I am a self-proclaimed troublemaker.
I have a sort of "impish" side to me that likes to phrase things in such a way as to make the phrasee think, even challenge him/her self.
Antonio, over at Free Grace Theology has quite a post about faith vs works (or more accurately, faith with works). I recommend it to you, not because I do or do not agree with it, but because it causes one to look closely at the meaning of Grace, salvation and their relationship to works.
Let me suggest an exercise.
Divide a piece of paper into two columns.
On the left list all of the scriptures that have to do with salvation being "free," "a gift," "not of works..." and all the other good things we know.
On the right list all of those scriptures that have to do with putting faith and works together in the "salvation package."
A good source for those scriptures might be http://www.crosswalk.com/, or a good concordance.
When you have finished, feel free to post your results in my comments section (or not).
Be certain to understand the immediate and total context of those scriptures.
Hint: In the end, this will be work. It is a narrow path, and there will be few who find it. It may also be an act of faith. After all, faith without work.....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Hi Joe, I wrote this in a comment on Jonathan Moorehead's blog:
The call to salvation and the call to discipleship are two distinct calls that only the theologian can confuse.
There are many who equate the call to self-denial, self-mortification, giving up one's life, and doing all other kinds of hard works, with conversion, but by so doing they either explicitly or implicitly deny the freeness of the gospel. By no stretch of the imagination is the demand for self-denial and self-sacrifice an invitation to receive a free gift. The attempt to harmonize these polarities always ends eiter in hopeless absurdity or in theological sophistry.
In this respect the man on the street is often more perceptive than the theologian. If someone were to offer him a gift in return for self-denying obedience, he would readily recognize that offer as grotesquely misrepresented!
The Son of God never engaged in such contradictions. What was free, He represented as free. What was costly, He presented as costly.
The rubbish put forward these days by MacArthur and his kin is meaningless, such as when they say that "salvation is free but will cost you everything". This, is in fact, ridiculous. It is sophistry and contradiction.
AND AGAIN I wrote to him:
Jonathan,
I would love to discuss any supposed soteriological text you would have in mind that seemingly is against my theology.
you write:
Antonio, although we all appreciate your zeal for sola fide, I think you have difficulty explaining texts that are not as simplistic about the Gospel as you are. If you were present when Jesus confronted the rich young ruler (Matt 19) I think you would have branded him a heretic because he didn’t just offer the man a free gift (see also Matt 7).
There are several things that you miss in the story of the rich young ruler. What Jesus was doing with him I would call "pre-evangelism". Jesus' discourse with the man was crafted to show him that no one is good but God; that it is very difficult for the one trusting in riches to "enter" the kingdom.
There are many nuances in this story that I do not wish to merely be superficial with:
The exact question he asks "inherit" not "enter" the kingdom.
The self-righteousness of the ruler.
The absence of talk of "faith" in Christ.
Have you ever heard of the Engels scale? This ruler had many obstacles to overcome before he would trust in Christ for salvation. He was too self-rightoeus and trusted in riches. What Christ did was "pre-evangelism" to get the man to realize some things. I have hope that this young man came to his senses and is now in heaven.
I could go on about this passage! How the Lordship folk's eclipse of grace casts its shadow over the interpretation of scripture. I mean, do you consider selling all that you have and giving it to the poor conditions for going to heaven? Were they really conditions for this man? And if they are or were, how can that conception of things be harmonized with the simple offer of a free gift of life to needy men?
"Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely" (Rev 22:17) is far from being identical with "sell whatever you have and give to the poor." Such declarations are manifestly not saying the same thing. Casuistry alone can reduce them to some form of equivalence.
Sorry for the long comment.
Thank you for your link to my site!
There is no such thing as bad publicity!
God bless you Joe. I think that you are right and that we need to think on these things.
Antonio
Joe...I see the link is for Crosswalk...do you participate on the forums there? I used to be a mod after crosswalk and christianity.com merged (was one at c.com before that)...
Joe, Is "Antinomian" too strong a term for those who seek to divide the call to discipleship from the call to salvation..see Matt.7:21-27. How is true regeneration displayed in a life that isn't yielded to Christ. Take a close look at the Great commission. " Make disciples of all nations...teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you..." Where in the Word are we taught to divide up the call to discipleship and salvation..WHERE?! What a lie! What a false teaching! Sorry, I'm not as smooth with the english language as some of these people who would deny Christ His right to change peoples lives.
In reference to what Bluecollar said about "making disciples", I have struggled with explaining my position on Lordship/Salvation, but here is an interesting verse that explains how I feel:
Romans 8:14- "but those who are led by the Spirit are sons of God". Are you being led by the Spirit? So, what if you are not being led by the Spirit. Would I have grounds to say that you are not a son of God? Anyway...I could really get into the theological discussion of this lordship/salvation topic.
It sounds like I might agree, the key word is *might*, with bluecollar on the issue of dividing the call of salvation and making disciples. I don't know bluecollar, nor do I know exactly what the dialogue between the two of you has been.
This comment is for ANTONIO:
I just have to know if the Jonathan Moorehead you are referring to is also my brother's friend! Who is Jonathan Moorehead? Did he go to The Master's Seminary? Does he live in California? what is his weblog site? Please let me know! Thanks- Dana
(i'm always one of the "anonymous" people on Joe's weblog.
http://jmoorhead.blogspot.com/
Why can't we all just get along?
Uh, oh! Here’s another of those nasty theological words—antinomian! If the word "legalism" is wrapped in obscurity these days, the term antinomianism is enveloped in Stygian darkness!
For instance, my copy of The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language has only one definition for this word, which it designates as its meaning in theology. Listen to this: "antinomian n. Theology. A member of a Christian sect holding that faith alone is necessary for salvation." Well, how about that! If that’s all we’re talking about under the term antinomian, I cheerfully confess to being one. But I take great comfort in the fact that under the American Heritage definition, the apostle Paul himself should be classified as an unreconstructed antinomian!
I would like to suggest that today the term antinomian is largely what you make it. That’s unfortunate, but I’m afraid it’s true. But of course the root derivation of the word simply means "opposed to law." Not necessarily to the law of Moses per se, but simply to law as such. It would be nice if all parties in the current debate over the Gospel could agree to confine the term to those who are opposed to all forms of law in the Christian life. That is to say, an antinomian would then be one who held that there are no laws governing Christian behavior so that the Christian is entirely free from commandments and binding obligations. That kind of definition would clarify things a lot.
For one thing, under that definition, Paul was certainly not an antinomian. After all, it was Paul who said (1 Cor 9:21) that in seeking to win to Christ those who were "without law," he became "as without law"—but he hastens to add, "not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ." In another place he can say, "Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ" (Gal 6:2). Regardless of the precise meaning of this text, it certainly shows that Paul could think in terms of Christian law. In addition, the NT everywhere asserts that our Lord left commandments that are binding on His followers today.
If we were to follow this definition, only those who are willing to bend the truth could accuse me of being an antinomian.
So you see what I mean. If we could confine the designation antinomian to those who will not acknowledge any such thing as a Christian law, we would clarify the situation greatly. But don’t hold your breath waiting for this to happen. Antinomian is too good a Christian "cuss-word" to retreat easily to the fringes of theological debate in the way I am suggesting. It just happens to be a very convenient cudgel with which to bludgeon theological opponents whose attributes and theology offend us. I regret to say that Christian polemicists do not readily retire their most useful brickbats, anymore than the nuclear powers easily discard their nuclear arsenals. It’s nice to have something with which to blow your opponents off the face of the map, and antinomianism serves very well for that purpose in some theological circles, namely Reformed.
If I can be accused of anything here, it would be that the grace of God that brings eternal life is free: fre from provisos, free from caveats, free from strings.
There are consequences to spurning holiness and the "Christian law" after receiving the absolutely free gift of eternal life.
But to say that it takes discipleship and commitment of life to get saved, ultimately conditions eternal life on works.
It was Christ who committed to us because we had nothing to commit to Him. It was Christ who sold out for us.
Commitment of life on the front-side of salvation is made nothing but a contract between the sinner and God:
My responsibility:
I commit my life to you in the hard works of discipleship
Your responsibiity:
You give me eternal life
(as long as I persevere till the end)
Antonio
Post a Comment