Did Peter lose salvation? In this post I will argue that in some sense He did. It is important to state at the outset that salvation is not by works or a performance based reward, especially as it pertains to deliverance from eternal punishment. At the same time it is important to reiterate as we have in past posts, that salvation is not just a future tense heaven because of a past tense deliverance for committed sins. Salvation is a present tense walking in the Spirit with a deepening relationship and intimacy with Christ, and an increasing power over sin.
In the following passage we find Simon receiving his new name from Jesus:
Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.
(Matthew 16:16-18)
After Simon makes this confession of faith, Jesus says “You are Peter”. You will find that this is the first time that Jesus gives Him the name Peter. Of course the Gospel writers called him Simon Peter before this in their narration of Gospel, but they were writing in hindsight. Before this moment you will not find Simon being called Peter verbally anywhere. In a very real sense this name change is a form of salvation, or sanctification for Peter. He has been renamed according to his new purpose. He is now Peter, the rock, the one whom God is going to use to lead the young Church. He is saved from mediocrity, and brought into a ‘higher life’ set apart for the purposes of God. Though we do not receive new names at conversion, this new life occurs in believers when they are called to a specific purpose for the Most High God. When they are made more than mere converts, but become missionaries, preachers, husbands, wives, teachers, nursery workers, custodians, etc… believers become more than just believers, but members of His body with a specific function to carry out. If you are called specifically to bring comfort to believers in need you may no longer be merely Bill Smith, but Bill Smith, comforter of the Saints. When you are called to minister in a specific way you are no longer recognized by your mere name, but by your calling. Simon Peter, was not merely Simon, but now Rock, a leader and one Christ would use as a founder of His Church.
After Peter receives his new name we find him making a number of mistakes. He denies Christ three times on the night of His trial. He is rebuked as Satan when he rebukes Christ for saying that He would suffer under the high priests and scribes. Yes Jesus called him ‘Peter’ but He certainly did not function as a rock. The question we must ask is could Simon lose his standing as ‘Peter’ based on his failure? Could he fall back into mediocrity and lose his calling based on his failure to live into it?
We know Peter denied Christ three times as Christ predicted he would. We know that Peter went out and wept bitterly after He did this. Then we do not here much about Peter until after the resurrection. The Gospel of John gives us a little bit more insight as to how Peter reemerged as the leader of the Church after his threefold denial of Christ.
So when they had finished breakfast, Jesus *said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love Me more than these?" He *said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You." He *said to him, "Tend My lambs." He *said to him again a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love Me?" He *said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You." He *said to him, "Shepherd My sheep." He *said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love Me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love Me?" And he said to Him, "Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You." Jesus *said to him, "Tend My sheep.
(John 21:15-17)
In reading this passage do you see what Jesus calls Peter? He calls him not by his new name of Peter, but instead Simon son of John. We know that at the second birth we become sons of God, so what is the implication of Christ calling Simon the son of John? In a very real sense this shows that Peter had lost salvation in the present tense. Of course this line of questioning by Jesus was His way of reinstating Peter to the call which He had originally called him to. It also was Jesus telling Peter that he had fallen out of the calling and thus needed to be reinstated or recalled to Christ’s purpose.
What is the application of all of this? Well it is important to understand that the calling of God to a particular purpose, say a teacher, or an encourager, or a pastor, or so on is first and foremost a privilege and a grace afforded to you by God. Moreover it is not a permanent decree based on his calling you at a given time, and in some sense God’s calling for you can be revoked. Does this mean you can lose justification, or glorification? That is not the argument I am making. However as God calls you to be sanctified for His purposes, and employs you for His kingdom, and saves you presently for His purposes, you must know that present tense salvation (sanctification) is not something you can presume upon, because it can be lost. If it is lost, it will take Christ to reinstate it, just as He did with Peter.
Are you failing miserably in your sanctification? Falling deeper and deeper into sin which you once had victory over? Were you at one time employed in the spreading of the Gospel, the teaching of His word, the encouragement of the saints, the humble service of those in need, and so on, but are no longer? Are you trying to live out something you know you were called to at one time, but no longer sense God’s power upon yourself in that calling? Maybe you have lost your salvation in the present tense, maybe you are with Simon on the side of that lake hearing Jesus call you by your birth name, and calling you the son of your human father. Maybe He needs to ask you three times if you love Him, maybe He need to ask you more times than that. Maybe your heart needs to be broken like Peter’s until you cry out to Him, “Jesus you know I love you!” then you will be reinstated to ministry for Him, and empowered once again.
9.29.2008
9.12.2008
Politics
Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. (1 Corinthians 10:31) This is the basic test for all behavior, and we must apply it to all areas of life. Paul is speaking on traditions of eating and drinking and so on, but he then goes on to qualify the entire argument saying this: “…whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.” This maybe the most simple precept in all of scripture, and it can be applied to every situation of life. For instance when you purchase clothing, do you make that purchase to the glory of God? or is it to your own glory. When you do your yard work, is it to the glory of God, or to bring yourself glory? The way you raise your children, is it to the glory of God, or is it merely to have your household in order so you can have glory as a legitimate leader in the Church. You understand, it is all about the glory of God, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do. Do you love your wife to the glory of God, or because you desire something in return. Do you submit to husband for the glory of God, or just because it makes life easier. Do you do ministry for the glory of God, or is it merely to grow a church or group? Now I want to apply this topic to one hot issue right now, which is politics. With the US presidential election fast approaching it seems to be this all consuming issue of who to vote for, and what the issues are, and which candidate is really Christian, and which ones are liars, and so on. The question I ask is this: Has the political landscape distracted you from the glory of God? Do you sit in front of Fox News and CNN until your blood boils? Do you do that for the glory of God? I know when I fall into that trap it has nothing to do with the glory of God. I will sit and watch just to be angry, and then feel self righteous when I contend that everyone who disagrees with me is an ignorant fool. Whatsoever you do, do unto the Glory of God. That includes your debating, and argument. I know this will sound liberal, maybe even ‘postmodern’ but it is not, taking the time to minister to your ‘opponent’ for the glory of God will do far more for the kingdom than arguing over a political system which the Lord will ultimately manipulate for the good of those who love Him. (see romans 8) I find people get more upset over the medias treatment of Sarah Palin than they are over lostness of their own congregation. I find more people concerned with the ‘Messiahship’ of Barack Obama, than they are with their own sin and perceived lordship over their own lives. I find Christians laboring over the comments of Joe Biden, more than the scriptures themselves. Every 4 years professing Christians, even genuine Christians, take a break from their Christianity to defend earthly lords. What will bring Christ glory and save a man’s soul? A candidate, a debate, or the gospel? You know the answer, yet you and I can articulate politics till we are blue in the face while our bible stays in our back pocket, and even if you do win a political debate and convince a man to vote your side what have you accomplished that is of eternal worth? Nothing. Next time you find yourself in political debate ask the question honestly: “Is this to the glory of God?” Yes you can use the current political situation as a platform from which to communicate the Gospel, but don’t you dare use the Gospel to communicate your platform. You see it is all about the glory of God. Personally I do not care who you vote for, I really do not… what I want to know is, “Is it well with your soul?” Is Christ getting the glory He deserves from you? |
8.19.2008
Discontent
Discontent
This post is a little different from what I normally do, but hopefully it will help someone.
Often times foolish boys ranging from 18-60 years old, maybe older, will make comments to other men saying they are ‘whipped’ with regard to the way they interact with their wives. I too have been on the receiving end of this criticism and never realized the damage it causes. For any man who desires to love his wife please hear these words. In recent times a man approached me telling me that I do far too much in my home, from cooking meals, to cleaning up, and helping with my son and so on. He never used the term ‘whipped’ but the intent was there. Now I am very content in my marriage, and I understand that true love is to lay down your life for another, and especially your wife. So my reaction to this was a little bit angry, and a little bit sad, and ultimately disappointed because the man who offered this criticism is a very discontent man. (He is not a reader of this blog and I do not expect he will be, or I would not post this.) So I left this conversation and went on with my life, unaware of how that conversation affected me. When I arrived at home and began cleaning up some of the mess in the house my mind went back to the conversation and I began to think “I should not have to do this” and as I cleaned the couple dishes I saw in the sink I thought, “This is not my job.” Going downstairs and seeing that laundry needed done, I just looked at it, and was upset. None of the circumstances of my life that day were any different than the day before, but I was now discontent. Somehow this man who was trying to help me find contentment by trying to get me to get my wife to do more did nothing more than create discontent in my heart. A bitterness took root, because while I was content before, now I was concerned about fairness, and making sure I got what I thought I deserved, and in these brief moments my life was no longer laid down for my wife. This conversation with this man led me to a point, without me even knowing it, of expecting my wife to lay down her life for me, before I would lay mine down in return. Fortunately the Lord taught me very quickly in this matter and it only lasted about 30 hours before the Lord brought conviction and repentance. Here is what I learned.
First, the attack was at my pride.
Basically getting me to think I deserved more. I became bitter because I was concerned with fairness, and not with unconditionally seeking to do good for my wife which is another way to say loving my wife. It is interesting that boys (old enough to be men) want to attack men by questioning their authority at home based on what their wives do for them. It is really backwards. Was it not Christ who had all authority, and yet died cursed for His bride, washing her feet, praying for her, and constantly in service to her? He is the model of authority, not some man who can get his wife to make him dinner on command.
The second thing I recognized is that this discontent was the original sin of mankind. Was it not the serpent who said to Eve, ‘surely you may eat.’ You see Adam and Eve had no reason for discontentment, but the serpent came in and insisted that they were ‘whipped’ by God and deserved more, i.e. the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This is the same thing that drives all of politics today, convincing people they deserve more, and then promising to be the fulfillment of what people think they deserve. It is a wicked wicked process designed to breed discontent and the masses bite into it hook line and sinker.
So what is the point of all this. Well the ultimate display of love and authority was Jesus Christ, who was whipped for, and by His bride. That is precedent enough for me to do all in my power to serve my wife regardless of what I receive in return. My wife is a tremendous woman, who honors her husband and has a beautiful sweet spirit about her, most people who know her would testify to that. The powers of darkness will always attack what is good, and this recent encounter was no different.
I will leave it at that. I know this is a different sort of post, but in some way I hope it helped someone.
This post is a little different from what I normally do, but hopefully it will help someone.
Often times foolish boys ranging from 18-60 years old, maybe older, will make comments to other men saying they are ‘whipped’ with regard to the way they interact with their wives. I too have been on the receiving end of this criticism and never realized the damage it causes. For any man who desires to love his wife please hear these words. In recent times a man approached me telling me that I do far too much in my home, from cooking meals, to cleaning up, and helping with my son and so on. He never used the term ‘whipped’ but the intent was there. Now I am very content in my marriage, and I understand that true love is to lay down your life for another, and especially your wife. So my reaction to this was a little bit angry, and a little bit sad, and ultimately disappointed because the man who offered this criticism is a very discontent man. (He is not a reader of this blog and I do not expect he will be, or I would not post this.) So I left this conversation and went on with my life, unaware of how that conversation affected me. When I arrived at home and began cleaning up some of the mess in the house my mind went back to the conversation and I began to think “I should not have to do this” and as I cleaned the couple dishes I saw in the sink I thought, “This is not my job.” Going downstairs and seeing that laundry needed done, I just looked at it, and was upset. None of the circumstances of my life that day were any different than the day before, but I was now discontent. Somehow this man who was trying to help me find contentment by trying to get me to get my wife to do more did nothing more than create discontent in my heart. A bitterness took root, because while I was content before, now I was concerned about fairness, and making sure I got what I thought I deserved, and in these brief moments my life was no longer laid down for my wife. This conversation with this man led me to a point, without me even knowing it, of expecting my wife to lay down her life for me, before I would lay mine down in return. Fortunately the Lord taught me very quickly in this matter and it only lasted about 30 hours before the Lord brought conviction and repentance. Here is what I learned.
First, the attack was at my pride.
Basically getting me to think I deserved more. I became bitter because I was concerned with fairness, and not with unconditionally seeking to do good for my wife which is another way to say loving my wife. It is interesting that boys (old enough to be men) want to attack men by questioning their authority at home based on what their wives do for them. It is really backwards. Was it not Christ who had all authority, and yet died cursed for His bride, washing her feet, praying for her, and constantly in service to her? He is the model of authority, not some man who can get his wife to make him dinner on command.
The second thing I recognized is that this discontent was the original sin of mankind. Was it not the serpent who said to Eve, ‘surely you may eat.’ You see Adam and Eve had no reason for discontentment, but the serpent came in and insisted that they were ‘whipped’ by God and deserved more, i.e. the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This is the same thing that drives all of politics today, convincing people they deserve more, and then promising to be the fulfillment of what people think they deserve. It is a wicked wicked process designed to breed discontent and the masses bite into it hook line and sinker.
So what is the point of all this. Well the ultimate display of love and authority was Jesus Christ, who was whipped for, and by His bride. That is precedent enough for me to do all in my power to serve my wife regardless of what I receive in return. My wife is a tremendous woman, who honors her husband and has a beautiful sweet spirit about her, most people who know her would testify to that. The powers of darkness will always attack what is good, and this recent encounter was no different.
I will leave it at that. I know this is a different sort of post, but in some way I hope it helped someone.
8.13.2008
Practical Holiness
Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy, to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen. (Jude 1:24-25)
I have really struggled to communicate this, and I hope it is clear. The truths here are simple; the problem is that I am lacking the skill to communicate them simply. Before reading you must recognize that faith and belief are one in the same. If ones faith and belief differ then they are a “double minded man and unstable in all their ways.” So as far as this post is concerned faith and belief are interchangeable. Hopefully you will see why as you read.
There is an important truth that every reader of this post must recognize, and that truth is that EVERYONE EVERYWHERE ALWAYS LIVES WHAT THEY BELIEVE without exception. If this sounds ‘out there’ to you it is because your theology is not practical and it only exists in a vacuum. For example: Do you believe that God rewards those who diligently seek Him, and moreover that God’s rewards are far greater than any that man can offer, and that when you seek God with your whole heart you will not be disappointed? You WILL diligently seek Him if you actually believe that, and if you are not diligently seeking Him, it is obvious that you do not believe these truths. Does that make sense? The only other option is that you do believe, you are just insane, literally. For the most part people are sane, they simply do not believe. For the most part I am sane, yet there are times, often, when unbelief sinks in and leads me to sin. There is a tendency for us to believe that we need to start living into the faith we hold, but that is absolutely untrue. The fact is that we ARE living the faith that we hold to, and if our actions are out of line with the faith we profess to hold, then the truth is that our profession of faith is quite different from our faith itself. This is the case for most of us, the author of this post included.
Now people will take exception with what is said above because it appears that if we all sin then we are all unbelievers. That is not what is being said. The truth is that we have areas or moments of unbelief, unless you are perfect (something I personally struggle to believe is attainable, but I will not accept that God is unable to perform that in someone). Unfortunately because our soteriology (doctrine of salvation) is based on a mental ascension to biblical truths as opposed to an actual belief that regenerates (or recreates, and changes) a person, we have come to refuse acceptance of the obvious truth that all sin in some manner results from unbelief. We then throw in even more confusion when we begin to speak of Sovereignty, free will, sanctification and more.
Luther was one of the main archeologists who dug up the old truth of justification by faith alone, but there was still more digging to be done. (God forbid I say Luther was wrong, he just had a further course to run.) Luther never was able to make the connections between faith and works, in fact he was ready to toss the book of James from the cannon. Luther did the church a great service, and it was a couple hundred years later when Wesley uncovered a little more. Wesley showed that not only was Justification by faith alone, but Sanctification was by faith alone as well. With that truth uncovered clarity is brought to James, and though Paul and James play different notes their message is in perfect harmony. Wesley did not finish the job though. Wesley’s theology on predestination and sovereignty is well, lacking to say the least. Equally the ‘reformed’ theologians have made human responsibility ‘free will’ a mere theory, or worse non-existent. Reformed theology rightly asserts God’s in control, but then takes all instances of cause and effect, and human responsibility and writes them off as God pulling marionette strings to get Himself glory.
Can all of this be reconciled? Maybe, but not by this author. It will take the brilliance of a Luther, Calvin, Wesley, or Edwards, of our own time. What will be said here however is this; faith without works is dead. Faith cannot exist apart from works, and more over lack of works (not busyness) is proof of lacking faith. Sin is the result of unbelief. If you sin, you have unbelief. If your life is one of continual disobedience without repentance, than your life is a life of continual unbelief. Unbelief is lack of faith. Justification, and Sanctification are both by faith alone, if you live in continual sin, you have no Justification, and the proof is your lack of Sanctification. (that was a mouthful)
Now, back to Jude 24 “Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling…” He is able, do you have faith enough for that? You will never obtain faith by works, but by seeking the Father to grant you faith enough to believe. If you do seek for it, you indeed will receive faith. How will you know the measure of faith you have received? How much victory do you have over sin? How will you know you are justified? Are you being sanctified? Ultimately what does faith/belief produce?
You will know them by their fruits…
I apologize, this was pretty much a stream of consciousness ramble.
I have really struggled to communicate this, and I hope it is clear. The truths here are simple; the problem is that I am lacking the skill to communicate them simply. Before reading you must recognize that faith and belief are one in the same. If ones faith and belief differ then they are a “double minded man and unstable in all their ways.” So as far as this post is concerned faith and belief are interchangeable. Hopefully you will see why as you read.
There is an important truth that every reader of this post must recognize, and that truth is that EVERYONE EVERYWHERE ALWAYS LIVES WHAT THEY BELIEVE without exception. If this sounds ‘out there’ to you it is because your theology is not practical and it only exists in a vacuum. For example: Do you believe that God rewards those who diligently seek Him, and moreover that God’s rewards are far greater than any that man can offer, and that when you seek God with your whole heart you will not be disappointed? You WILL diligently seek Him if you actually believe that, and if you are not diligently seeking Him, it is obvious that you do not believe these truths. Does that make sense? The only other option is that you do believe, you are just insane, literally. For the most part people are sane, they simply do not believe. For the most part I am sane, yet there are times, often, when unbelief sinks in and leads me to sin. There is a tendency for us to believe that we need to start living into the faith we hold, but that is absolutely untrue. The fact is that we ARE living the faith that we hold to, and if our actions are out of line with the faith we profess to hold, then the truth is that our profession of faith is quite different from our faith itself. This is the case for most of us, the author of this post included.
Now people will take exception with what is said above because it appears that if we all sin then we are all unbelievers. That is not what is being said. The truth is that we have areas or moments of unbelief, unless you are perfect (something I personally struggle to believe is attainable, but I will not accept that God is unable to perform that in someone). Unfortunately because our soteriology (doctrine of salvation) is based on a mental ascension to biblical truths as opposed to an actual belief that regenerates (or recreates, and changes) a person, we have come to refuse acceptance of the obvious truth that all sin in some manner results from unbelief. We then throw in even more confusion when we begin to speak of Sovereignty, free will, sanctification and more.
Luther was one of the main archeologists who dug up the old truth of justification by faith alone, but there was still more digging to be done. (God forbid I say Luther was wrong, he just had a further course to run.) Luther never was able to make the connections between faith and works, in fact he was ready to toss the book of James from the cannon. Luther did the church a great service, and it was a couple hundred years later when Wesley uncovered a little more. Wesley showed that not only was Justification by faith alone, but Sanctification was by faith alone as well. With that truth uncovered clarity is brought to James, and though Paul and James play different notes their message is in perfect harmony. Wesley did not finish the job though. Wesley’s theology on predestination and sovereignty is well, lacking to say the least. Equally the ‘reformed’ theologians have made human responsibility ‘free will’ a mere theory, or worse non-existent. Reformed theology rightly asserts God’s in control, but then takes all instances of cause and effect, and human responsibility and writes them off as God pulling marionette strings to get Himself glory.
Can all of this be reconciled? Maybe, but not by this author. It will take the brilliance of a Luther, Calvin, Wesley, or Edwards, of our own time. What will be said here however is this; faith without works is dead. Faith cannot exist apart from works, and more over lack of works (not busyness) is proof of lacking faith. Sin is the result of unbelief. If you sin, you have unbelief. If your life is one of continual disobedience without repentance, than your life is a life of continual unbelief. Unbelief is lack of faith. Justification, and Sanctification are both by faith alone, if you live in continual sin, you have no Justification, and the proof is your lack of Sanctification. (that was a mouthful)
Now, back to Jude 24 “Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling…” He is able, do you have faith enough for that? You will never obtain faith by works, but by seeking the Father to grant you faith enough to believe. If you do seek for it, you indeed will receive faith. How will you know the measure of faith you have received? How much victory do you have over sin? How will you know you are justified? Are you being sanctified? Ultimately what does faith/belief produce?
You will know them by their fruits…
I apologize, this was pretty much a stream of consciousness ramble.
6.20.2008
More on the Issue of Homosexuality
The issue at hand is not so much an issue of sin, it is an issue of repentance. The reason this has become an issue is that the Church as a whole has taken a lax position on sin. Now I understand ultimately Christianity is about grace, and that all who call upon the name of the Lord in brokeness and with a repentant heart will be saved. Now the homosexual community has what appears to be a legitimate beef against the profesing church as a whole, and in a sense they are correct. They ask the question: "What makes us so much different from every other nominal Church member? And why would a church exclude us from Christian service while still allowing unrepentant sinners full access?" The answer to that question in most cases is absolutely nothing! Again I restate that the sexual act between two of the same gender is not the only 'abomination' in the scriptures.
What is the homosexual to think when the unrepentant adulterer or fornicator is allowed full privelege and they are excluded. What about the one who is knowingly sinful in their business practices, why whould that man or woman have full privelege while the other does not? Is not unjust balances (unfair business) also an 'abomination'. You see until the professing church becomes a repentant church they are really in no position to exclude anyone!
This issue within mainline protestant churches be they UMC, PCUSA, ELCA, and so on, serves a major divider, but what happens is that people unite on one issue i.e. abortion, homosexuality, death penalty, and so on, but the majority of those taking are stand are in no position to take a stand. Anytime I am to take a stand on any issue of sin I must first examine myself ask the Lord to expose sin in my life that I may confess and repent. So long as I am harboring sin, and justifying it I cannot take a stand on anything.
What is the homosexual to think when the unrepentant adulterer or fornicator is allowed full privelege and they are excluded. What about the one who is knowingly sinful in their business practices, why whould that man or woman have full privelege while the other does not? Is not unjust balances (unfair business) also an 'abomination'. You see until the professing church becomes a repentant church they are really in no position to exclude anyone!
This issue within mainline protestant churches be they UMC, PCUSA, ELCA, and so on, serves a major divider, but what happens is that people unite on one issue i.e. abortion, homosexuality, death penalty, and so on, but the majority of those taking are stand are in no position to take a stand. Anytime I am to take a stand on any issue of sin I must first examine myself ask the Lord to expose sin in my life that I may confess and repent. So long as I am harboring sin, and justifying it I cannot take a stand on anything.
6.12.2008
Issues of Homosexuality
As I write this post I am at the annual conference of the West Ohio Conference of our denomination, and I am deeply disappointed. In a close vote our conference voted to explore material about homosexuality with an open mind and to seek God’s will concerning inclusiveness. The legislation that passed was not and out and out endorsement of homosexuality as valid and moral expression of human sexuality, however it was a step in that direction. I do not typically post on these issues, because with the primary audience of this blog this is a settled issue, but today I am going to post on this today for various reasons which I will form as questions.
Question #1
Should the Church of Jesus Christ be inclusive?
YES – The Church should be inclusive, actively seeking the lost for the purpose of bringing them to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. We should indeed bring the gospel invitation to all people of all colors, gender, class, sexual orientation and so on. I do not believe this to be up for debate and my assumption is that all peoples both liberal and fundamental agree with this.
Question #2
Does nature point to the will of God?
YES – Scripture is clear that the glory of God is revealed through nature in many ways. Nature is a means of inspiration to us, and we can draw countless parallels of nature to Godliness and so on. In a sense we can even consider the revelation of nature as authoritative considering that God holds those who have not heard the gospel accountable based on His truth revealed in nature. (You have to be very careful here.)
Question #3
Does homosexuality occur in nature?
YES – It does, and that really is not up for debate. Murder, rape, polygamy, promiscuity, theft, deception, and so on also occur in nature as well as a plethora of other sins. Moreover sin is natural to all unconverted peoples, as original sin is evident in all of humanity. Natural certainly does not mean excusable.
Question #4
Is there any reason to believe that someone who engages in physically homosexual relations is any less a candidate of salvation than anyone else?
NO – It is important as fundamental Christians that we do not segment homosexual behavior into a separate class away from all sin in general. I know that most agree with this in theory, however in discussion and practice typically fundamental individuals will treat homosexuality in a completely different light than they do other sin. Remember, homosexuality is not the only ‘abomination’ in scripture.
Question #5
Should the Church of Jesus Christ be open to the acceptance of homosexuals into their membership, and moreover allow them to preach, teach, and lead?
YES – Under the condition of repentance, genuine conversion, and repudiation of their sin. A homosexual is as much a candidate for membership and Christian service as any other sinful person. The conditions for their membership and employment in Christian service ought to be no different then any other person. Recall the conversion of any genuine Christian and know that they have been brought to a place of loathing sin and desiring righteousness.
So what is the point??
I have posed 5 basic questions answered them with a simple yes or no and then appended an explanation. The explanations and answers are biblical, however if you remove the explanations and leave the questions as a simple yes or no you could see a very different picture emerge. Look at it this way.
Should the church of Jesus Christ be inclusive? – Yes
Does nature point to the will of God – Yes
Does homosexuality occur in nature – Yes
Is there any reason to believe that someone who engages in physically homosexual relations is any less a candidate of salvation than anyone else? – No
Should the Church of Jesus Christ be open to the acceptance of homosexuals into their membership, and moreover allow them to preach, teach, and lead? – Yes
You see if you just take the questions and the yes or no answer to them you can paint a pretty strong picture that tends to embrace what many call the homosexual agenda. These questions are posed over and over in order to get people to come to the logical conclusion that homosexuality within the Church is proper and acceptable. With out any biblical search into why the answers to these questions are yes or no we will not get a true picture of what God’s will is in this issue.
Now, there is another issue at hand here, and I believe that the forces of wickedness behind the homosexual movement are merely using homosexuality as a decoy. Fundamentalists, Focus on the Family, all the end timers, and so on have become so focused and intent on pulling the weeds of homosexuality out of the church that they have allowed giant oak trees of lust, deceit, divorce, pride, and so on grow with out even noticing. The professing church has completely abandoned holiness, and has even come to the point were she does not even have any real expectation of holiness from its ranks. However everyone feels good about themselves as long as they are against something unholy.
Question #1
Should the Church of Jesus Christ be inclusive?
YES – The Church should be inclusive, actively seeking the lost for the purpose of bringing them to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. We should indeed bring the gospel invitation to all people of all colors, gender, class, sexual orientation and so on. I do not believe this to be up for debate and my assumption is that all peoples both liberal and fundamental agree with this.
Question #2
Does nature point to the will of God?
YES – Scripture is clear that the glory of God is revealed through nature in many ways. Nature is a means of inspiration to us, and we can draw countless parallels of nature to Godliness and so on. In a sense we can even consider the revelation of nature as authoritative considering that God holds those who have not heard the gospel accountable based on His truth revealed in nature. (You have to be very careful here.)
Question #3
Does homosexuality occur in nature?
YES – It does, and that really is not up for debate. Murder, rape, polygamy, promiscuity, theft, deception, and so on also occur in nature as well as a plethora of other sins. Moreover sin is natural to all unconverted peoples, as original sin is evident in all of humanity. Natural certainly does not mean excusable.
Question #4
Is there any reason to believe that someone who engages in physically homosexual relations is any less a candidate of salvation than anyone else?
NO – It is important as fundamental Christians that we do not segment homosexual behavior into a separate class away from all sin in general. I know that most agree with this in theory, however in discussion and practice typically fundamental individuals will treat homosexuality in a completely different light than they do other sin. Remember, homosexuality is not the only ‘abomination’ in scripture.
Question #5
Should the Church of Jesus Christ be open to the acceptance of homosexuals into their membership, and moreover allow them to preach, teach, and lead?
YES – Under the condition of repentance, genuine conversion, and repudiation of their sin. A homosexual is as much a candidate for membership and Christian service as any other sinful person. The conditions for their membership and employment in Christian service ought to be no different then any other person. Recall the conversion of any genuine Christian and know that they have been brought to a place of loathing sin and desiring righteousness.
So what is the point??
I have posed 5 basic questions answered them with a simple yes or no and then appended an explanation. The explanations and answers are biblical, however if you remove the explanations and leave the questions as a simple yes or no you could see a very different picture emerge. Look at it this way.
Should the church of Jesus Christ be inclusive? – Yes
Does nature point to the will of God – Yes
Does homosexuality occur in nature – Yes
Is there any reason to believe that someone who engages in physically homosexual relations is any less a candidate of salvation than anyone else? – No
Should the Church of Jesus Christ be open to the acceptance of homosexuals into their membership, and moreover allow them to preach, teach, and lead? – Yes
You see if you just take the questions and the yes or no answer to them you can paint a pretty strong picture that tends to embrace what many call the homosexual agenda. These questions are posed over and over in order to get people to come to the logical conclusion that homosexuality within the Church is proper and acceptable. With out any biblical search into why the answers to these questions are yes or no we will not get a true picture of what God’s will is in this issue.
Now, there is another issue at hand here, and I believe that the forces of wickedness behind the homosexual movement are merely using homosexuality as a decoy. Fundamentalists, Focus on the Family, all the end timers, and so on have become so focused and intent on pulling the weeds of homosexuality out of the church that they have allowed giant oak trees of lust, deceit, divorce, pride, and so on grow with out even noticing. The professing church has completely abandoned holiness, and has even come to the point were she does not even have any real expectation of holiness from its ranks. However everyone feels good about themselves as long as they are against something unholy.
6.05.2008
Losing Salvation
Can a person lose salvation? First off, when this is debated both sides usually are debating from a very humanistic standpoint and arguing about a very cheap salvation. The debate always seems to center around a very selfish idea, “Can I after believing and begin justified still end up in hell?” Can you see the humanism in this question? The debate that follows will have two sides armed with scriptures being quoted to support the case that you cannot end up in hell if you have truly believed, or to prove that one can still end up in hell even if they have believed unto salvation at some point. Unfortunately the debate is of no value at the outset, and the question of whether or not a person can end up in hell after initially believing is nearly a sinful question to even ask. Since when was salvation all about heaven and hell? In fact is salvation at all about heaven and hell? Certainly the ‘saved’ will end up in heaven, and the ‘unsaved’ will end up in hell, that is a statement of fact, but what is the purpose of salvation?
We must again revisit the three tenses of salvation and examine what the whole purpose of salvation in order to assess whether this point of contention is even worth debating, or if there is even really a point of contention.
There is the past tense of salvation: “I have been saved from the penalty of sins committed in the past.” We call that justification. Some would say at the point of justification we are also forgiven for sins we will commit in the future as well, personally I am ok with that, and even agree to an extent with that.
There is also the future tense of salvation: “I will be saved from the presence of sin in an eternal heaven.” We call this glorification. I think there is little debate on this, and that everyone would agree that the future tense of salvation includes a sinless heaven.
Then there is the present tense salvation: “I am being saved from the power of sin right now.” We call this sanctification. Now there is a lot of debate on sanctification, can someone be made perfect and sinless right now, or is sanctification an ongoing process and so on. That is a legitimate debate, I have a hard time believing anyone to be perfected, but at the same time I do not dare make a claim that the Holy Spirit is unable or even unwilling to perfect someone.
So we come back to our question, can someone lose salvation? You need to specify what you mean by salvation. Can someone become ‘unjustified’ and have to pay the penalty for sins they have already been forgiven of? Of course not! Can someone enter into a sinless heaven and sin? Well, it wouldn’t be a sinless heaven if there was still the chance of sinning. Clearly glorification as well as justification cannot be lost. You will not sin when you are glorified, and sins past will not be counted against us at the point of being justified.
So can someone lose salvation? Well in the present tense the answer must, if we are to be honest, be yes. It is clear that men and women are prone to backsliding, even the most devoted of believers backslide, and the sins that at one point we had power over, and were saved from, we at times commit again. We have lost present tense salvation from the power over that particular sin. People then want to ask the question whether or not they can go to hell or not based on that backsliding. That is were the whole debate begins, but why? Who cares about heaven and hell if we are not as close to the Lord right now as we once were, or as we desire to be? Do you not see it? So many people want to know whether or not they still get to go to heaven after they sin and they miss the whole point! Do they not want restored to present tense salvation again? Forget about heaven and hell for a minute, the Kingdom of God is at hand! Maybe the real reason you debate this so much is that you do not have a strong desire for salvation in the present tense. You are too worried about convincing people that you are sealed and that Christ will not let you go to enjoy and long for present tense salvation. Or on the other hand you may be too worried that you have lost salvation to realize that the Lord came to give you present tense salvation. Moreover God gets the most glory when He works present tense salvation in His people, so concern yourself with His glory and seek present tense salvation! Forget the silly once saved always saved debate that you find so important and begin to work out your present tense salvation with fear and trembling, and also with great joy and comfort in the presence of the Lord.
I hope that all made sense.
We must again revisit the three tenses of salvation and examine what the whole purpose of salvation in order to assess whether this point of contention is even worth debating, or if there is even really a point of contention.
There is the past tense of salvation: “I have been saved from the penalty of sins committed in the past.” We call that justification. Some would say at the point of justification we are also forgiven for sins we will commit in the future as well, personally I am ok with that, and even agree to an extent with that.
There is also the future tense of salvation: “I will be saved from the presence of sin in an eternal heaven.” We call this glorification. I think there is little debate on this, and that everyone would agree that the future tense of salvation includes a sinless heaven.
Then there is the present tense salvation: “I am being saved from the power of sin right now.” We call this sanctification. Now there is a lot of debate on sanctification, can someone be made perfect and sinless right now, or is sanctification an ongoing process and so on. That is a legitimate debate, I have a hard time believing anyone to be perfected, but at the same time I do not dare make a claim that the Holy Spirit is unable or even unwilling to perfect someone.
So we come back to our question, can someone lose salvation? You need to specify what you mean by salvation. Can someone become ‘unjustified’ and have to pay the penalty for sins they have already been forgiven of? Of course not! Can someone enter into a sinless heaven and sin? Well, it wouldn’t be a sinless heaven if there was still the chance of sinning. Clearly glorification as well as justification cannot be lost. You will not sin when you are glorified, and sins past will not be counted against us at the point of being justified.
So can someone lose salvation? Well in the present tense the answer must, if we are to be honest, be yes. It is clear that men and women are prone to backsliding, even the most devoted of believers backslide, and the sins that at one point we had power over, and were saved from, we at times commit again. We have lost present tense salvation from the power over that particular sin. People then want to ask the question whether or not they can go to hell or not based on that backsliding. That is were the whole debate begins, but why? Who cares about heaven and hell if we are not as close to the Lord right now as we once were, or as we desire to be? Do you not see it? So many people want to know whether or not they still get to go to heaven after they sin and they miss the whole point! Do they not want restored to present tense salvation again? Forget about heaven and hell for a minute, the Kingdom of God is at hand! Maybe the real reason you debate this so much is that you do not have a strong desire for salvation in the present tense. You are too worried about convincing people that you are sealed and that Christ will not let you go to enjoy and long for present tense salvation. Or on the other hand you may be too worried that you have lost salvation to realize that the Lord came to give you present tense salvation. Moreover God gets the most glory when He works present tense salvation in His people, so concern yourself with His glory and seek present tense salvation! Forget the silly once saved always saved debate that you find so important and begin to work out your present tense salvation with fear and trembling, and also with great joy and comfort in the presence of the Lord.
I hope that all made sense.
5.16.2008
25 Signs you may be a dead fundamentalist
I rarely post this way, and this is not meant to be angry so do not misunderstand it. Also, many people will view a post like this as some sort of liberalism, it is not. Much of the comments I make in the post cause me to repent for I know my guilt and some of the dead fundamentalism that still unfortunately plagues me.
You will know them by their fruit…
The fruit of the spirit is, love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.
:::::Warning signs that you may be a dead fundamentalist…:::::::
1. The majority of the time you read the scriptures it is to gather ammunition to prove someone else wrong.
2. Even when you are not intending gather ammo you tend to enter that mode as soon you begin to read.
3. You often find yourself quoting Ephesians 4:26 to justify your anger, without recognition that in the same verse it is clear that it is a sin to take that anger to bed with you.
4. You cling to Jesus’ words that He did not come to bring peace but a sword thinking that truth applies to you as well… even though He instructs His disciples ‘blessed are the peacemakers’.
5. Anytime someone disagrees with you, you assume them to be ignorant and unbiblical before you examine yourself and the basis of their disagreement.
6. You let everyone else know how biblical you are.
7. Even when around your brothers and sisters in the Lord your discussion is always about battle, and never about the mercies and glories of Christ.
8. You get angry every time someone disagrees with you. (That is your dead fundamental pride.)
9. The primary evidence of your faith is your disagreement with those outside of your faith.
10. You spend more time reading fundamentalist (dead or otherwise) blogs than you do in prayer.
11. People do not like you, and you claim it is because of Christ, but underneath it all you know it is you they are rejecting, not Christ that dwells in you.
12. You cling to the last 2 beatitudes without embodying the rest of them.
13. When you read that you are the salt of the earth you take it to mean that you are to sting people and be coarse.
14. You love to do battle and talk about putting on armor, but you go into battle without ever putting it on.
15. You like to remind everyone that the Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, but fail to realize that perfect love casts out fear.
16. You fear the word unity, and when you hear it you instantly assume the speaker to be a liberal heretic.
17. People fear you more than they fear your God.
18. You define a biblical Christian as one who thinks like you, even though your understanding is ever increasing, and things you once thought biblical you now realize aren’t. You fail to accept that you have some unbiblical theology that you will change as it comes to light.
19. After reading the first 18 points you assume the writer of this is a liberal.
20. You think that someone cannot be both Arminian and Christian
21. You think that someone cannot be both Calvinist and Christian
22. You talk much about saving souls, but rarely get to a point of praying with someone and actually doing soul work because your fundamentalism pushes every one away.
23. You always have a verse or some other way of justifying #22.
24. The fruit of the spirit are conceptual to you, but the reality is that you do not bear that fruit.
25. This post brought you to a point of anger and not self examination.
I only write these things, because they are the very things that have caused great struggle in my life as the Lord continues to sanctify me. Many of follies listed above I have been glorious saved from others I find myself returning to. I will be the very first to admit that there are some significant wretched traces of dead fundamentalism in me, and without the blood of Christ the dead fundamentalism in my heart would send me straight to hell.
I hope in some way this post helps someone. Maybe some day I will post 25 signs you may be a humanist liberal.
You will know them by their fruit…
The fruit of the spirit is, love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.
:::::Warning signs that you may be a dead fundamentalist…:::::::
1. The majority of the time you read the scriptures it is to gather ammunition to prove someone else wrong.
2. Even when you are not intending gather ammo you tend to enter that mode as soon you begin to read.
3. You often find yourself quoting Ephesians 4:26 to justify your anger, without recognition that in the same verse it is clear that it is a sin to take that anger to bed with you.
4. You cling to Jesus’ words that He did not come to bring peace but a sword thinking that truth applies to you as well… even though He instructs His disciples ‘blessed are the peacemakers’.
5. Anytime someone disagrees with you, you assume them to be ignorant and unbiblical before you examine yourself and the basis of their disagreement.
6. You let everyone else know how biblical you are.
7. Even when around your brothers and sisters in the Lord your discussion is always about battle, and never about the mercies and glories of Christ.
8. You get angry every time someone disagrees with you. (That is your dead fundamental pride.)
9. The primary evidence of your faith is your disagreement with those outside of your faith.
10. You spend more time reading fundamentalist (dead or otherwise) blogs than you do in prayer.
11. People do not like you, and you claim it is because of Christ, but underneath it all you know it is you they are rejecting, not Christ that dwells in you.
12. You cling to the last 2 beatitudes without embodying the rest of them.
13. When you read that you are the salt of the earth you take it to mean that you are to sting people and be coarse.
14. You love to do battle and talk about putting on armor, but you go into battle without ever putting it on.
15. You like to remind everyone that the Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, but fail to realize that perfect love casts out fear.
16. You fear the word unity, and when you hear it you instantly assume the speaker to be a liberal heretic.
17. People fear you more than they fear your God.
18. You define a biblical Christian as one who thinks like you, even though your understanding is ever increasing, and things you once thought biblical you now realize aren’t. You fail to accept that you have some unbiblical theology that you will change as it comes to light.
19. After reading the first 18 points you assume the writer of this is a liberal.
20. You think that someone cannot be both Arminian and Christian
21. You think that someone cannot be both Calvinist and Christian
22. You talk much about saving souls, but rarely get to a point of praying with someone and actually doing soul work because your fundamentalism pushes every one away.
23. You always have a verse or some other way of justifying #22.
24. The fruit of the spirit are conceptual to you, but the reality is that you do not bear that fruit.
25. This post brought you to a point of anger and not self examination.
I only write these things, because they are the very things that have caused great struggle in my life as the Lord continues to sanctify me. Many of follies listed above I have been glorious saved from others I find myself returning to. I will be the very first to admit that there are some significant wretched traces of dead fundamentalism in me, and without the blood of Christ the dead fundamentalism in my heart would send me straight to hell.
I hope in some way this post helps someone. Maybe some day I will post 25 signs you may be a humanist liberal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)