In Defense of "Trying Harder"
Christians agree that those who come to Christ in faith and repentance are supposed to behave differently thereafter. We also agree that God’s plan for every believer is to remake him or her in the likeness of Christ. Most also understand that this is a process that continues throughout this earthly life and culminates when “we shall be like Him,” seeing Him “as He is” (NKJV, ). It is God’s great gospel purpose to graciously change sinners into saints.
But what responsibilities do believers have in that plan? What attitudes should dominate our thinking? How does grace relate to effort and struggle?
Some insist that “effort” has no role at all. Beyond preaching the gospel to ourselves, struggle and striving are incompatible with grace and draw our attention away from the gospel and from Christ. Others concede (with evident reluctance) that effort is required, but quickly emphasize tension in the opposite direction. To them, believers are in constant danger of lapsing into “performance based” thinking or, worse yet, “trying harder.”
Both of these views tend to favor language and emphases that are out of sync with the simplicity of the New Testament teaching regarding sanctification. What we find in the NT is that properly understood, “trying harder” (i.e., discipline, hard work, and old fashioned effort) is a vital part of God’s design for the remaking of His saints.
1. The NT puts a strong emphasis on trying harder.
Though it’s true that Jesus presented His lordship as an easy yoke and a light burden (), He also encouraged people to view following Him as a costly and demanding way of life. He warns listeners that those who follow Him must accept the prospect of homelessness () and alienation from family members (). He insists that the life of the Christ-follower involves renouncing all one has (). He demands that disciples hand over their very lives (, ).
How such a life constitutes an easy yoke and a light burden is a question for another study, but this much is clear: Jesus did not intend for His disciples to cherish any delusions that they would be spared from having to do hard things. He said the “way” is “difficult” (ESV, ).
The apostles make the same point, but with a slightly different nuance. Without downplaying the personal cost of following Christ, they place greater emphasis on the personal effort involved. The following is a sample.
- “strive together with me in your prayers” ()
- “that…you may abound in every good work” ()
- “strive to excel in building up the church” ()
- “your labor is not in vain” ()
- “Let your manner of life be worthy…striving side by side for the faith” ()
- “do so more and more” ()
- “To this end we toil and strive because we have our hope set on the living God” ()
- “Remind them…to be obedient, to be ready for every good work” ()
- “Strive for…the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.” ()
What this small sample shows is that the NT calls us over and over to exert ourselves. It’s a constant refrain with occasional full orchestra bursts, such as these:
- “I discipline my body and keep it under control” ()
- “I press on toward the goal” ()
- “let us cleanse ourselves…perfecting holiness” ()
- “self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined” ()
- “train yourself for godliness” ()
- “add to your faith virtue…knowledge…self-control…perseverance” ()
- “In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood.” ()
Whatever pitfalls may be involved in teaching believers that they should “try harder”—and there are some—the fact remains that the NT reveals no concern at all that believers might put too much effort into their pursuit of godliness.
2. “Reckoning” and “yielding” are forms of trying harder.
Let-go-let-God advocates (whether of Keswick or Reformed roots) tend to introduce unhelpful complexity into Romans 6, often using language that suggests passivity. But the argument of the passage is not difficult, and Paul is clearly calling on his audience, and on us, to do something. “Consider” (AV, “reckon”) in is an imperative, as is “yield” in 6:13 and 19b. The “know” references in the text are indicative, but our response is consistently imperative. We are commanded to act.
Every little boy who has ever sat still when he wanted to wiggle knows that yielding often requires “trying really hard.” It’s putting down what we want and instead choosing what another wants. Yielding is not fundamentally different from the putting off and putting on imperatives of .
3. Properly teaching “try harder” emphasizes the gospel and humbles us.
One argument goes that calling on believers to exert themselves increasingly in the pursuit of godliness de-emphasizes the gospel, fuels pride, breeds legalism, and robs the Christian life of the joy we’re intended to have in Christ.
But this cannot be the case. Though believers’ personal discipline can indeed go horribly wrong (e.g., , and most of Galatians) the problem cannot lie simply in calls to “try harder.” Two lines of evidence support this analysis.
First, appeals to work harder cannot be inherently anti-gospel and pro-pride because, as the passages above demonstrate, these calls to exert ourselves are the norm in the NT. Second, appeals to try harder cannot be anti-gospel because the gospel itself is repeatedly cited as the very reason for trying harder.
- Because we “know” we must “yield” ().
- Because God works in us, we must “work out our salvation” ().
- Because God has provided, in Christ, all we need, we are to “make every effort to supplement [our] faith” ().
- Because we have been saved “by grace…through faith,” we “should walk” in the “good works” God prepared for us ().
- Following Paul’s example, we should be “struggling” because of “[Christ’s] energy” that “powerfully works within” us ().
When we live the Christian dynamic, we pursue the imperatives in light of the indicatives, but we do not minimize the imperatives. In other words, we work hard and then harder, because we understand that we have been bought with a price for the very purpose of becoming holy and have been richly blessed with Spirit-fueled ability to do that very thing.
Properly understood and pursued, “trying harder” humbles us because we know every success is really a gift. Put in its proper context, “try harder” exalts the gospel because we are honoring it—and the Savior who is at its center—by making use of what He bought for us and has already done in us.
My parents once gave me a cordless drill for Christmas. In the days that followed I had some options. I could sit and admire the gift and feel genuine appreciation for the givers and their thoughtfulness and love. I could get to work using the gift and forget all about the heart behind it. Or I could admire the gift, appreciate the givers and also get to work. Which of these options honors both gift and givers most?
It is possible to “try harder” on a small number of superficial spiritual metrics and not really grow much. It’s also possible to “try harder” more comprehensively but do so with little reflection or awareness of why we’re trying, and Who rightly owns the credit for every successful step we take. But the solution to these errors is not to swing to the other extreme and proclaim a confusing, passivity-tinged version of the pursuit of holiness. The solution is to fully grasp the beauty of the gospel and the Savior and therefore try harder.
Aaron Blumer Bio
Aaron Blumer, SharperIron’s second publisher, is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University (Greenville, SC) and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in a small town in western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored Grace Baptist Church for thirteen years. He is employed in customer service for UnitedHealth Group and teaches high school rhetoric (and sometimes logic and government) at Baldwin Christian School.
- 210 views
But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. (Hebrews 10:11-14)
Josh,
How do you interpret this passage, which I just happened to read this morning?
I’ll be honest with you…I think that your position is a terrific example of eisegesis. There is no clear statement on the final state of Adam, Eve, Saul, Titus, or Alexander. Judas we can speak authoritatively on, but only because we have clear Scriptural argument to do so (Matthew 26:24 and Acts 1:25). To argue authoritatively that any of the aforementioned men “lost their salvation” is to argue one’s opinion based on silence in Scripture.
David struggled mightily with sin, but his prayers as recorded in Psalms indicate that he is struggling, not that he had become apostate and beyond the reach of God (Psalm 51 is the classic passage, but see also David’s comments in I Kings 2:1-4).
Paul’s comments in I Corinthians 9 should be understood as being set aside in ministry, not losing his salvation. To take verse 27 and into that and make it a comment on Paul’s potential falling away from the Lord is terrible exegesis and to ignore just about the entire context of chapter 9.
To argue that Christians can lose their salvation is to defame the work of Christ. Either Christ’s sacrifice was sufficient to save to the uttermost or it’s not. To argue that someone can escape God’s atonement implies that His atonement is not ‘perfect’, as the writer of Hebrews repeatedly testifies. You might disagree with me, but you have to accept and agree with a position that there are some sins that God cannot atone for. That’s a heretical position.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Thanks David and Brenda. It can never be said that I don’t learn things here on SI! :)
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
I ran across an interesting Q&A at a oneness Pentecostalism website.
http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/losejustification.htm
Q: You believe that one is justified at the point of faith, and not through the new birth; that justification is just one aspect of salvation, but not the totality of salvation. But what will become of one who has been justified and dies without having been water and Spirit baptized?
A: It would seem that if one is declared “not guilty” of sin before God at justification, that this person is saved and cannot be lost. After all, how could God condemn an innocent person? If a person is not saved, however, until they have been born again, and they never are born again, but were justified at faith, how can God still condemn them to hell? How could they lose their status of a right relationship with God?There are several answers that could be given from various viewpoints. It could be argued that it is not possible that one can lose their justified status with God, but if we believe that a justified person must be saved simply because they are justified, and they cannot be lost because they have been brought into a right relationship to God, then we are espousing an eternal security concept of salvation. If one put their faith in Christ and was baptized, but did not receive the Spirit, we have no problem saying that they are not Christ’s (Rom 8:9), and therefore are not saved. So if one’s baptism could be counted as null because someone did not continue in obedience to faith, why could one’s justification not be counted as null also? If we believe that a person who is born again (and therefore justified) can lose their salvation by unbelief, then why can we not conceive of someone losing their justification because they were not born again due to their lack of faith/obedience? If one can be lost even after being regenerated, then surely they can be lost even after being justified.
[Jay]But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. (Hebrews 10:11-14)Josh,
How do you interpret this passage, which I just happened to read this morning?
Did you read to the end of the chapter? Specifically v. 26? I trust that you did and I just need to point out that your interpretation of v. 11-14 cannot contradict v. 26 and unless I am missing something, it seems to. The position that I am advocating does not contradict either verse, therefore, my position is the most likely to be correct - at least as far as this chapter is concerned.
[Jay]I’ll be honest with you…I think that your position is a terrific example of eisegesis. There is no clear statement on the final state of Adam, Eve, Saul, Titus, or Alexander. Judas we can speak authoritatively on, but only because we have clear Scriptural argument to do so (Matthew 26:24 and Acts 1:25). To argue authoritatively that any of the aforementioned men “lost their salvation” is to argue one’s opinion based on silence in Scripture.
The final states of Saul, Titus and Alexander are fairly clear, but even if their final state were in doubt - at minimum, they fell away and lost the Spirit. I believe that Adam and Eve were faithful to the covenant that followed the Garden and they will be in heaven. For certain, though, they did lose their justification - at least for a time.
Furthermore, as you say, the final state of Judas is without doubt - doesn’t that at least show that falling away is a real possibility?
But I will make the strongest argument - the same as the one Paul makes in 1 Corinthans 10:1-14. God saved Israel - they even drank from the rock that is Christ - but afterward, He destroyed them for disobedience. Paul is stating plainly to the church at Corinth: get your house in order or God will destroy you, just like He destroyed the Israelites. What else could he possibly be saying?
[Jay]David struggled mightily with sin, but his prayers as recorded in Psalms indicate that he is struggling, not that he had become apostate and beyond the reach of God (Psalm 51 is the classic passage, but see also David’s comments in I Kings 2:1-4).
Paul’s comments in I Corinthians 9 should be understood as being set aside in ministry, not losing his salvation. To take verse 27 and into that and make it a comment on Paul’s potential falling away from the Lord is terrible exegesis and to ignore just about the entire context of chapter 9.
David did not fall away, that is true, but he was in danger of it and feared it. He repented and turned - which is available to all of us. What would have happened if he persisted in unrepentant disobedience? You reference 1 Kings 2:1-4, look at the warnings that David gives to Solomon, specifically the words that follow “if.”
It is most likely that Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 9:27 are a reference to condemnation - the other places where this word is used, it is most commonly translated as “reprobate” - Romans 1:28 and 1 Corinthians 13:5-7 (among others) which is in close proximity. However, a better argument for the meaning of this word is in the immediate context: Paul is contrasting “castaway” with eternal life (see v. 2-26). Thereby implying that “castaway” is a reference to eternal death.
[jay] To argue that Christians can lose their salvation is to defame the work of Christ. Either Christ’s sacrifice was sufficient to save to the uttermost or it’s not. To argue that someone can escape God’s atonement implies that His atonement is not ‘perfect’, as the writer of Hebrews repeatedly testifies. You might disagree with me, but you have to accept and agree with a position that there are some sins that God cannot atone for. That’s a heretical position.
Christ’s atonement was a one-time act that is sufficient for all of the “elect” (all of the church Eph. 5:25). It is perfect. That does not mean that all who begin the race will finish it, that does not mean that the Sacrifice will be efficacious for all. The writer of Hebrews - a justified, indwelt Christian said “if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth and “no longer [have] a sacrifice for sins” Hebrews 10:26 It is possible to “shrink back and be destroyed” Hebrews 10:39. Hebrews 5:9: says that Jesus is the source of eternal life for all those who obey Him. James writes the following - to justified, believers - “But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.” Why did he warn believers of death if there was no possibility of it?
How many passages that imply, reference or directly teach the real possibility of falling away do you need before you recognize it as truth? Give me a number and I can probably supply it - this truth is in every book of the NT (although I’d have to think about Philemon for a bit). Yes, Christ died for the elect, yes, His Work is complete and perfect, but not all men will be saved in the end and some will benefit from the Sacrifice for a time, but not all the way to the end. It is possible to “have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away. Hebrews 6:4-6
Again, the elect, foreordained before the foundation of the world will persevere to glorification. But there will be some “who one who, when he hears the words of this sworn covenant, blesses himself in his heart, saying, ‘I shall be safe, though I walk in the stubbornness of my heart.’ This will lead to the sweeping away of moist and dry alike. The Lord will not be willing to forgive him, but rather the anger of the Lord and his jealousy will smoke against that man, and the curses written in this book will settle upon him, and the Lord will blot out his name from under heaven.” Deuteronomy 29:19-20 There will be some who call Jesus, “Lord” but who do not do the will of the Father - Matthew 7:21. These who call Him “Lord” (they have faith, they accomplish great things for God), but they are called “lawless” and damned.
formerly known as Coach C
A few points you must address:
But I will make the strongest argument - the same as the one Paul makes in 1 Corinthans 10:1-14. God saved Israel - they even drank from the rock that is Christ - but afterward, He destroyed them for disobedience. Paul is stating plainly to the church at Corinth: get your house in order or God will destroy you, just like He destroyed the Israelites. What else could he possibly be saying?
God did not destroy Israel. They are undergoing punishment for sin (see the 70 weeks of Daniel 9:24-27). He promised, repeatedly, that He would be faithful to the covenant He made with them. In Ezekiel 16, for example, He went so far as to compare Israel to a prostitute (Eze 16:15,35), but concluded with a promise to remember His covenant (Eze 16:59-63). Actually, He said Israel was worse than a prostitute - at least they receive payment for services (Eze 16:30-34).
I would also argue that clear statements in Eze 36:22-24 make it clear that God’s promises are rooted in Himself, not in our “faithfulness.” It is not for Israel’s sake that God will restore her, but for His name’s sake. In other words, Israel’s coming re-constitution is not grounded in her own faithfulness, but in His holy name and His promises to her. On this point, I draw your attention to the covenant in Gen 15, specifically where God makes Himself the weaker party by passing between the pieces of the offerings (Gen 15:17).
Another point:
Furthermore, as you say, the final state of Judas is without doubt - doesn’t that at least show that falling away is a real possibility?
Again, Joshua - it does nothing of the sort. It merely proved Judas was never saved in the first place (1 Jn 2:19).
I also encourage you to produce a Biblical Theology of your scheme of sanctification in the NT. Barring that, at least trace it through the Gospels, Paul, Peter or John’s writings. Unless you can successfully trace your theme, in context, through a NT book or an author, I will continue to discount it. I made this point elsewhere to you - important matters will not be solved by random verse citations. They will be solved by rigorous exposition of Scripture in context. Give us a Biblical Theology, put it on your blog, and direct us where to take a look.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[Joshua Caucutt]Christ’s atonement was a one-time act that is sufficient for all of the “elect” (all of the church Eph. 5:25). It is perfect. That does not mean that all who begin the race will finish it, that does not mean that the Sacrifice will be efficacious for all.
Ronald Reagan had a great line I’m going to borrow - “There you go again”
You’re taking a Bible verse in Ephesians (which has absolutely no bearing on salvation, by the way - Paul is explicitly talking about marriage there), and then you are adding more to it without any basis for doing so (I suspect based on the position that your church teaches). I do not disagree with you that Christ’s atonement is sufficient for the elect or that it is not efficacious for all (I believe that some will hear the Gospel and reject it, but that’s a different matter entirely).
You can’t, however, argue Ephesians 5:25 teaches that some will ‘fall away’ from the faith and be accurate or fair with the text. I don’t even think that a straightforward exegesis of 1 Timothy 4’s famous ‘fall away’ passage teaches that - those who ‘fall away’ do so because they are ‘not of us’, to reference 1 John, as someone else noted. Likewise with Matthew 24:3-28 - note that the passage is talking about the end of the age, not just believers.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
I’m not going to spend too much more time here, but if you are interested in reading/studying more. I can recommend these resources:
http://www.denversoundchurch.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Marriage-Co…
http://www.denversoundchurch.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Justificati…
Paul tells us what he is talking about in Ephesians 5: “This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.” Israel used to be “God’s wife,” but now the Church is His Bride. Scripture reveals that God’s relationship with His covenant people is always a marriage covenant - from Adam and Eve to the Church.
Jude 5 says that God destroyed Israel … at least the one’s who were saved out of Egypt. Hebrews 4 says that some will “fail to enter” rest because of disobedience. 1 Corinthians 10 says that the Israelites were overthrown and destroyed. I guess I have to stick with Jude, the writer of Hebrews and Paul to conclude that they were destroyed for a lack of obedience. I will admit, however, that the final destruction of Israel as the people of God did not occur until 70 AD, though they were threatened with divorce on many occasions.
Paul specifically says that when viewing the example of Israel, we must “take heed lest we fall.” The instruction here really could not be more clear: submit to the commandments of God or you will fall. You have been graciously and freely granted a place of righteousness based on faith alone and the perfect Sacrifice of Christ, but if you are not faithful, you will be divorced.
You continue to say that a person who “falls away” was never “in.” How then can it be accurate for Scripture to say that a person can “[be] severed from Christ”? be removed from the Branch? or “crucify once again the Son of God”? Are you reading these words with respect to verbal, plenary revelation?
But, Jay, for sake of argument, let us assume that you are correct. What does that mean in real terms? Do you say that “no obedience is required” for salvation? That a doulos (slave) of Christ can pretty much pick and choose the things that he will/will not obey? That once a person “has faith,” his justification is immutable forever with no repercussion for unrepentant sin, for hypocrisy, for excommunication?
Now, we have not addressed the question of how do we know if we are faithful or what does faithful obedience look like or how we can have assurance. Those questions are for another thread. The question that I raised at the beginning and attempted to draw from the Scriptures throughout this thread is “why try harder?” This gets us back to the OP:
Personally, I think Hebrews 6:9-12 answers that question - immediately after warning about the dire, eternal consequences for falling away - the writer says:
Though we speak in this way, yet in your case, beloved, we feel sure of better things—things that belong to salvation. For God is not unjust so as to overlook your work and the love that you have shown for his name in serving the saints, as you still do. And we desire each one of you to show the same earnestness to have the full assurance of hope until the end, so that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises.
formerly known as Coach C
I’d like to suggest that there are some huge flaws in the view being espoused by Scott Jarrett here at least the first document linked above. The first sign that this is homemade theology should be the artificial categories created (e.g., Passover Justification vs. Payment Justification). The second sign would be the website’s claim that Scott has had extensive theological education because he has a MDiv and some other MA. Whenever someone has to toot their own horn like that it gives me the willies (even more than than men who trumpet their honorary doctorates as some special qualification). The third sign was the very clear appearance of a pre-fabricated system that is being laid down on texts in order to create the sizzle of some new way of seeing things that everybody else has missed though the years.
There are much better and biblical ways to account for professing believers that fall away than this. In fact, as others have noted, this one is so unbiblical as to undercut the gospel. It tries to suggest that it makes justification hinge on faith, but it: (a) actually denies this regarding Abraham in contradiction to Romans 4 and Galatians 3; and (b) practically denies it by making treating justification as a state that can be lost. I don’t have a vote, but if I did I’d vote that the door for heresy to be advocated here be closed.DMD
Dr. Doran, ironically, my journey out of dispensationalism started while taking a class on Dispensationalism at your seminary. In fact, the holes that began to be created in that paradigm only grew larger and more troublesome as I asked questions of the profs at DTBS and MBBC and as I looked at the text of Scripture. I found more discontinuity than continuity, more tension than resolution, more contradictions and paradoxes. More interest in defending the system of Dispensationalism than actually seeking to find out what Scripture says.
One of those questions comes up in regards to Abraham. 1) Scripture proclaims Abraham to be justified not once, but on two different occasions. At the time of his circumcision (Romans 4:11) and later after offering Isaac. (James 2:21) What are the implications of that fact for immutable, one-time justification? 2) What if Abraham had ceased at any point to obey God? Would he have remained justified and of the faith? What if he had failed to circumcise all those of his household?
Do I really need to point out the hundreds of verses that allude or teach directly that God’s relationship with his covenant people is structured according to a marriage covenant? It is everywhere in the prophets and the New Testament. I thought all evangelical Christians believed that the Church was the Bride of Christ. This isn’t pre-fabricated, we see marriage terminology all over.
Passover Justification v Payment Justification may certainly be new terms (but so was dispensationalism once upon a time and calvinism and soteriology and the rapture and active obedience and a whole host of terms that we still use today). The term “passover” justification comes from Romans 3:25 where God “passed over” OC sin on the basis of animal sacrifice. We later learn that such sacrifices could never take away sin in Hebrews 9. Payment justification comes from the fact that the Sacrifice of Christ really did atone for sin, it is through Him that we are redeemed.
So unless you believe that the blood of bulls and goats really did take away sin or that the blood of Christ does not truly take away sin, you at least have to agree with the categories, even though you may not recognize the terms.
The only serious attempt at explaining the falling away passages that I can see on this thread is the theory that a person who falls away was never really “in.” As I have repeatedly pointed out, this cannot be the correct solution because it contradicts the very term “falling away” and other terms/phrases such as “severed from Christ” “crucifying Christ again” removal from the Vine, blotting out, casting away, etc. “If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left.” Hebrews 10:26 Are we to truly believe that a person can “taste of the Holy Spirit” without faith/justification as in Hebrews 6? That the person who “receives the Word with joy” is not exercising faith Luke 18? Based all logic and sound reasoning starting with these propositional truths found throughout Scripture we must conclude, at minimum, that it is possible for a person to be in union with Christ and then removed from that union. The how, where, etc. can be discussed elsewhere, but the possibility is there, isn’t it?
That said, while I have found a much greater understanding of Scripture through this biblical theology and I see the practical outworking of it every day, I pretty much expected this type of reception and am not surprised by it. I am well aware that this is out of step with the vast majority of evangelical Christianity. You can denigrate me - I’m a nobody - you can discredit Scott Jarrett - whatever - all I ask is that you do so with Scripture and give the Word a full hearing on this.
formerly known as Coach C
Sigh! I really tried to be compliant, and taking a hint, made no more comment or explanation about “Fear” as it was a side-issue, and not the main one Aaron was trying to deal with. So, instead we all debate with Josh for the 3rd or 4th time about losing your justification. ;-)
Josh, you have been making quite a journey. That is interesting. IMO, there must be 100 new denominations that have formed in the US in the past 10 years (not because they call themselves denominations, but because they have the traits of a denomination). Your church certainly has its own theology.
To say that Abraham was justified twice is a new one. It just really is.
It appears to me that the theology of your church is centered around the concept of marriage. Every redeeming relationship of men to God is a marriage relationship. Most other things fit into this scheme. Am I right? Christians are married to Christ. He has divorced Israel. The statements of your church on Israel are quite hard (if not downright offensive to Jewish Christians). And no, I do not believe God’s Word teaches God has divorced Israel for eternity, nor has God destroyed them. One can only substantiate this by placing his own theological system over the Bible en masse, and then interpret accordingly. And what is to keep God from divorcing the Church forever? It is pretty clear to me from what you and your church say, that if you don’t keep in line, God is sure to divorce you.
So everything, as I try to understand your theology, fits into this scheme. And interpretations - forgive my expression - seem to get quirky.
I know, I will be answered by a flurry of Bible verses. But they all are just picked from here and there, and don’t really teach what you are saying. God destroyed Israel in the wilderness according to Jude 5? Please read again. God destroyed those who did not believe in the wilderness. Read Amos and you will find out that they had been carrying around their gods with their shrines since they had left Egypt. Quite a few, however, managed to survive (Caleb, Joshua, and all those under 20).
You are convinced, but you are not convincing us, because the Scriptures you cite frequently do not say what you purport them to say. That is often plain at a casual reading.
Josh, I sincerely hope you rethink much of what you have been saying, because I feel that your church is taking its own course. I am not sure it is right.
[Marsilius]To say that Abraham was justified twice is a new one. It just really is.
It has appeared in Romans and James for quite some time now.
[Marsilius] It appears to me that the theology of your church is centered around the concept of marriage. Every redeeming relationship of men to God is a marriage relationship. Most other things fit into this scheme. Am I right? Christians are married to Christ. He has divorced Israel. The statements of your church on Israel are quite hard (if not downright offensive to Jewish Christians). And no, I do not believe God’s Word teaches God has divorced Israel for eternity, nor has God destroyed them. One can only substantiate this by placing his own theological system over the Bible en masse, and then interpret accordingly. And what is to keep God from divorcing the Church forever? It is pretty clear to me from what you and your church say, that if you don’t keep in line, God is sure to divorce you.
If Jewish Christians believe that their “Jewishness” or practice of Jewish clean laws (circumcisions, etc.) give them any advantage, then they are not Christians, though they may have zeal. Paul leaves no doubt about this in Galatians. If they come to God through Christ, then they are my Christian brothers.
So everything, as I try to understand your theology, fits into this scheme. And interpretations - forgive my expression - seem to get quirky.
[Marsilius] I know, I will be answered by a flurry of Bible verses. But they all are just picked from here and there, and don’t really teach what you are saying. God destroyed Israel in the wilderness according to Jude 5? Please read again. God destroyed those who did not believe in the wilderness. Read Amos and you will find out that they had been carrying around their gods with their shrines since they had left Egypt. Quite a few, however, managed to survive (Caleb, Joshua, and all those under 20).
Thus, they were revealed to be idolaters, breaking several of the commandments … and were destroyed, correct? God redeemed them out of Egypt, but because of their disobedience - which is also a lack of belief - they were destroyed. Similar passages are found in 1 Corinthians 10 and Hebrews 3, 4. I apologize for my appealing to Scripture, I wish I could quote Calvin, Luther, Schofield or Ryrie… but Christ said to the Jews: Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits.” in Matthew 21:43. I’m not sure that I have ever heard a dispensationalist take that verse head on.
[Marsilius] And what is to keep God from divorcing the Church forever? It is pretty clear to me from what you and your church say, that if you don’t keep in line, God is sure to divorce you.
I apologize in advance for the flurry of Bible verses, but I know no other way to answer you other than to cite Scripture: God can, will and has divorced churches who were once true church: Revelation 2,3. I consider these warnings to be as true for the churches of today as they were in the first century.
“Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.”
“Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life.”
“Therefore repent. If not, I will come to you soon and war against them with the sword of my mouth.”
“and I will give to each of you according to your works.
“The one who conquers and who keeps my works until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations,”
“Wake up, and strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have not found your works complete in the sight of my God. 3 Remember, then, what you received and heard. Keep it, and repent. If you will not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come against you.”
“Yet you have still a few names in Sardis, people who have not soiled their garments, and they will walk with me in white, for they are worthy. The one who conquers will be clothed thus in white garments, and I will never blot his name out of the book of life.”
Note: the possibility of soiling the garment, the same one that was cleansed in the blood of the Lamb and which is made up of the deeds of the saints (Revelation 19)
“Hold fast what you have, so that no one may seize your crown. The one who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God.”
“I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.”
[Marsilius] You are convinced, but you are not convincing us, because the Scriptures you cite frequently do not say what you purport them to say. That is often plain at a casual reading.
Hopefully, you are interested in more than just a casual reading.
formerly known as Coach C
Joshua, you wrote:
I apologize for my appealing to Scripture, I wish I could quote Calvin, Luther, Schofield or Ryrie… but Christ said to the Jews: Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits.” in Matthew 21:43. I’m not sure that I have ever heard a dispensationalist take that verse head on.
That is the most ignorant statement you have made thus far. I beg of you to stop, sir, or start your own thread. This is ridiculous.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Regarding infant baptism, Charles Spurgeon said something like this: “When one studies the texts used to defend infant baptism, they fall into three categories. 1) The verses that mention water but no children. 2) The verses that mention children but no water. 3) The verses that mention neither water nor children.”
Regarding the present discussion, Spurgeon might say that the verses being used to support a believer being justified, then losing his justification are void of any mention of justification.
G. N. Barkman
Joshua,
Given the doctrinal trail you’ve taken I don’t find it that shocking that you began it the way you did. I don’t suppose that really matters, though. I think my attempt to set these new and strange teachings in some kind of context (the one provided by your link) did come across as negative toward Scott Jarrett. I don’t think I would say citing the website’s accolade of him is really discrediting him. I made my point fairly clear—when people make pains to tell you how educated they are it makes me nervous. I didn’t say that they are stupid because of it. I said it makes me nervous.
Let me just rifle through some answers to your questions posed to me: (1) as a point of fact, Abraham did disobey God after he was declared justified, but he did not lose his justification; (2) yes, I would like to see the hundreds of verses that speak of God’s covenants with His people as a marriage covenant since I don’t think you can actually provide that (esp proof that the Noahic covenant was a marriage covenant); (3) yes, I do believe that unregenerate people can taste the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit (Heb 6), but we probably disagree on what those mean; (4) no, I don’t think that the person who received the Word with joy was exercising genuine saving faith since the text says he “has no firm root in himself, but is only temporary” (Mt 13:21); and (5) no, I do not think the possibility is there that a person can be in union with Christ and then be removed, but again we have definitional differences on what union with Christ means as over against a part of those who profess to know Him; and that said, there are ways of dealing with this issue which do not distort justification as you have done.
At least part of the tension in following your arguments is that you seem to jump rapidly from forensic/imputation truth to experiential truth (e.g., speaking of justification [forensic] as conversion [experiential] ). You toss together texts which are not referring to the same thing as if they are.
I doubt we’ll get very far in this kind of format, especially given the approach which we are taking. It sounds like you’ve made up your mind, and ultimately you need to that since you will give account to God, not me. I, though, am a pastor who serves a congregation from which some folks read what you have written and I have an obligation to speak out so that nobody from the flock which I serve is led astray by your very strange teachings. And I have learned over the years that often it is the very strangeness which often attracts an interest. I hope and pray it passes as quickly as it has arisen.
DMD
Discussion