The following is an exchange between an online friend named Lance and myself. He raises questions that others have asked since I posted the blog "Exactly Who Is Holy?" LANCE'S NOTE:
I'm just trying to say that there are dozens of little assumptions built into what you are saying these days. if any one of those assumptions fails, then your conclusion might fail. i encourage you to look long and hard at all of the hidden assumptions you are making; identify them; re-examine them; see where people may have a hold up; learn how to address those hold-ups.
i have already identified one for you: monergism vs. synergism.
Scenario A. (my hope for you)
you're really on to something. the Christian world has seemed to have totally misjudged God's character & nature; this has resulted in some pretty incorrect theology.
Scenario B through O.
....
Scenario P.
i am aware that monergistic salvation is a settled fact in your mind. it was settled long before you believed the New Cov, and has been one of the few constructs you carried over into your New Cov teaching. for other people, including New Cov teachers that we both love & respect, synergistic salvation is preferred.
i am also aware that you have worked and struggled long and hard on this current change in your soteriology. it is my suspicion that you are forced into it by applying the concept of monergism to the scripture.
*if* monergism is not really the way it is, then applying monergism to the scripture will create funny results.
=====
as far as Peter goes, i'm saying the same thing: there are reasonable alternative explanations to what God meant with him.
Peter was saved, so therefore he was holy. Cornelius was not saved, so other people (not Steve) will think he is not holy.
so, here we have a disagreement; how to resolve it?
Scenario A.
you are right.
Scenarios B- W
...
Scenario X.
maybe it was well-known in the church that peter that gentiles were unholy and unclean. maybe peter was just going around calling all gentiles unclean and unholy. maybe peter was telling young, go-getter, would-be evangelists not to go to the gentiles because 'they' weren't 'deserving'. or maybe, even, there were gentile believers already who peter was always calling unholy and unclean.
maybe this whole incident was God dealing with peter...working on peter to make him accept the gentiles (we know he had problems with this point in other places as well).
=====
i like you, steve. i find all that you're saying both compelling and disturbing. you are a very convincing person.
however, i believe there are many assumptions that you have not dealt with...assumptions that may be forcing you down a path that others (including me) are balking at. i encourage you to really re-examine all the hidden assumptions (hidden, even to your conscious mind) you're making.
much love, brother.
Lance
MY RESPONSE:
Lance, first, let me say that I appreciate your attitude. I realize that your struggle is with my evolving viewpoint of grace over the past years and the way I'm articulating that now. I don't sense anything less than sincere concern for me and my wandering ways :)
I find myself at a disadvantage in some ways these days. I have agonized for almost 6 years, since first being exposed to "Trinitarianism" as a viable school of soteriology. I have become persuaded that this position aligns itself with Scripture and, more specifically, to the love and grace of God, than any other viewpoint on the subject that I've ever encountered.
Like anybody who believes that he understands a great and an important spiritual truth, I am eager to share what I sincerely believe the Holy Spirit has shown me from the Scripture. The disadvantage I find myself at is knowing how to best communicate this biblical position in the most efficient way. I have chosen thus far to teach it through my Sunday Preaching and through my blog. FB gives me a platform for responding to people's questions and objections.
The challenge with the FB and blog comments sections is that the actual exchange of ideas in a conversational way is greatly limited. It's easy to be misunderstood. That's true concerning both the content being communicated to each other and to the demeanor/tone/attitude of the one trying to communicate at any given moment.
I'm concerned at times about two things: 1. That people think I'm saying something that I'm not saying. For instance, I'm not saying that people go to heaven without faith in Christ. I'm not saying that it makes no difference whether or not someone professes to be a Christian in this life. I'm not saying that the objective aspects of the work of the cross which I do believe apply to every person, whether they know it or not, are meaningful realities to them in any sense of the word apart from their understanding and belief.
These are not kindergarten issues. For years people have said to me, "We want to GROW in grace! We know that understanding the basics of the exchanged life/grace walk is the starting place, not the finishing point." I have and do agree with them. I think the teaching I'm seeking to do now is in line with that desire.
However, I fear at times being misunderstood so that people think I am adamantly convinced I'm right and couldn't care less what others think about what I'm saying (or about me, for that matter.) I do care. My friend, Joel Bruseke, recently wrote in one of his own blogs about how important it is that those of us in “the grace community” respect and show love to each other when we have differences – that we not act condescending to people who don’t share our view. Joel commented that it has taken him years to come to his beliefs and the fact that he doesn’t agree with something doesn’t mean he is immature in grace. It simply means that he doesn’t agree. I think his point is an extremely valid and timely one. I don’t want to be perceived as being one who thinks that I’ve arrived or stand above others with a condescending attitude. Somebody I’ve never met (to my knowledge) recently accused me online of not being open to biblical correction anymore. That stung because I know it’s not true.
However, the challenge hangs on the question of how to keep disagreeing with somebody when they’ve made their “best case” to change your mind without appearing to them that you’re no longer teachable. It doesn’t mean I’m not teachable or “beyond biblical correction” because I can’t be persuaded I’m wrong by a person any more than it means they are immature because they don’t see it the way I do.
Then there’s the issue of responding to people. How am I to respond to a post where the writer has made points he believes to be valid and discuss/debate (with a proper attitude between both of us) without the risk that the person who wrote the first post thinking I sound defensive or without my “rebuttal” to his remarks sounding like I think I know everything and am trying to be argumentative.
May I give you an example, trusting that the Holy Spirit will cause you to know my heart? You’ve indicated in your note that I have “dozens of little assumptions built into what I’m saying these days.” Then you move onward a few paragraphs later to make gargantuan sized assumptions. Here’s the content in your note I reference here:
“Maybe it was well-known in the church that peter (thought) that gentiles were unholy and unclean. maybe peter was just going around calling all gentiles unclean and unholy. maybe peter was telling young, go-getter, would-be evangelists not to go to the gentiles because 'they' weren't 'deserving'. or maybe, even, there were gentile believers already who peter was always calling unholy and unclean.
maybe this whole incident was God dealing with peter...working on peter to make him accept the gentiles (we know he had problems with this point in other places as well).”
Now, Lance, if I suggest that I’m not making assumptions as it seems to you but that it seems to me that you are making huge assumptions in the paragraph above, what’s the likelihood of you reading my response without it sounding argumentative or arrogant or unwilling/unable any longer to see the truth? Do you see my dilemma? I have a response to the objections people raise but it seems that when I offer that response, some wrongly judge my thoughts or my motives or my mood. For instance, how might you perceive it when I point out the impossibility of your advice to me: “I encourage you to really re-examine all the hidden assumptions (hidden, even to your conscious mind) you're making.” Lance, how does one reconsider something hidden to his conscious mind??? ☺
I have a strong personality. I know that. You indicate that I’m a convincing person. I’ve been told that all my life. People like that aspect of how I present truth when they like what I’m saying, but when they don’t like what I’m saying, all of a sudden what they’d seen as an asset now becomes a liability I possess. (As an aside, I can’t resist saying that in many cases, it’s not me who is convincing. It’s the truth itself that is convincing.)
I do present biblical truth with boldness, plainness and confidence. Sadly, that can be misunderstood as aggressive, dogmatic pride. What’s the answer? For me to “weany it down” and present truth in a “golly-gee, folks I might be dead wrong about this matter, but here’s what I sorta, kinda think about this matter” sort of way? (Again, I’m using what I intend to be humorous hyperbole here to make my point. But that may not be obvious on the Internet, huh? ☺
Your challenge to me to reconsider my assumptions is one I’m totally willing to do if I knew what those are. What you call assumptions may be what I’d consider well thought out, prayerful conclusions I’ve reached over a period of years. Once again, the challenge.
Finally, there’s the contextual aspect of my viewpoints. You suggest that my view is monergistic because I brought that into my new covenant understanding from my past. You are right about that. Not every thing I believed before I began to understand the grace walk was wrong. I’ve always believed that God is sovereign and my growing understanding of grace has only intensified that view. You wrote, “If monergism is not really the way it is, then applying monergism to the scripture will create funny results.” You are exactly right, but the same can be said about synergism too. It too will create funny results when applied to Scripture if it’s not the way it is.
So, to end this lengthy response, I close with a few things for you and others who read our exchange. (I think I’m going to post this as a separate blog altogethernfor those who don’t do FB but read my blog. We’ve both put too much time/energy into this for it not reach the largest number of folks it can.) Your concerns are those I’ve heard from others too. I appreciate the respectful way you’ve articulated them.
I don’t think I’m infallible in my understanding. I’ve been wrong in my journey about so much for so long while being sure I was so right about many things. This could be another time I’m wrong, but I don’t think it is or I wouldn’t be sharing it the way I am. I didn't speak of these things while studying them for five years. Finally, I had to teach it or explode. :)To those who think I’m wrong, please pray for me. I assure you that my heart is to discern biblical truth under the leadership of the Holy Spirit. I believe it is indeed the Holy Spirit who has led me to the place of understanding I now find myself.
My intent is to simply proclaim the gospel of grace. I do that with fervor and believe it is important to “stand strong” in the process. My desire is to stand with boldness in humility. If my boldness is perceived as anything less than humility, I regret that and pray that the Holy Spirit will teach me how to best communicate what I believe the Bible teaches in a way that the largest number of people can hear and receive it.
Having said that, I know that no matter how well I may say something, there no way to avoid being misunderstood or have my motives questioned. Even Jesus didn’t escape that.
I’m okay if people don’t agree with me. Heck , I don’t even agree with things I’ve said at times! ☺ I speak from my heart and share what my head is convinced I’ve been taught by Him. If somebody disagrees with me and then I disagree right back at ‘em, that is simply a way of engaging and an attempt to think out loud together. It’s a way others who read those kinds of exchanges might learn.
I no more determine the direction that I grow than the oak tree outside my window decides which way it will grow. I am a serious student of the Bible who prays and trusts the Holy Spirit to lead me into truth and cause me to avoid error. Where I am today is where I am. I didn’t choose it. From my perspective, I have followed the Spirit and the Bible and ended up here.
It is important for people to know that my viewpoint isn’t a new one nor is it the view of a fringe element. Throughout church history, there have been those who held this Trinitarian perspective. Many still do today. However, I recognize that it is a perspective that many in the Evangelical and Charismatic world are unfamiliar with. My goal is to introduce biblical truth to those who might not have heard it. I always challenge people to be teachable but not gullible.
I believe that the efficacy of the cross applies to ever person. I also believe that there must be faith response on their part. Hebrews 4:2 says, “For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.” The gospel IS the gospel (good news) whether people believe it or not. But for it to “profit them” they must believe it.
I’ve said that in as many ways as I know how. That’s what I plan to keep saying – what Jesus did, He did. Our faith doesn’t make something happen. It simply recognizes what He has already done for us, and not only for us but for the whole world.
Thanks for your thoughtful input, Lance. I hope this response will help explain where both my heart and my head are in all this.
No comments:
Post a Comment