Needing some assurance . . .
. . . May Theodore Beza comfort your soul:
In order to resist this second [temptation], it is necessary to know if we have this faith or not. The means is to ascend (monter) from the effects (effets) to a knowledge of the cause (cause) which produces them. Now, the effects (effets) that Jesus Christ produces in us, when we have apprehended him by faith, are two. In the first place, there is the testimony that the Holy Spirit gives to our spirit, that we are children of God . . . . 
Secondly, . . . when by faith Jesus Christ has given himself to us eternally in order to dwell in us, his virtue produces and reveals there his powers, which are known in Scripture by the word “regeneration” . . . . This regeneration has three parts . . . . The power of Jesus Christ coming to take possession of us produces three effects (effets) in us: the mortification of this corruption which Scripture calls the old man, his burial, and finally, the resurrection of the new man . . . . To know this regeneration it is necessary to come to its fruits. Thus, . . . the man, being set free from sin . . . begins to do what we call good works (4.13).
Need more:
[Good works] make us more and more certain of our salvation, not as causes of it, but as testimonies and effects (effets) of the cause (cause), that is, our faith . . . . Since good works are for us sure testimonies of our faith, it follows that they also make us certain of our eternal election . . . . So then, when Satan puts us in doubt about our election, it is not necessary to first go and search for the decision of the eternal plan (conseil) of God; his majesty would dazzle us. But, on the contrary, it is necessary to begin with the sanctification which one experiences in oneself, and to climb higher (monter plus haut). Since our sanctification, from which proceeds good works, is a sure effect (effet) of faith, or rather of Jesus Christ is necessarily called and elected by God to salvation, . . . it follows that sanctification with its fruits is the first step (le premeier degre) by which we begin to ascend (monter) all the way to the first and true cause (la premier . . . vraye cause) of our salvation, that is, our eternal and gratuitous election (4.19).
– Theodore Beza quoted from his, “Confession de la Foy (1558),” in “Adaptations of Calvinism in Reformation Europe,” 64-5 ed. Matt P. Holt
Rest now my weary souls! Look to the decree and find rest . . . 
How can anyone read this, and say, “yep, this is pure ‘Gospel’ truth?” Let me just say, with all of my attitude in-tact, that I realize folks like Beza & co. were just working with the theological tools they had (they didn’t know any better). What’s your excuse? Have you paid attention to the kind of spirituality that this kind of stuff produced in the ensuing years following . . .
There are too many people, who I care about, stuck under this kind of ‘spirituality’, one that doesn’t invite them into the loving arms of Jesus; but instead calls them to the courtroom of the ‘Divine Law-giver’, and asks them to examine themselves to see if they think that they have evinced enough ‘good works’ to be found worthy to look at the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. Typically folks, who are serious about this, never get past the moment they wake up. The kind of ‘spirituality’ shaped by a Bezan framework can only lead to one place . . . despair, bewilderment, and wonderment over whether or not Christ died for me. I know, I know, you hold to something similar that Beza speaks of here, and you have no problems this way at all — well your special then. But, I know (personally) folks who aren’t so assured; and it’s because this kind of soteriology is taken seriously by them, even if they know, intellectually, that they are saved (thanks to the practical syllogism), yet they can’t shake the implicaitons of this kind of salvific project. They can’t get past the idea that God is this Sovereign Law-giver who decrees that some are elect, and the rest reprobate; that He died for some, and maybe not them (they’re not totally sure, since they’re good works aren’t really measuring up today). Anyway . . .
53 Responses to “Needing some assurance . . .”
Trackbacks / Pingbacks
- - October 2, 2010
Recent Comments
 | Bobby Grow on EC Book… |
 | Bev Mitchell on EC Book… |
| Bobby Grow on “TEC” Archive… |
 | Jon Sellers on “TEC” Archive… |
| Bobby Grow on “TEC” Archive… |
Copy Info
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
AAAAHHHHH! Make. Him. STOP!
Too bad this wasn’t up earlier this week. Craig finally had to sit me down last night and straighten me back out over “assurance”.
I know (personally) folks who aren’t so assured; and it’s because this kind of soteriology is taken seriously by them, even if they know, intellectually, that they are saved (thanks to the practical syllogism), yet they can’t shake the implicaitons of this kind of salvific project. They can’t get past the idea that God is this Sovereign Law-giver who decrees that some are elect, and the rest reprobate; that He died for some, and maybe not them (they’re not totally sure, since they’re good works aren’t really measuring up today). Anyway . . .
That perfectly describes where I end up when I start looking at whether “my” performance ensures a state of regeneration. And it is such a slippery place to be. Being able to check off all the “holiness” boxes means I’m in—until I fall on my face and start wondering if I just fooled myself–until I muster up enough determination to be good again to prove I’m one of the chosen few. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
And oddly, Jesus isn’t anywhere in sight within that little circle of drama.
And I DON’T have an excuse.
I know better, but it’s hard to get the brain disinfected after being so self-focused for so long.
Hi Bobby, as I have expressed, until recently, even this “free gracer” has had some doubt of whether this God loves me and why.
Unmoved movers have their head all about, “well, if Christ died for everyone, but was only effective for some, then that’s God wasting effort” and I guess the perseverence logic is that since He saves the elect for His glory, then they must glorify Him, or once again, He has wasted his effort.
God bless my father in the flesh. He was way too liberal with us. Would that he had brought us up in the faith, and taught us discipline. God bless my father in the flesh, as regards us, there was a hardly a controling bone in his body.
I know my Heavenly Father disciplines us (Hebrews 12). It has been and continues to be a long hard row for me. I also know He doesn’t have His head all up in controlling Everything. He works everything for our good, that we may have the greatest impact for time and eternity, so that we will not be ashamed at His appearing. I also know, that as I am a prodigal son who was one daredevil’s heartbeat from being ashamed at His appearing, that there will be other prodigal sons who “blew his mind out in a car”. Many have been called home in a hurry, with their a– on fire.
Doesn’t it glorify God that He loves – truly loves even those who rebel against their Father’s continued efforts to parent them? And wouldn’t we expect that, as we earthly fathers have had children that do the same, and we still love them?
I wonder how many of the Theodor Bezas had control issues?
Alright, time for me to play devil’s advocate.
Are we not commanded in scripture to examine ourselves?
Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?–unless indeed you fail to meet the test!
(2Co 13:5 ESV)
Even Paul had an attitude of striving for Christ:
…that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.
(Php 3:10-14 ESV)
Look at what he is saying here. “… by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.”
Further, the New Testament is peppered with warnings to endure, to not let our hearts be hardened.
Consider even the hallmark of assurance, Philippians 1:6:
And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.
(Php 1:6 ESV)
But now look at the next verse:
It is right for me to feel this way about you all, because I hold you in my heart, for you are all partakers with me of grace, both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel.
(Php 1:7 ESV)
It is right for him to feel this way? This assumes that one might think it was wrong for him to feel this way. Well, it is right because once saved always saved, right? But that is not what he said. He said because they were “partakers with me of grace” in persecution and defending the faith. They were walking in steadfast and continuing faith in God, so God would be faithful to complete His work in them.
I think there is a holy tension here that we dare not brush aside. The danger with the assurance of salvation, is it has a tendency to make us lazy and complacent. We do not strive for God as we ought and we rest on past glories rather than seeking new ones.
I look at it like this: God has grabbed hold of us and is pulling us out of the water. All we have to do is hold on to Him by faith. We do not have to do good works or earn our salvation: we are saved by His blood. Even the act of holding on by faith is down in the power of the Holy Spirit.
But, if we let go of our faith, if we stop placing our trust in Him, we fall into the danger zone. Whether we were never originally saved or we are losing our salvation, we find ourselves in a dangerous zone where our future is anything but secure.
I do not think assurance of salvation is nearly as cut and dried as we try to make it. We are saved completely and totally by God… if we cling to Him by faith.
Michael, my off the cuff response is that indeed we should be settled in our minds/hearts that Jesus saved us. I struggled with this for years…and the answer was not in me but in Him.
Second, there are different salvations, just as there are different sabbaths and different advents.
and now children, continue in Him, so that you are not ashamed at His appearing.
We can be saved from eternal separation from God, we can be saved from sudden death, which Ananias and Saphira experienced, we can be saved from painful death which Paul explained those who partook of the body and blood of Christ without examining themselves risked. We can be saved from being ashamed, and from wasting our lives in trite pursuits, which pursuits will be burned in the end.
Are these ideas included in your thoughts on this or in your reading of Scripture?
The danger with the assurance of salvation, is it has a tendency to make us lazy and complacent. We do not strive for God as we ought and we rest on past glories rather than seeking new ones.
I hope this doesn’t appear to be rude, but a danger of lack of assurance is service born entirely out of fear or self-congratulatory smugness over being able to meet the requirements of any number of biblically-defined lists of what it means to be Christian.
I don’t have any issues with following the Biblical instruction to examine myself. But being able to assure myself of salvation because I can see a trail of good works behind me on the path isn’t necessarily the best way to go. Most major religions place emphasis on doing good deeds. If you’re good enough, you might get to live forever.
Can a Christian have assurance of salvation in this life or not?
If not, then it is presumptuous to assume such and those who teach it need to repent.
If it is possible, though, it is supremely insulting to Christ and His work to speak as though we can’t count on Him in spite of our own frailties.
Heather,
I understand. It is a hard thing to deal with, esp. for certain “types” of people (people who are “thinkers”, like you
). I’m glad Craig can straighten you out 
; and I’m sorry I didn’t post this sooner!
Duane,
I agree with you. All of this “discipline” needs to be seen WithIN the context of a dynamic and loving Father/Son relationship. When we are His kids, we’re his kids; he doesn’t threaten us with abandonment (that’s an invention of man).
Matthew,
Thanks for the reply.
The passages you mention here, esp. II Cor. 13, are not, contextually couched within the dogmatic concerns presented by the framework known as “Calvinism.”
Paul’s admonition in II Cor. 13 is a rhetorical strategy to challenge the Corinthians to press on to maturity in holiness.Just pick up any good “critical” commentary and you’ll see what I mean. In other words, the categories of “perserverance” “limited atonement” “unconditional election” “temporary faith” “experimental predestinarianism” the “practical syllogism” are nowhere to be found in Paul’s thinking here (or anywhere).
There are certain broader and informing categories that the occasional nature that these passages speak to and thus from, theologically, need to be considered. The way you present this sounds, and I’m going to cuss here
, rather Arminian (or semi-Pelagian); when you say:
In fact this is Arminian . . . so of course I’m going to have to disagree with you
. This is exactly the kind of thinking that EC is countering. It grounds the objective and subjective nature of all aspects of salvation in the God-man who is for us in Christ. The “security” or lack thereof, that you speak of, is not grounded in us, in our performance, or in any good works that we might do — it’s all grounded in Jesus.
People always want to think that they can have something to do with their salvation; well, the good news is, that they/we can’t! Both Arm./Classic Calvin set up constructs, through their usage (like Beza) of Aristotelian causality. They think that by doing this they are able to maintain God’s sovereignty and man’s capacity for personal responsibility. I think they fail on both counts; and that is because they frame grace through a substance metaphysics that contrues grace and sin and worse, God, in terms that are consonant with “qualities” or “substances” but not persons. So this way we end up with salvation lenses that allows man to “cooperate with God” in their salvation. This sounds like what you just said.
Anyway, I’ve gotta run, I’ll be back . . .
Heather,
Have no fear. Look to Jesus, eh
. . .
Bobby,
This is right on the money brother. I agree with you 100% that the overwhelming majority of people who hold to Beza’a position have severe problems with assurance.
I also have to wonder how it is that the “special” people can have any assurance at all…I mean, seriously! Can someone really look at their own works and have assurance that they are “eternally elect”?
Could someone explain to me how this is anything other than self-righteousness? “I thank you God, that I am not like other men.” I’m not sure that these “Calvinists” really understand depravity
Amen Brian!
Brian,
It is problematic, often times I don’t think people really understand what is involved, implied, or behind what they think. And those who do, and defend it, I think, don’t sense the weight of what they arguing because either it’s merely an ‘intellectual’ game that they are prone to and enjoy; and/or the ‘culture’ we live in allows for a sense of autonomy and removal from the existential implications supplied by said soteriology (which is unlike the Puritan culture wherein this kind of perspective was woven into the very fabric of their society and personal identities — which is a huge difference from where the ‘Reformed orthodox’ find themselves situated today).
Matthew,
You said you were playing ‘devil’s advocate’; does that mean that what you presented is what you think the ‘other perspective’ might present; or is what you said, actually what you believe the scripture’s to be communicating?
I did a lot of cussing
in my first comment to you; so I want to be clear on where you’re actually coming from. I think you played ‘devil’s advocate’ very effectively and convincingly 
.
Interesting. A Facebook friend of mine has recently posted a whole bunch of Beza as a result of reading through some of his works.
Steve,
What does your FB friend think of Beza? It sounds like he/she finds solace in his thought.
This is fantastic stuff Bobby!
Thanks for taking seriously the scriptural teaching about the Adoption of Sons into the family of God, which is flecked across the New Testament and can even be found in James!
To be honest, I was surprised at what Beza said. It sounded almost identical to 19th century Pietism (although 19th century pietism is a little more comforting). An experience of sanctification? wow. Just wow. I wonder how the psalmist would fare under Beza’s watchful eye as he confesses,” Iniquity prevails over me…..my sins have overtaken me and I cannot see, they are more than the hairs on my head…..you have taken me up and thrown me aside….all day long your wrath lies heavily over me…I have suffered your terrors and am in despair…the darkness is my closest friend” and so on. Beza could have done better. The Lutheran dogmaticians were already ferociously scribbling about salvation extra nos, salvation beyond and over against all of our feelings.
Very highly. Highly enough to translate some of his apparently as-of-yet untranslated work. I haven’t read most of the postings as they are longer than my FB attention span will allow. He seems to be a Rushdoony type reconstructionist, BTW/FYI.
Hey Emerson,
Thanks. Yeah this is definitely a problematic situation. Beza’s is not a spirituality I would advise folks to follow, and as you said, David probably wouldn’t have fared so well under this system. Yes the Lutherans certainly had a different treck than the Reformed trad. although I’m not sure they faired any better in some respects.
Wow, Steve, who’s this friend?
Sorry that it took me so long to respond. My schedule has been a bit erratic lately.
My devil’s advocate was a bit of both — making a statement more strongly than I feel but something that I have honestly been struggling with. There are a lot of warnings about not enduring and falling away in the Bible which I think we need to take into account when it comes to eternal security. And yet there are promises that God will keep His own.
It seems to me that first and foremost, we must not assume that we are actually “good soil”. 1 John is an excellent place for self evaluation, a list of tests of your character and practice to see if God is transforming your life. I recently heard an excellent sermon on Matthew 13:44-46. Is God your treasure? Are you willing to sell everything to lay hold of the treasure of Jesus Christ? This is another great test of our faith; is our faith genuine.
I am doing a word study on the word “wait”. What I have found is fascinating because there are actually several words that are translated “wait” in the Old Testament, but only one of them actually means to wait. One of the most common words, qavah, really means “to bind or gather”. So, for example, Isaiah 40:31 could be rendered “but they who bind themselves to the Lord shall renew their strength…”
So we are to bind ourselves to God, and when we are bound to Him, there is assurance of salvation.
Of course this gets into a whole other realm that I am wrestling with: God’s sovereign choice versus the will of man. While the scripture says that God chooses, it also commands us to believe, repent, and obey. It seems to me that somehow the salvation process is a combination of us binding ourselves to God even as He binds Himself (elects us) to us.
I am not sure that we can really define this concretely. I am not even sure we are supposed to try.
It seems to me that somehow the salvation process is a combination of us binding ourselves to God even as He binds Himself (elects us) to us.
Could I offer something I find interesting when cross-referencing Isaiah w/ the Gospel accounts?
I’m going to, anyway, but wanted to appear polite
Isaiah 40:25-26, 29-31 To whom then will you compare Me, or am I equaled? says the Holy One.
Lift up your eyes on high, and behold, who has created these, who brings out their host by number? He calls them all by names by the greatness of His might, for He is strong in power; not one is lacking.
He gives power to the weary; and to him with no vigor; He increases strength.
Even the young shall faint and be weary, and the young men shall utterly fall;
but those who wait on Jehovah shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; they shall walk and not faint.
Matthew 11:27-30 All things are delivered to Me by My Father. And no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son will reveal Him.
Come to Me all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Take My yoke on you and learn of Me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and you shall find rest to your souls.
For My yoke is easy, and My burden is light.
And then Paul and Silas’ exchange with the Philippian jailer
Acts 16:30-31 And leading them outside, he said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved, and your household.
Ok, so my question is this: Is not the binding of one’s self to the Lord what happens when one believes in the Lord Jesus Christ–to Whom all things have been given?
Obviously, there is the sanctification process that subsequently occurs in time. We make choices and reap consequences, for sure. But the binding itself–the sealing by the Spirit–and Christ’s advocacy as perfect human High Priest and sacrifice–even the enabling of us to persevere in Him–Are these not entirely His work?
I always get a little nervous when people start talking about the “elect”. There is a human response to God’s election, but if it’s up to us to hold on, then does that not open the door for bragging about how well we obeyed or understood or evangelized or whatever?
Hey Matthew,
Thanks.
We don’t want to think dualistically, as if we need to bind ourselves to God. This dualism melts away in the Incarnation (Jesus is the God-Man where the binding takes place — in His humanity for us by the Spirit [the Spirit creates the space wherein our humanity is able to realize what it means to be humanan through Christ's]). Again, I believe we want to ground everything in Christ . . . w/o of course obliterating what it means to be truly human — in fact though, that’s the point. Jesus is the “true/archtypal human,” whose image we’ve been recreated in; it’s only as we subjectively by the Spirit realize that that we are actually freed to be what it truly means to be human (only if we live out of Christ’s humanity for us).
Heather,
Like I just said to Matthew, I believe that this dualism or competition between the “human and divine” response is undercut in the unity of Christ’s person as the hypostatic God-Man.
These kinds of questions, I believe, take on a whole new frame if we think this way.
Ok. Thanks.
I know I’m not the only one whose ever asked questions like Matthew is. We all need to be able to work throught them.
It is HARD, though, to scrub out the notion that I and my own journey to godliness is somehow the center of focus. Someone (not Matthew) knows which buttons to push to get me to stop looking at Jesus, as this is something I seem to keep running up against.
At risk of approaching this possibly as a ‘biblicist’, I’ll propose an alternate interpretation: Wouldn’t much of these conflicts be resolved by understanding that when Scripture asks us to “examine ourselves, to see whether we be in the faith”, to understand that He is asking us to check to see if we are in the Lord at this time and not off doing a carnal thing? Otherwise:
1) scripture is asking either a corpse or a regenerate to examine himself: Either way is not the question moot? Will the corpse repent and regenerate himself? Especially the Federales reject this. Those who are not spiritually dead are by definition regenerate, so what would the exercise accomplish, other than getting everyone tied up in knots?
Nonfederales should understand that God is not above investing infinitely more than the expected return. If 9 lepers do not return to thank Jesus, did He really heal them? Maybe they had better check and re-check and unendingly check themselves. The Pharisees would be sure to put them up to that.
Paul warns every man to take heed how he builds his life upon the foundation of Jesus Christ. If a man builds on his life: wood, hay, stubble, (worthless pursuits) then his work shall be burned, yet he himself shall be saved. Yet so as escaping through the flames. How then could it be construed that one whose life does not reflect his salvation is not truly saved? Why does not Paul warn these carnal people that they may be counterfeit christians?
It just occurs to me that since many of you are interpretting Scripture through that framework that you have been given, what if that scripture regarding self-examination, and sin and punishment seems to be a stumbling block to considering a different framework (e.g. Evangelical Calvinism)? If you could consider an alternate interpretation to the construct you were weaned under, or seemed to have been weaned, could you maybe take a fresh look at EC?
Duane,
I appreciate your points about self-examination. Particularly the reality concerning the “knot-tying” exercise.
Craig’s always telling me to stop thinking in terms of Arminian (must. maintain. salvation.) and Calvinist (I’m elect, so I don’t need to sweat about how I behave). Those are caricatures of the two theologies, I know, but that’s what the two boil down to in my own mind.
His response is “What does the Bible actually say?” And seriously, prying my brain cells free from the pre-fab frameworks has taken me to the place where I find EC making more and more sense in light of what scripture actually says.
Not sure whether I totally understand it, yet–or even if I would completely agree if I did understand. But the “grounding” of humanity in the person of Christ just makes so much more sense of both OT and NT writings.
Heather said:
I couldn’t have said it better myself
. Still trying to figure this stuff out too, who does this Bobby guy think he is; it’s almost like he is making up his own “paper-cut theology” 
.
Duane,
I agree with you on the “warning passages” and “rewards.” Good point.
I would like to know the name of the guy who decreed that the control key should lie right under the heal of my left hand on my laptop. about 1/4 of my posts are lost, 1st attempt as I accidentally hit the control key with something else. ‘Bloop’ gone!
So as I was agreeing with Heather, and now Bobby:
coming from a GES free grace type perspective, being labelled a ‘semi-pelagian’ was never much of a threat to me. I know that faith is not a work, and so I do absolutely nothing to merit my salvation. If one loads up faith with works, which renders ‘sola fide’ nonsensical, then of course, an unregenerate man can not do works. None-the-less, I begin to appreciate the depth Evangelical Calvinism goes to emphasize that salvation is the movement of the Trinity toward man to bring him into union with God. I get that, and I appreciate it, because it gives the glory squarely where it belongs, and takes all pretense from we who, in and of ourselves, deserve only wrath.
Again, half of the problem of the other side is that they load up faith, so that it is “sola fide plus works” [latin please?] and can’t see that their theology does not work.
I’m glad that you appreciate EC, Duane. I’m glad that you can see past the nomenclature to the conceptual matter . . . that’s what really matters anyway!
Hey Bobby! I have an off topic question for you: still theological, but off topic. I don’t want to weed up your garden. It’s EC and related to the Evangelical Christian site, but the last posts over there to you from your wife, are so sweet, I don’t want to de-face that either.
Duane and Bobby,
Thank you. Your interchange was very helpful. I am trying to get out of the Armenian/Calvinist trap, but I keep finding myself falling back in. Just as background, I was raised Calvinist but recently attended a Wesleyan denomination for a couple years. I had always had questions regarding Calvinism and the Wesleyan church merely fanned my concerns.
So now I am here trying to understand EC. I’m still trying to wrap my head around it, but by the Spirit’s help, I will get there.
In regard to the God-Man, I came across a sermon by Paul Washer that you might find interesting. He was talking about how Jesus lived by the Spirit. I would be curious to hear your thoughts. (This is only a nine minute excerpt from a particularly good section.)
Thank You Matthew!
I don’t know Washer, but this particular message sounds right on the mark to me. Isn’t it interesting Bobby that this came up now, considering Ron’s blog over at CorDeo this week? Has anyone mentioned that The Holy Spirit’s ministry included leading The Son of Man through-out His life as (how does he say it?) the “son of the house” or the “servant son”?
She is sweet!
Hey, Matthew, I will try and provide more basic posts soon, EC.
I don’t like Washer, at all. I’ll listen to what he has to say, but I view his theology as more radical than the pyros; actually he is a legalist, there’s no way around that for my money. It’s unfortunate that he has the platform that he does. I’ll watch the vid when I have the chance, but he won’t get any play here at EC, sorry
.
Why do you think he is a legalist?
I don’t know about Paul Washer being a legalist. Much of what I’ve heard from him is focused on a need for Christians to take Christ seriously, and it was one of his sermons that first made me realize that I did not.
However, Craig will verify that I can only handle Mr. Washer’s messages in very small doses. For some reason, they have a depressive effect and I start worrying whether I’m progressing enough to prove I’ve truly repented well enough to be saved.
I definitely hear you! That is why I mix up my Paul Washer with Francis Chan or John Piper for their encouragement.
But I do think that for a long time, I did not take my relationship with Christ seriously enough. It seems to me to be a major issue across America today.
I did hear an excellent sermon by Washer though on the Song of Solomon that was very different in tone from most of his on-line messages. It was very encouraging and insightful in how we should view our relationship with God.
I really enjoyed the Song message, too.
Matthew,
Because he is an “extreme” and even “consistent” Calvinist (the kind we aren’t into around here
).
Just to be clear, and I thought this was, the kind of Calvinism that Chan, Piper, or Washer advocate for — although on a continuum of personalities — is totally 180 degrees different from where we at EC are coming from. They follow what’s called experiemental predestinarianism, we don’t . . . weird, I thought I had been clear on that.
Ironically, all of three of these chaps would be in Beza’s line; I say ironic, because that’s what this post is intended to expose.
LOL!
You know, Bobby, I’ve had the same, sinking, “I’m never going to make it” response to Piper as I have had to Washer, at times.
Not that I haven’t gleaned anything worthwhile from them… but I can see how they would fit the “experimental predestination” mold.
The EC reorientation concerning Who is the center makes all the difference, IMO.
Heather,
If nothing else from my blog here comes across, except for this:
Then I will feel like my time here has been worthwhile
.
To be honest, the only reason or way that I’ll listen to Piper or Washer is in a critical and “hear it from the horses mouth” kind of way. Their theology is fundamentally flawed. I can see how folks could be attracted to Piper — given his jovial personality — but, Washer, I’m not sure how he gets the hearing that he does.
Just being honest.
I have a jaundiced eye towards everyone when I begin listening to them or reading. I suppose everyone who takes their faith seriously does. That’s why we have labels (EC, TC, Free Grace, etc), so we can toss out a large pile of dross that we don’t have time for, and listen to those whom we accept as being in the thick of, or at least on the fringe of where we are theologically. I say fringe, because if we don’t make room for some stretching, we end up just feeding off of ourselves, and our circle grows smaller and more doctrinally legalistic than if we have just a little leaven of liberal(ism),small ‘l’, mixed in.
What Washer had to say in the video sounded perfectly right to me, but he was not getting into the issues of contention. He was talking about the fact that Jesus lived out His incarnation in perfect dependence and submission to the Holy Spirit, not in His own strength. Kinda begs the question, now that I think of it: Jesus was in total dependence upon the Spirit for direction, for revelation, to sustain Him, etc, and yet He never became legalistic. How is it that this guy (Washer)ended up in a Bezaite place, following the Spirit around the wilderness?
Matthew,
Because of this:
He’s preaching what’s called Puritan precisianism. I always find it interesting when guys like Washer preach this kind of emotive stuff, and they appeal to II Cor. 13, they always stop where Washer does. They never go on to where Paul says that these people are indeed in the faith (even though they are living in all kinds of ethical and immoral living — not least of which, questioning Paul’s Apostleship). Furthermore, the context of II Cor. 13 and the flow of Paul’s arguement is rhetorical.
As far as I’m concerned Washer presents a “legalist Gospel” because he pushes people to look at themselves instead of Christ.
He fails to understand the context of the texts he’s dealing with. For example, he seems to think that I Jn is referencing “justification” issues; when in fact he is referencing sanctification issues. Etc.
I think it’s right to challenge Christians to live holy lives, but the method of hanging people’s eternal destinies over them — if they don’t — is the kind of spirituality that the Pharisees endorsed; and not Jesus.
Washer is one of the most melo-dramatic speakers I’ve ever heard. He is certainly convinced and passionate about what he believes (but then, so are many Muslims — I’ve heard Imams deliver just as impassioned sermons).
Anyway, this is why I really can’t stand Washer’s theology and approach. He is a detriment to the body of Christ (he’s screwing people over with his good intentions).
Duane,
Of course in the context of Washer’s broader theology (Bezan Calvinism), he’s still got problems, eh?
Hi Bobby! Apparently you removed the Washer video you posted. I listened to about 4 minutes of it. I couldn’t bear it. I shut these guys off of my radio every week. It is really offensive. THEY really trample the grace of our God under foot, by loading it up with works and doubt. There are so many ways to exhort people to live out the gift that God has given them, and I’ve never been an advocate of telling children “you had better be good or I’m going to let the boogey man get you”.
I did not mean to bring Paul Washer onto your site or to imply that he was EC in any way. I too have serious disagreements with some of his doctrines, but I posted that video because I felt it spoke so eloquently to the issue of the incarnation. Washer carries a lot of baggage from his upbringing, but I think he has a lot of good things to say as well.
But let’s leave Paul Washer aside for a moment. I cannot defend the views of another. I would rather look to scripture. It should be noted that the call for righteousness is not limited to Calvinist circles but it can be found across many denominations because its source is in the Bible.
Bobby, I very much disagree with your view that 1 John is about sanctification. That book is very much about determining whether or not you are a child of God and how to tell the difference. Consider how he starts off chapter 2:
The purpose and distinction is even more clear in chapter 3.
Throughout the book, John continually draws comparisons between a believer and those who do not know God. The “tests” given are very instructive and challenging.
This, I believe is a crucial point: what is the effect of being a Christian? The problem I see is that in America, we have millions of people who claim to be Christian but there is little to no discernible difference in their lives compared to the culture around them. These are people who are very much in love with the world, do not love their brothers, and continue in their habitual sins. This was a major stumbling block for me at one point a couple years ago as I began to see the gross hypocrisy of our nation. If Christianity was true, then how come Christians were doing such evil things.
And then I realized the key: most of those who claim to be Christians in America are not, in fact, Christians. It became evident when I saw the lives of those who were transformed by God. There was love and forgiveness in the face of intense persecution and hate. They lived lives of obedience and righteousness even as those around them sank deeper and deeper into sin.
So again I ask, what is the effect of being a Christian? It is brought about by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, but what does it look like? I believe it is a life transformed. Paul says that we were dead in sin but God made us alive.
We were dead, but now we are alive. We were saved by faith, but notice what comes afterward: the good works that have been prepared for us. As James said,
There is the key: if those who are claiming to be Christians have no works of righteous despite their claims of faith, is that faith actually a saving faith?
We must not lose sight of Jesus Christ, but we also need to keep in mind what it means to look to Him. He needs to be our treasure, the precious pearl for which we would sell everything to lay hold of. If we do not have a zeal and earnestness for Christ, we must question if we truly believe what He has said. For what He has said is so amazing — that by grace through His blood we will be heirs with Christ and spend an eternity with Him in heaven — that if we truly believe it, our lives cannot help but be transformed. If we are indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God, will not the presence of God in our lives produce the fruit of righteousness?
Unfortunately, transformed is not a proper adjective for the vast majority of the church today.
This should not be confused with legalism or the creation of rules or regulations. Grace and salvation always come first, and no one can tell you whether or not you are saved. But Jesus’ words remain:
I was thinking. I recently have had to review some Seventh Day Adventist teachings and also had to block a commenter to my site who was forwarding a view of Christianity that I believe to be unbiblical.
I have no problem with urging other believers on to love and good works. Neither do I have a problem with using caution concerning interaction with professing Christians who are openly and unrepentantly immoral. But the emphasis of both the SDA church and the commenter on my site (I believe she identifies with an independent Baptist denomination) is the sanctification aspect of salvation. It sits front and center in both views, even though SDA emphasizes law-keeping and my commenter had compiled a list of NT instruction (including things like a notable state of humility, generosity, ability to heal, etc).
In Galatians, Paul spoke pretty strongly against lawkeeping as the means to make sure our salvation. It occurred to me that IF my own ability to be good is a crucial aspect of assuring myself of salvation, then there would be a similar to OT law, well-defined list of things to do/not do. I suppose the Sermon on the Mount has been used in that way…I even read a book once which treated it in that manner. But Paul’s delivery to Gentile believers doesn’t look exactly the same as what Jesus said to His Jewish audience, so it appears there are underlying principles that must apply in many cases.
If there’s a specific to-do list embedded throughout the NT writings, then it would suggest that Jesus only cleared our account of past sins which were committed before hearing the Gospel and the Lord has now engaged believers in a sort of cruel scavenger-hunt to see who perseveres best. And most of us who think we are saved are in big trouble.
I don’t see that there is any room for that type of scenario in scripture and have found the emphasis here on the vicarious nature of Christ’s life and death on our behalf to help clarify the issue of true, God-pleasing righteousness vs self-righteousness.
Matthew,
I believe that knowing Christ WILL result in a change.
Some believers come to Him wit a LOT of baggage–or their understanding of who He is is very immature. Some people have not been presented an accurate picture of who Christ is and need to be reoriented in their thinking.
Hope its okay, Bobby, to offer a link to a recent post and discussion on my site concerning what it means to be Christian. No pressure to read, but I was prompted to take a close look by some of the same concerns Matthew has been expressing.
http://onmysoapbox2.wordpress.com/2010/09/10/on-being-christian/
Matthew,
Your last quote is perhaps revealing. “If you love me, you will keep my commandents”.
Remember when Mrs. C. made Fonzi admit “I was wr wr wr. I can’t do it. I was wr wr wribbbbel. I was wr wr wrong”. Fonzi could not say he was wrong because of his pride.
I have a hard time saying “I llv lrv lv love the Lord”, exactly because Ananias and Saphira said something like that, and they were called out for it. If I don’t keep every commandment of the Lord, then where was my “love” when He gave me that means of escaping that sin?
More over, where was my love when I rebelled against the Lord 29 years ago? 4 years eating the husks that the pigs left over? Where was a dear friend of mine’s love for God as they fed their literal addiction for decades? Neither of us has had a foundational change in our faith in God since the beginning. We both believed and continue to believe that we have been saved by grace alone. Either one of us could have suddenly died many times in that period, had the Lord decided to bring us home – like Ananias and Saphira, in shame.
So, the question is, Is loving the Lord required for salvation, or is salvation by grace through faith?
Will we necessarily, tangibly love Him upon being Spirit regenerated, or might we cling to worldly loves?
Is no-one belonging to Jesus going to be ashamed at His appearing? Is there no-one whose life is built on the foundation of the Lord Jesus Christ, who will build upon that life wood hay and stubble, whose life will end in a glorious house fire from which they escape “as if through the flames”? I Cor 3:15
Continues: “If any man will destroy God’s temple, God will destroy him.”
I begin to agree with the liberal Lutheran lady who wrote: The ELCA [a very liberal Lutheran denomination] is not “hell happy” like a lot of denominations [or like a lot of committed Lord loving Christians].