are standing on the fringes of Christianity, our voices little heard or heeded.

I want to see that change.

What will need to happen to see it change? I’d like to open a discussion on that question. We have a message, a powerful and compelling and liberating message. Our voices may be weak but the message is not, because it is not ours; it is God’s. Since it is entrusted to us, our confidence and our efforts should not be less –no, they should be even greater– than the confidence and efforts put forth by the rest of the evangelical church.

We confront a practical challenge. We face giants who hold some of the most powerful and influential places in the American evangelical church. Leading pastors, teachers and preachers; leading ministries, seminaries and colleges, and churches of very stripe and size — all in the grip of Lordship and Reformed teaching. Though we trust in God as we go forth, yet like David facing Goliath, we must first go gather some stones for our slings.

I’d like to make some suggestions about some stones we ought to collect, and invite others to make some.

Unity
The most pressing need among us today is to be united in our commonly held convictions and to work tirelessly “to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” (Eph.. 4:1-3) We are kidding ourselves if we think we can splinter into factions and survive. No movement ever succeeded by narrowing its orthodoxy and excommunicating dissidents. We are in pursuit of truth that has been obscured partly by just such methods, and the grace and freedom we enjoy in that pursuit is a strength we cannot afford to give up. The responsibility for maintaining unity lies with all of us, but our leaders will also need to take on the tasks of peacemaking, reconciliation, confrontation and discipline according to the Spirit’s leading. I am confident they can and will meet that challenge head-on in a strong and gracious manner.

Scope
The free grace movement has not offered a fully developed theology. We may like to think that because our theology is biblical, it is complete. But our understanding of God’s grace and man’s destiny has not been brought to bear on the whole of Scripture, nor on all the traditional categories of systematic theology. I do not mean that we as individuals are necessarily incomplete in out theology, but that we as a movement have not fully fleshed out the ramifications of our reading of Scripture. If we remain camped out on one theological category, then such intentional progress will likely not take place.

Two indicators of a fully developed theology would be the appearance of at least one free grace commentary on the whole Bible, and the appearance in print of at least one complete systematic free grace theology.

This calls for a broadening of our theological interests beyond soteriology.

We may now believe that we differ in a few significant ways from the systematic theology that has gone before and the rest remains the same. But given the theological perspectives that those systematic theologies came from – Calvinist, Arminian, Covenant, etc. – it’s time the whole scope of categories be given a free grace treatment. The only one we have on our shelves, L.S. Chafer’s, is now 60 years old. It’s time for a new one.

Those among us who study, teach and write have before them an enormous vista of terrain to explore under the light of free grace understanding. It is no small undertaking to produce a commentary on every book of the Bible and a systematic theology , but is also a wonderful opportunity.

Communication
It is not that difficult to look at how ideas and beliefs are propagated today, and see that we should be engaged in the same sort of efforts. If one of the aims of spreading the free grace message is to reach as many people as possible, then we must look at mass media.

I propose a two-pronged effort: in new media and in old media.

Old media is strong in print and radio, and these cannot be ignored as powerful and effective means of reaching people with content of substance. However, we mustn’t entirely stake our reach on using old media, because of the expense and the very real possibility of being prevented access by their gatekeepers. Old media lends legitimacy and has large audiences, but over the air you have to be granted permission, and in publishing you will need financial support. We should aim for a real presence in the wider community, and focus on establishing:

• A monthly magazine
• Radio programs

New media, on the other hand, especially the Internet, have no gatekeepers. Consequently, you have to work very hard at legitimacy and winning a large audience. But the Internet as a medium does not cost very much to use effectively and has a worldwide reach. There are enormous possibilities we are far from realizing. Blogging should continue and increase, in number and in diversity of interests. Free grace presence on the net should reflect the whole spectrum of Christian thought, and not be limited to special interest debates. Some ideas:

• Free Grace Web portal: One site that links to all others.
• Media site: Streaming audio and video of free grace messages and more.
  
• Internet Radio: Radio-format programs that by-pass over-the-air broadcast and are offered online.

Every facet of free grace communications must take into account what was stated above about our scope of interests: if we restrict ourselves to holding forth on only a narrow band of controversial theological issues, we will continue to preach to a very small choir. It’s critical to cast a wider net, and address ourselves to all the questions that call for a scriptural, free grace answer.

Education
The availability of and increased interest in free grace Bible college and seminary education should be a continuing focus, for a number of reasons:

• We need to train and equip pastors, teachers, missionaries, scholars and other servants of the gospel: They will lead and establish more churches; they will teach and preach the gospel; they will carry on the discipleship mandate of the Great Commission.
• The educational mission will also help to accomplish the work involved in broadening our scope as described above.

We need to support the few free grace institutions that exist. The seminaries will likely need to focus on online distance education, rather than residential programs. We might explore the creation of a higher ed consortium, to pool resources and raise support.

There is much to do. We are few in number and it will take a lot of hard work. On top of that we face the constant charge of heresy, and are marginalized in the evangelical world.

But we serve a great and awesome God, and we believe He can and will go before us into the fray! When discouraged, I sometimes think of the tremendous forces, political, ecclesiastical and demonic, that were arrayed against Luther when he nailed his Theses to the church door. One brave, deeply flawed and in many ways
unsaintly man. But he went forward anyway, with little hope of survival, much less of success, and kicked a hole in the wall that stood between millions of people and the Word of God.

We have to have that kind of commitment. But more, we need the vision of a church fully freed from the cold, hard grip of a dressed-up works-salvation, and liberated by the matchless grace of God in Jesus Christ.

The Heresy of Alienation

Our minds are honed in varying degrees to detect deviations in Christian doctrine, and many of us are willing to confront what we consider heterodoxy, errors in theology. Some of us are so zealous – or perhaps otherwise motivated – in our pursuit of doctrinal purity, that we commit a serious deviation of our own: heterodox treatment of those who are our brothers and sisters, persons whom we owe the ongoing debt of love (Rom 13:8).

Given the primacy of love to the Christian, the central place it has in the teaching and commandments of Jesus and His apostles, is it not at least as serious an error to treat family like the enemy? Isn’t the violation of love and of grace the very definition of heresy – causing unwarranted division in the body?

Don’t misunderstand me: I am not suggesting that we shouldn’t discuss or disagree over doctrinal questions; at times we must (1 Cor. 11:19). I am concerned with how we disagree, that love not be alienated from truth, for they do not and must not be put forth apart from one another: speaking truth in love, as Paul says in Eph. 4:15, should always be our standard.

Love is not an excuse for refusing to uphold pure doctrine and call out error, for real love cares about people enough to want them to walk in truth, and won’t look the other way when it is blurred by deceit, carelessness or neglect. Love doesn’t walk in the fog of doctrinal ignorance or confusion but out in the clear light of day, so that we can see reality as it is. Love doesn’t imagine differences away but demands to oversee the the disagreement until the truth emerges for all to see. Without truth, love would walk inoffensively, a namby-pamby flower child gingerly tip-toeing around bloated egos, sensitive feelings and potential conflicts.

Truth, in the same way, won’t leave the house without love, because it has sharp edges that can cut and blunt sides that can bruise. Truth without love is a brute, but love introduces truth gently and patiently to all who will hear. Love is there when truth must repeat itself, and assert itself against its many rivals. Truth doesn’t stand down, and it shouldn’t, but love is there to make sure it’s the error and not the errant that takes the hit.

When truth is dispatched alone, without love or grace, gentleness, patience or respect, it is not the whole truth, and it will justify almost anything for itself. The Christian so armed with this loveless “truth” is certainly a heretic in the purest sense. Creating division among believers is his most abundant fruit. Some will follow him, others will flee, and the rest he seeks to excommunicate.

Just as there is aberrant theology and the distortion of revealed truth, there is just as assuredly aberrant conduct and the denial of the pre-eminence of love, and this, too, is heresy.

In fact, no theology is pure that neglects the doctrine of love.

Moon-Faith

If you believed they put a man on the moon, man on the moon…
-R.E.M.

RC Tips His Hand
I listened the other morning to one of RC Sproul’s lectures (Grace Alone, Pt 2, Renewing Your Mind, 1/15/2009) on The Undying Glories of the Most Blessed Reformers of Olde (It’s all right; I’m recovered now.), and he was arguing that a person cannot believe God unless God chooses to grant them the grace to believe. Sproul said:*

I talk to my Arminian friends all the time about this, and say, “Look, let me ask you a question. Why is it that you’re a believer, and many members of your own family, or friends that you have, are not believers when you’ve both heard the gospel?”
And they say, “Well, because I responded to the gospel and the other person didn’t.”
I say, “Okay. You said yes to the aid of God’s grace. God gave the same offer to your neighbor, and your neighbor said no. I wanna know this: Why did you say yes, and your neighbor said no?”

When I heard that, I thought, Hmm, that’s an interesting challenge. He went on:

[The Arminian responds:] “Well, because I’m free.”
“I understand that. But why in your freedom were you inclined to say yes to grace and your neighbor said no? Is it because you’re more righteous than that person?” Now what would any Arminian say?
“Of course not! I don’t believe I’m in there because I’m righteous.”
I say, “Why not? What your friend did was the wrong thing. It’s a sinful thing to say no to an offer of divine grace for salvation, wouldn’t you agree?”
And they say, “Well, yeah.”
“And the right thing is to say yes,” I said, “Yes. In the final analysis the reason you’re saved and that person isn’t is because you did the right thing and they did the wrong thing.”

He then of course says that if you believe this, then you are rendering to yourself some measure of credit in your own salvation, and “how far is that from Rome?” Since Sproul is never more than a stone’s throw from Rome himself, I’m sure he can measure it with his ruler.

Sproul says, “I wanna know this: Why did you say yes, and your neighbor said no?” Well, he will no doubt be swinging from the ligonier when he hears that I have decided to carve some time out of my week to answer his question (though I am not an Arminian).

But first: I am compelled to point out a little trick RC has pulled here, perhaps on purpose or perhaps unconsciously.
1. He begins by asserting justification by faith.
2. Then he refers to the same condition as saying “yes to the aid of God’s grace.”
3. Then it’s just saying yes.
4. Then it’s doing the right thing.

How swiftly we went from faith to works! Could there be a more stark admission of Sproul’s conception of faith — that it is meritorious and equals works?

Saying yes to God is not the same as believing in Him for salvation. Let me illustrate.

Ring! Ring!
“Hello.”
“Hello Mr. Dekner.”
“Dehner.”
“Yes, Mr. Danner.”
“Day-nur.”
“Good evening sir. I hope you’re enjoying your dinner.”
“Yes, I am. It’s quite delicious.”
“That’s fabulous, Mr. Dinner. Mr. Dinner, what would you say to a free, two weeks, all-expenses-paid, vacation to Hawaii for four?”
“I would say yes!”

Do I believe him? No, I do not. Do I think our phone call will end with me receiving that vacation? No more than I think he’s going to pronounce my name correctly. Saying yes and believing are not the same!

But I promised to make RC’s day by telling him what he wanna know.

Moon-Faith
“I wanna know this: Why did you say yes, and your neighbor said no?”

I will grant that under his own terms, what he means is, “Why did you believe, and your neighbor did not?” In my world this would be crazy-talk, except that when it comes to believing God, pixie dust falls from the sky on our words, redefining all our normal meanings into Reformed meanings, and now ‘believe’ doesn’t mean ‘believe’ they way we learned it in school.

The reason anyone believes something and another does not is that one is persuaded by what they hear or see, and the other is not. The question might as well be, Why do some people not believe believable things? Or more to the point, why do some people refuse to believe when the evidence is overwhelming, the witnesses credible and authoritative, and the alternatives preposterous?

Take the moon landing. A disturbing sector of the populace refuse to believe we ever landed on the moon and returned. It was all a big fake, they think, staged in a television studio. Fake rockets, fake photos, fake moon rocks, lying astronauts and ground crew. And contractors. And government officials. Only about 10,000 people involved, I think. The Soviets were watching our every move, losing the space race, but never saw fit to expose the fraud.

How does this kind of mind work, that doesn’t believe we were able to execute the missions, but were able to carry off the biggest scam and boondoggle in history ($25 billion in 1969 dollars, $135 billion in 2005 dollars – for fake moon missions! Apollo 13, a real fake moon mission, only cost $62 million dollars in 1995, and $20 million of that was for Tom Hanks) — and not one person cracked and fessed up? I don’t know. They have a greater confidence in conspiracy than technology, I guess. This kind of unbelief may be ignorant, idiotic, loopy. Certainly it’s also wrong, morally wrong, because it accuses thousands of brave, hard-working, ingenious, dedicated people of being just the opposite. A similarly pernicious fantasy is that the attacks of 9-11 were carried out by the US government. This is not unlike the mindset that refuses, also in the face of evidence and witnesses, to believe in the Creator and Redeemer: foolish, ignorant, obstinate, blind.

But what do you say about the rest of us who do believe in the moon landings? Are we smarter, more honorable, astute or commendable? No, there is no virtue that accrues to us for believing the obvious. There is no merit in believing the unanimous verdict of evidence, witnesses and common sense. Why? Because whether something or someone is believed does not reflect on the believers, it reflects on the person or thing believed – the object of belief. A series of events like the moon landings is so well-attested that no commendation comes to the person who passively takes what they observe at face value. It is a believable thing. It would thus be silly to say something like, “You have to admire that guy. He believes the earth is round. On top of that he has great faith in the law of gravity.”

How like the serpent lifted up in the wilderness: the people only had to look. They earned no commendation for looking. They served a God who was to be believed and trusted, a faithful God!

When something is eminently credible there is no credit to someone who believes, only discredit to the one doesn’t.

We believe in a believable message and a believable Go
d. That’s to His credit, not ours.

My answer, then, to RC Sproul is:
Read John 3:19; it tells why some didn’t believe, and the rest of the Gospel shows us why some did believe: the infinite worthiness of Jesus Christ to believed!

* This is my transcription of his radio broadcast, retrieved at the link I gave above.

Paul's First Epistle to the Free Grace Corinthians, Part Three

Chapter Ten

23 All posts are lawful for me, but not all posts are helpful; all comments are lawful for me, but not all comments edify. 24 Let no blogger seek his own, but each blogger the other’s well-being.

Chapter Eleven

17 Now in giving these instructions I do not praise you, since you come together not for the better but for the worse. 18 For first of all, when you come together in the blogosphere, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it. 19 For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you.

Chapter Twelve

24 But God composed the body, having given greater honor to that part which lacks it, 25 that there should be no schism in the body, but that the bloggers should have the same care for one another. 26 And if one blogger suffers, all the bloggers suffer with it; or if one blogger is honored, all the bloggers rejoice with it. 27 Now you are the body of Christ, and bloggers individually.

Chapter Thirteen

1 Though I blog with the words of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal.

2 And though I have the gift of super-apostleship, and understand all obscure passages and all orthodoxy, and though I have all content of saving faith, so that I could remove those who do not, but have not love, I am nothing.

3 And though I bestow all my posts to feed the Web, and though I deliver up hereticks to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing.

4 Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up;
5 does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil;
6 does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth;
7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
8 Love never fails. But whether there are Web servers, they will fail; whether there are threads, they will cease; whether there is theological correctness, it will vanish away.
9 For we know in part and we blog in part.
10 But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.
11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.
13 And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

Paul's First Epistle to the Free Grace Corinthians, Part Two

Chapter Four

14 I do not write these things to shame you, but as my beloved children I warn you. 15 For though you might have ten thousand bloggers in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. 16 Therefore I urge you, imitate me. 17 For this reason I have sent Timothy to you, who is my beloved and faithful son in the Lord, who will remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church. 18 Now some are puffed up, as though I were not coming to you. 19 But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord wills, and I will know, not the blogging of those who are puffed up, but the power. 20 For the kingdom of God is not in blogging but in power. 21 What do you want? Shall I come to you with a rod, or in love and a spirit of gentleness?

Chapter Five

9 I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. 10 Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner not even to eat with such a person. 12 For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? 13 But those who are outside God judges. Therefore “put away from yourselves the evil person.”

Chapter Six

1 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, air your grievances on the Internet, and not before the saints? 2 Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to settle the smallest matters? 3 Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life?4 If then you have arguments concerning our teaching, do you wage your disputes in public, on the World Wide Web? 5 I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you, not even one, who will be able to mediate between his brethren? 6 But brother rails against brother, and that before unbelievers! 7 Now therefore, it is already an utter failure for you that you engage in personal attacks against one another. Why do you not rather accept wrong? Why do you not rather let yourselves be slandered?

Paul’s First Epistle to the Free Grace Corinthians, Part One

Chapter One

1 PAUL, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Stephanos our dubious scribe, 2 To the Free Grace community, some members of which are figuratively now rather Corinthian, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all who in every place, including the Worlwide Web, call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours: 3 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
—-
10 Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. 11 For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe’s household, that there are contentions among you. 12 Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Hodges,” or “I am of Stegall,” or “I am of Rokser,” or “I am of Wilkin.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Hodges crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Stegall?…17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.

18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

19 For it is written:”I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.”
20 Where is the wise?
Where is the blogger?
Where is the theological debater of this age?
Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
—

30 But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God and righteousness and sanctification and redemption 31 that, as it is written, “He who glories, let him glory in the LORD.”

Chapter Two

12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. 13 These things we also speak, not in words which score debate points, or our theological micro-niche teaches, but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

Chapter Three

1 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. 2 I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able; 3 for you are still carnal. For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men? 4 For when one says, “I am of Hodges,” and another, “I am of Stegall,” are you not carnal?

—
18 Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you seems to be wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their own craftiness”; 20 and again, “The LORD knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile.” 21 Therefore let no one boast in men. For all things are yours: 22 whether Hodges or Wilkin or Stegall, or the world or life or death, or things present or things to come all are yours. 23 And you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.

Without Love, I am Nothing

One of the pitfalls that I foresaw when I began blogging was not giving myself enough time to consider what I had written before publishing it. I might immediately wish that I had worded something diffrently, added something to it, or – most assuredly – left it out altogether. A case in point is the last sentence of my last post:

Does anyone think we should start denouncing the Tragedy of the Appearance-less Gospel? The 500-less Gospel? The Saul-on-the-road-to-Damascus-less Gospel? I hope not!

I’m okay with that as I published it, but it went through about four or five revisions. The first version was a bit more, how shall we say, stinging? Facetious. I wanted to make the point, but it sounded as if I were mocking, and I didn’t want it to. When I considered deleting it, my writer’s vanity answered, “No, that’s too good to cut. Just burnish it a bit.”

Now, it’s not so much in my nature to walk on eggshells or to overcensor myself, but I did set for myself a standard of conduct in public communication which is bolstered every time I see the petty and ugly rows that others engage in online. By nature I am inclined to be myself, which means being sometimes blunt, and sometimes sarcastic. But I am not writing to indulge my nature. I have not only a choice but an obligation to rise above my nature.

This means I do have to be careful, and blogging is not the most conducive to such care. It’s instant worldwide publishing, after all. No agent, no editor, no publisher, just me and you in the blogosphere. The worst mistake we can make is to think our words don’t matter. They do.

I have read more than once old-time bloggers advising newbies that if they want to rise above the noise of the blogosphere, the best bet is to write provocative and controversial posts, something to shock or anger other people and get attention. This is terrible advice for believers. Unfortunately it fits like a glove people who are controversialists to begin with. Some Christians don’t seem to be happy unless they are fighting, and many seem to think all is fair if they’ve got the truth on their side.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Not scriptural, not Christlike!

And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 1 Cor. 13:2

We should discuss, refine, debate if necessary, and change when appropriate our understanding of biblical doctrine. But we should not sacricifice Christian love on the altar of our convictions.

Some people believe no doubt that their methods of combat are loving, because they mean to bring their opponents to into submission, defeat and repentance. This calls for beating my brother with the Baseball Bat of Truth until he falls into a heap on the ground, all the error beaten out of out him. Rising in the strength of the knowledge that I was right all along, he will be aglow with God’s grace and mercy, and we can bask together in true fellowship and love.

I guess it goes something like that. But they lack love in their approach, gentleness, patience, speech seasoned with grace. There is little hope of a coversation beginning with pummeling and ending with caresses, isn’t there? How do you win someone over to your convictions? How about beginning with the thought that your understanding might need a little refinement as well, and in the right spirit of fellowship, you might help each other?

I guess that states the approach I am aiming for. The other day I came across a paper written by Tim Nichols. It says very succinctly and beautifully what I feel about the Dv.D debate. Here it is:

Orthodoxy, Character, Wisdom, and Witness:
An Open Letter to the Free Grace Community by Timothy R. Nichols

He opens with very sobering thought that has been my exact sentiment since I first caught wind of certain personal and organizational schisms some months back, and which I believe is true:

Having effectively silenced us in the wider evangelical community, Satan seems to be seeking to divide and conquer us from within. And to our considerable disgrace, it’s working rather well.

Please read Tim’s letter, if you haven’t. It’s to everyone in the Free Grace community.

1 Corinthians 15: Christ is preached that He has been raised

Almost anyone familiar with the NT, if asked for a definition or the content of the gospel of Jesus Christ, would turn to First Corinthians 15:1-5.

Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve.

I realize that scholars and exegetes far more qualified and credentialed than myself affirm that verses 1 through 5 provide a clear statement of THE gospel message preached by Paul and the other apostles. However, I have two serious reservations about this view of the passage.

First:The complete passage is 1 Cor. 15:1-11. The context of verses 1-5 does not permit a division between verses 5 and 6 (nor between 4 and 5, if you lean that way); it continues through verse 11, and verses 3-10 sit very clearly and neatly between two bookends (inclusios). The first inclusio is in verse 1 and is repeated in verse 3,

Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand…

For I delivered to you first of all (or as of first importance) that which I also received…

And and the closing inclusio is in verse 11,

Therefore, whether it was I or they (the other apostles), so we preach and so you believed.

This shows the unity of verses 1-11. The other problem with breaking at verse 5 is that there is no natural change between verse 5 and verses 6-10. They have the same subject matter!

Verse 5:

• post-resurrection appearance to Cephas
• post-resurrection appearance to the twelve

Verse 6:

• post-resurrection appearance to over 500 brothers

Verse 7:

• post-resurrection appearance to James
• post-resurrection appearance to all the apostles

Verse 8:

• post-resurrection appearance to Paul

Folks who want to make a creedal statement out of this passage have a problem. How do they explain the theological or doctrinal difference between the appearances in verse 5 and the four other appearances? (Hint: There isn’t one.)

If they can’t, they are forced to say that the gospel of Jesus Christ must include all these appearances. That’s also a problem, because not all the appearances we know about are included; the appearances to Mary (Mk 16:9, Jn. 20:14-17) and the other women (Mt. 28:9-10), for example, which are prominent in the Gospels, are absent here. And two appearances here (to James and the 500) are absent from the Gospels and Acts. Something so crucial to the gospel, and it’s mentioned only once in the whole Bible? How many Christians could even recall more than two or three of all the appearances in the NT? How many were enumerated for them when they first believed the gospel? Remember, if you are saying this is THE one complete gospel message, every element is absolutely necessary and cannot be left out.

Another problem is the absence of an absolutely crucial teaching: justification by faith in Christ alone, the only response to this gospel that God requires of a person. Is there such a thing as a gospel that does not tell the hearer how they can be born again? This was without question part of gospel that Paul preached, but it’s not in verses 1-5 or 1-8 or 1-11. This is a glaring omission if the passage is supposed to proclaim every required element of Paul’s gospel, but it’s not an omission at all if the burden of the passage is pointing out how important the resurrection of Christ is to the gospel, and how the appearances represent “many infallible proofs” of it (Acts 1:3).

Second: The subject is the resurrection, not the gospel. There is an obvious change of subject from 1 Cor. 14:4o to 1 Cor. 15:1, as the previous passage (14:26-40) concerns order in worship meetings, and all of chapter 15 has only one subject – the resurrection of the dead. Paul’s reason for opening the subject of the resurrection with verses 1-11 is clear from verse 12:

Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?

The point of verses 1-11 is not to lay out the complete gospel as preached by Paul, or even a summary, but rather to point out how central – and factual – the resurrection of Christ is to the gospel he preached and they believed: “Christ is preached that He has been raised,” and the preceding verses remind us of that. Since the resurrection is so central to the gospel I preached to you, how is it that some of you are saying there is no resurrection of the dead? He then proceeds to explain that the resurrection of Christ and the resurrection of everyone else are inextricably linked. Given that his one and only subject is the resurrection, context demands that we read verses 1-11 in that light. This is the only reasonable explanation for why he devoted half a sentence each to the death of Christ, His burial and His resurrection, but the rest of the passage to His post-resurrection appearances, including the one to Paul himself! Otherwise you have a very lopsided gospel: “Atonement, Burial, Fulfilled Scripture – important; Post-resurrection appearances – VERY,VERY important.” That’s why most people find it necessary to cut the passage off at verse 5. It doesn’t work.

Does anyone think we should start denouncing the Tragedy of the Appearance-less Gospel? The 500-less Gospel? The Saul-on-the-road-to-Damascus-less Gospel? I hope not!

The Gospel as Story

The Dv.D debate is centered, according to what some have said, on the content of saving faith. What exactly is it that an unbeliever comes to believe that results in his justification-salvation ? There are now multiple opinions about what must be included on the list of nonnegotiable, irreducible truths that must be included to make up the whole gospel.

I beg the reader’s patience. While there are simple statements referring to belief that “Jesus is the Christ,” (1 John 5:1) or “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,” (John 20:31) I cannot find a list that includes all the things that are traditionally required – deity, atonement, burial, resurrection, justification by faith alone, etc. (I will discuss 1 Corinthians 15:1-11 in another post.) Instead the NT writers have an abundance of good news around the birth of Jesus, the birth of John, the miracles of Jesus, His teaching, His promises, His announcement of the Kingdom, His fulfillment of OT prophecies, His sufferings, His death, His burial, His resurrection, His ascension, salvation by grace through faith, etc.

Did I leave I leave anything out? Of course I did.

The content of the gospel was not conveyed to unbelievers by the disciples through talking points, summaries, lists, creeds or formulas (although we find some of this written to the church), because these do not accomplish what the gospel does in the fullness of its power.

All of this good news is conveyed through narrative. The power of the gospel is the power of its story to persuade.

It is through stories that all the good news about Jesus is communicated. Stories convey truth by describing, and sometimes explaining, events, words and actions. When the disciples preached the gospel, they were telling the story of Jesus Christ, a story full of good news. News because it hadn’t been heard before: it was new, fresh. Good because it is from God, for us, all of us: God’s salvation has come to all people through the Savior of this story.

If we cherish the simplicity of our faith as much as we say we do, we should be able to appreciate the simplicity of this: the gospel is a good news story about Jesus Christ, the hearing of which brings about faith in Him. This story is the power of God: when you hear it, you believe – in Jesus. When you believe in Jesus, you receive eternal life. When you receive eternal life, you receive so much more that the rest of the NT is devoted to expounding on all that we have received in Jesus, including our responsibilities to live according the righteousness we have been given.

And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples,which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name. John 20:30-31

The gospel is the good news about Jesus. This good news is “the power of God to salvation,”(Romans 1:16) because it is a story that reveals the person and works of Christ in such a way that brings about faith in Him. John’s signs that are written (John 21:30) are not in the form of a list or creed; the signs are found in his narrative, his entire Gospel. If it was only the signs that mattered and not the rest of the narrative, he could have written a much shorter book. But more importantly, his purpose was to convince the reader of the truth about Jesus, who He was, what He did and said.

I’d like to put the question of the content of saving faith in light of this proposition: that the gospel is the good news narrative, by which we hear of the person and work of Christ, and hearing, believe – not in specific plot points or facts or promises found in the story, but in the Person of Christ alone. The purpose of the telling of the good news story is to engender the hearer’s faith in Christ, the Son of God. (I might add that the gospel, as well as the gospel books, serve to increase the faith of believers as well.)

We contend that believing is simply being persuaded and convinced that something is true and trustworthy. To believe in Christ is being convinced that He is true and worthy of all trust. To believe results in salvation. If the gospel is “the power of God to salvation,” then its power lies in leading one to faith in Christ. The gospel is a good news story that convinces people who hear it to believe in the Subject of the story. The gospel convinces people to believe and be saved.

To say that there are only certain facts that accomplish this requires creating a hierarchy of truth (e.g.”this is a saving truth; this one is not” – which I’m not certain is a legitimate practice) and obscures the multiple purposes that these truths serve.

For example, the burial of Christ is important on a number of levels, apologetically (proving He was physically dead), doctrinally (for understanding water baptism), historically and prophetically, etc. It has a place in the gospel story. But if the real purpose of the gospel is to convince a person to believe in Jesus, it’s use in preaching/witnessing, at least one-on-one, may be optional. Let’s say I’m witnessing to a friend:

Steve: …After Jesus had been dead for three days, He was raised from the dead by the Father.
Fred: Well, how do we know He was actually dead?
Steve: The guards did not break His legs on the cross, because He was already dead. There was no mistaking that: He would have been hanging limp, which is impossible to do and remain breathing. He was sealed in a tomb by friends, who would have made sure. And He remained in the tomb for several days.
Fred: I see. How do we know He was raised…?

But it might also have gone like this:

Steve: …After Jesus had been dead for three days, He was raised from the dead by the Father.
Fred: OK, after hearing about what He endured, there’s no doubt in my mind He was truly dead. But how can we be sure He was raised…?

The good news that Jesus was physically raised is possible only because he was physically dead, which the burial demonstrates. But what purpose does the burial serve in one-on-one evangelism, if a person readily accepts Christ’s physical, historical death on the cross?

The gospel books have an obvious apologetic nature to them. They were designed to make the case for not just believing in Jesus, but believing the right things about Him. When relating to a person who Jesus is, and why they should believe in Him, what do I want that person to hear that truthfully and accurately communicates those things? This brings us back to the content of the gospel and of saving faith.

I believe that John’s intention that we “believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (which was also Peter’s confession at Caeserea Phillipi, Matthew 16:16), and that believing you may have life in His name,” (John 20:31) is sufficient.

And how will an unbeliever understand these three important truths, “Jesus,” “Messiah/Christ,” and “Son of God”? How will they clearly see the Person they describe? I think any first-century believer would have said, “Tell them the story!”

But what to include? Those things that portray him as fully human, fully God, and the promised Savior. And I believe t
hat the apostles considered the truths that most obviously and powerfully do that include the atonement and resurrection. Could you hypothetically explain to someone how “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” without speaking of the death and resurrection? I haven’t tried to think of how that might be done, but I honestly do not see how it could be. It goes without saying that if hearing about the atonement and resurrection convinces someone to believe in Jesus for salvation, then they have also believed in the atonement and the resurrection!

This is far from decrying as deficient any gospel that fails to include a story element that is important. A gospel proclamation is likely deficient if it fails to have as its purpose what I have described – faith in Jesus as He is: Man, God incarnate, Messiah, Savior. But who wishes to preach or teach Jesus as other than this? So what is the likelihood that this is what we would do? If we want someone to come to know the Savior we love, there should be more that we want to say, rather than less.

But no matter what I would say to introduce someone to Jesus, I always say this: All you must do is believe in Jesus, and He gives you eternal life. (John 6:47, Acts 16:31)

Dv.D in a Nutshell

There is currently an ongoing controversy within what is commonly referred to as the Free Grace movement. For those not familiar with the controversy, I offer (as best I can) only the barest summary in order to fairly and succinctly state what the issues are, and why they matter. I want to apologize up front if I fail to state the positions fairly, and welcome any friendly corrections. My aim is clarity and truth.

At its core the primary question under contention is, “What is the very least an unbelieving person must believe in order to be justified (saved, born again, regenerated)?” Along with this goes the question whether the aforementioned – “What must be believed?” is identical to or synonymous with the gospel in a technical sense, i.e. the message that must be preached, with a specific and minimum set of facts that must be communicated about Christ. In other words, “What is the very least a person must say in order to fully communicate the good news of Jesus Christ?” Some contend that these two are identical – What must be preached and what must be believed – and others do not.

Obviously these are critical, core issues of the faith. Let’s say a man lies on his deathbed, asking his believing wife how he may be reconciled to God before he dies. What will she tell him? How will either of them know that he has understood and believed all that he must believe in order to receive eternal life? At stake is his eternal destiny, her responsibility, and their assurance of his reconciliation to God. What could be more important, this side of eternity?

I do not want to re-state all the arguments that have been made. (For those of you want to read further, I will supply links at the end of this post.)

I would rather pose a number of questions, and consider some possible answers, and try to see what fits best with the clear teachings of Scripture.

For example, why would anyone want to establish a minimal statement of saving faith or of the saving message? Do we need a minimal message?

Does the New Testament ever suggest, “this is THE gospel, and anything less is not THE gospel,” or, “What is preached (in the NT) is what must be preached AND it is also what must be believed”?

Is “What must believed?” the right question, or is the real question “Who must be believed?” If the latter, then the identity Christ is critical. The former suggests that specific propositions or assertions of truth are in view. Also, to what extent may we separate the person (identity) of Jesus from either His work or His promises?

These are the questions I plan to work through. It is doubtful to me that I can do this without the help of wiser and more learned people than myself. If there is anyone out there who would like to offer up help in the spirit of Eph. 4:1-3, I welcome it. But I lack the time to engage in debates in the comments section. Sorry, that’s just how it is. Dialog is interesting to me; arguments, not so much.

The Backstory
Last year, a Milwaukie, WI pastor named Tom Stegall wrote a series of articles criticizing what he regards as a minimalist and faulty, and therefore false gospel proposed (predominantly) in some articles and talks given by Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin over the last ten years. Tom has been joined in his criticisms by others such as Dennis Rokser of Duluth, MN and Lou Martuneac of Chicago. The Grace Family Journal, which has published the Stegall and Rokser articles, comes out of Duluth.
Zane (who passed away last month), his Kerugma Ministries, and Bob and the Grace Evangelical Society (GES, which he founded and leads) are based in the Dallas, TX area. Thus I have dubbed the controversy “Dv.D” (as in Duluth versus Dallas). Others who have been associated with the Dallas viewpoint are John Niemela and Jeremy Myers.

You can read Tom Stegall’s articles (“The Tragedy of the Crossless Gospel, Parts 1-9″) in the Grace Family Journal, as well as Dennis Rokser’s (“The Issue of Incongruity – Actual or Artificial? Parts 1 & 2″). You can read Lou Martuneac’s views here, along with GFJ articles.

The key articles from Dallas/GES are “How to Lead Pepole to Christ Part 1 and Part 2;” “Justification by Faith Alone is an Essential Part of the Gospel;” “The Gospel is More Than ‘Faith Alone in Christ Alone;’” and “The Message of Life in the Gospel of John.”

Things Which Are Not Seen

Jeremy Myers has a series of interesting posts on Job that I’ve been thinking about. He was wrestling with the problem of God’s behind-the-scenes dealings with Satan at the beginning of the book.

I’m not surprised that Satan suggests such a scheme. What surprises me is that God so readily agrees to it! And furthermore, God never tells Job why all this bad stuff happened to him. Job never finds out about this divine wager! God never tells Job that he was a pawn in a cosmic game of “chicken.” At the end of the book, when Job finally gets to ask God “Why?” God basically says, “I’m God and you’re not, so don’t question me.”

I have read, but not studied, the book of Job. However, like many people who have suffered adversity and go running to its pages for answers, I find it does not explain God’s purposes; rather it seems to explain why we should accept living without the explanantion. I could be wrong, but when I lost my 13-year-old son, and my 11-year-old daughter lay in a coma, it was a half-verse from Job, 13:15a, that popped into my head, and I repeated as a prayer over and over again:

Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him.

Now, my reading is through the lens of personal experience, not exegesis. But that is point, isn’t it? The book does not raise more troubling questions than our own experiences, does it? No, they are the same questions.

How much more bearable our sufferings would be if we understood their purposes, His purposes, not in a general sense but in a specific sense. The problem is the invisibility of God’s heavenly court. Job wasn’t in on it , and neither are we.

I see my own situation like a scale. On one side is the loss of my son and my daughter’s permanent injuries. The weight of them plunges that side of the scale into the dirt. On the other side is the plan of God, his purpose for allowing these things to happen. But it’s invisible. We may see one thing or two, but we’re guessing. At some times it appears empty. And I can’t see anything that weighs enough to balance the scale, to get the other side out of the dirt. On the one side there is suffering and loss – “though He slay Me,” and on the other side invisibility, the unseen purposes, and I can only respond with trust in His sovereign goodness – “yet will I trust Him.”
That He doesn’t disclose exactly what He is doing makes sense to me in at least one way: how could He reveal something, anything – a gain – that I could perceive as outweighing the loss side? What could possibly weigh that much? The only clue I have is that He perhaps has revealed it in a way. Perhaps He has given me a glimpse:

For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, is working for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory,while we do not look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal. 2 Cor. 4:17-18

My only problem with this passage is the word “light.” It has never seemed light. But again, that goes back to my picture of the scale. Weight is relative. I can’t grasp in my mind this tremendous weight of glory, because it is unseen.

I have another clue, and that is His revealed will: the revealed as a key to the unrevealed. If I take take in and carefully consider what is seen of His will, it gives me an idea of what He means to accomplish, but I cannot perceive and probabaly could not understand it. I suspect that in the unseen realms, in the deep counsels of God, our lives, our afflictions, our losses fade into a kind of a “lightness” against the exceeding weight of eternal glory. I can’t see it, yet will I trust Him.

I know you're wondering. So am I.

I want to broach the topic which has become a controversy in the Free Grace movement, but I have a number of reservations.

1. I intend this blog to be of value to my friends who do not even know what I mean by “Free Grace movement.” I think if I lay out the issues, they will see why it should be of interest to all Christians who take their core convictions seriously. However they, like me, have a broader range of interests, and I don’t want very other subject to be swamped by this controversy.
2. I have already posted on my feelings about the level of discourse in some (but not all) places. I don’t wish to join a fight. Rather, I’d like to ask some questions out loud, and try to find a way forward that, God willing, would be constructive, and therefore helpful to all sides.
3. I realize as soon as I listed recommended books and linked to external sites I got pasted with labels that are not very kind. How much better it would be, on the other hand, to be evaluated for my own words and positions. I hope we all can see how unhelpful these pejoratives are in this arena.
4. As of today, at least concerning the so-called “cross-less gospel” debate, I have not adopted a position. Frankly, I haven’t even finished reading all the relevant articles. That may be annoying to you, but it’s good for me. You may think it’s silly or irresponsible for me to just air my half-baked thoughts, but you should lighten up and be more adventuresome!

These are reservations, but they won’t keep me from diving in. I would do it anyway, so why not post about it?

I’d like to begin by asking a few questions.

• I wonder how the debate is helped when one side refers to the other as heretics. To many, including myself, heresy places one not just in error, but outside the faith, and evokes idolaters, antichrists and people on fire. This has to do not just with a charitable, patient and gentle approach toward others, but also the practical requisites for carrying on a constructive debate. It’s a conversation-killer.
• I wonder about the wisdom of many who have decided to break fellowship over this issue. You know who you are. This includes people I know, love and respect. Do we really want to go down this road? How can such a tiny minority of people afford to slice themselves into even smaller factions? In my view this could lead to the self-destruction of the movement.
• I wonder how much time I can afford to spend arguing about the gospel rather than proclaiming it.
• I wonder what you think!

Celebration and Sadness

Nineteen years ago today, our son Paul was given to us.

Five years and two weeks ago, he was taken from us. On his 14th birthday we had his memorial service and burial. As we look back on the wonderful times we enjoyed on his birthdays, our hearts still ache over his absence.

It was our family tradition to wait until after Paul’s birthday before we started to observe the Christmas season. So we would get our tree on December 10th, and put up all our decorations.

Now we do it on December 9th. Tonight as we hang the lights and trimmings, we will think of the beautiful boy who graced our lives for too short a time, and the beautiful Boy born 2000 years ago: one day we will see them both, together, forever.

For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. 1 Th. 4:16-17

The Experience of Worship

I had the privilege last week of taking a class through Grace Seminary of the Northwest on the Psalms & Worship. Dr. Ron Allen of Dallas Theological Seminary taught on the book of Psalms from a lifetime of study and reflection, having written extensively on the Hebrew Scriptures and on worship. His lectures were excellent.

On Saturday the lectern was shared with Dan Radmacher, who offered a consideration of worship in the context of postmodern culture. Dan (the son of Ruth & Earl Radmacher), a singer, songwriter and worship leader in So Cal, focused on the two paradigms of worship (didactic and experiential), but covers a lot more ground in his book, Experiencing Worship and Worshiping Experience. Dan’s approach to the often touchy subject of worship was balanced and insightful and goes along way toward helping us to see and understand views of worship that may differ (or include different elements) from our own. Even more, Dan brought depth, sensitivity and an obvious pursuit of true worship that gripped my heart.

The Spirit took hold of me as I listened to Dan. Much to my surprise, I realized I have a truly impoverished view of worship that I take to church. I have come to expect little when I come to God in worship. Can I, in fact, truly say that I have come to worship when I have such a low expectation of His meeting me in the realm of conscious experience? I was given a lot to think over. As I do that, and make my way through Dan’s book, I plan to to report back.

The Good Fight, and the Bad and the Ugly

For far too many people blogging has become a kind of blood sport. The rancor and venom that characterizes many political blogs is also to be found among those who espouse various religious points of view, including, sadly, Christians. Yesterday I spent some time reading blogs which claim to uphold and defend God’s grace. After reading some of their posts, I wonder what they think grace means. Is it merely a doctrinal stance? A theological construct? If we cannot conduct ourselves with grace toward our brothers and sisters, much less people outside the faith, I wonder how we suppose the word of grace is advanced?

This problem is not limited to the blogosphere. Sometimes we forget, I think, who we fight, why we fight and how we fight.

We do not fight other people, and we most emphatically do not fight our fellow believers.

“For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.” (Eph. 6:12)

The fight is spiritual; therefore our opponents are spiritual, not human and certainly not our brothers or sisters, even when they are in error.

Jude tells us what we are fighting for in 1:3:

“Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.”

We contend – not for power, preeminence or even to be correct – but for the faith by which we received eternal life through Jesus our Savior. We fight to protect the faith that holds forth the saving message so that others may receive the same life we have received.

Lastly, we do not fight like the world does.

“For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ…” 2 Cor. 10:3-5

When we have a disagreement, even when we believe the other is in error, how should we handle it?

“And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will.” 2 Tim. 2:24-26

I write this because what I read yesterday included gossip, charges of heresy, ad hominem attacks, and publication of personal correspondence, all in a public forum. Some have devoted their pages to attack a single person by name. Men who are authors, pastors and ministry leaders ought to know better. This conduct is not in keeping with the spirit of Christ! The Apostle would

“…beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called, with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” Eph. 4:1-3

These disputes are serious and worth debating. But the nature of the discourse has degraded to the point where little if any constructive dialog is taking place (at least in public). It’s time the parties came together and had a civil and gracious airing of differences. It’s time to demonstrate that grace is not just a theological term for us, but the guardian of our words and deeds.

“For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ But if you bite and devour one another, beware lest you be consumed by one another!” Gal. 6:14-15

Zane Hodges will be Honored and Laid to Rest Today

In The Hungry Inherit ( 1980, Multnomah, Portland, p. 119) Zane wrote on James 2:5:

Indeed, James’ own mind was often staggered by that thought [of eternal riches] as he tried to penetrate the veil through which man can but dimly discern the glistening glories and unspeakable privileges of an eternal world. And even the merest glimpse of them sufficed to cast a pall of sordid cheapness over all that this age described as treasure.
How wondrous then must be the ultimate worth of the Saviour’s words, “for yours is the kingdom of God”! How rich such an heirship must be! All of the measureless joys and blessings of heaven’s coming reign on earth — all these, inherited by those who are poor in spirit and rich in faith. Could there ever be a more clarion call to true discipleship? Could there ever be a more compelling inducement to the pathway of self-denial and bearing the cross? James, at least, could not think of any.
For here was the shining goal that raised one’s gratitude to a generous Saviour to the level of utter devotion. His gift of life alone was more than enough to inspire a lifetime of loyalty in all who had received it. But to share His kingdom and glory and to be able to call that kingdom “ours” as well? That was more than mortal man could dare imagine were it not the Son of God Himself who promised it. But promise it He had, and James could not help but love Him for it.

Zane Hodges 1932-2008

Zane Hodges has passed from this world into the glory of the presence of the Lord. Word reached us Monday evening that he died sometime over the weekend. This is a surprise, I believe, to everyone that has heard of it. I immediately began to think of the impact his life and ministry has had on thousands of people who read his books and heard his teaching. I, for one, am one of those many people whose faith and life are different today because of Zane.

In the 1980s his books The Gospel under Siege and Absolutely Free! (along with Charles Ryrie’s So Great Salvation) sparked the modern debate that we call the Lordship Salvation vs. Free Grace controversy. By all accounts Zane embodied in his own character the grace of God he always defended and wrote about so beautifully and effectively.

I did not discover Zane’s writings until 2006, but when I did, I received an invaluable gift: Not only was I helped to more clearly see the grace of God as communicated in the Scriptures; I also saw how popular evangelical teaching obscured it on so many fronts and was robbing us of our joy, assurance and conviction. In fact, many believers are in chains made by unwitting enemies of grace who offer a “free-yet-costly” gift (which is no gift at all), the possession of which one must always doubt. Zane upheld a clear gospel of eternal life as the free gift of our loving and gracious God, offered to all people if they only believe in Jesus. This simple message was the message of Jesus, and of the New Testament, and the Old Testament! Yet Zane had to argue for this for the last 25 years against some of the most powerful and influential teachers in the American evangelical church. Let it never be forgotten or unnoticed that he fought the good fight with fairness, patience, love and grace.

Ironically, I had sent Zane an order last week for a replacement copy of Absolutely Free! I don’t know if he was able to send it before he went Home. In as fit a tribute as I can think of, my copy had served one of the purposes to which Zane had faithfully dedicated himself. I had loaned it to a friend, who had it in his car and was on his way to return it. But on a stop he ran into a young man he had not seen for a while. Having lost a parent and become very troubled, he told my friend that he doubted his salvation. “I recently read a book on that subject that is very good. I happen to have it with me.” He gave the young man Absolutely Free! and happily reported to me that I no longer owned that particular title. It goes out with our prayer that this young man will embrace what we so treasure: the strong assurance that he stands in the grace of God by faith in Jesus.

I have been promising myself for a few years that I would start a blog, and along with the urge to write this little tribute came my decision to finally do it. Another blessing I owe to Zane Hodges!