Some practical examples
OK, Ok - I went rather technical in yesterday’s post on “Lions and Tigers and Bears“, as some folks have noted. My apologies for this, as when I deal with eschatology, in particular, I try to be much more specific (and, unfortunately, dry).
So, to give it a little more flesh with fresh examples:
1) Here is an example of how a certain theological/eschatological mindset leads to Christian conspiracy theories. It seems that a number of churches belonging to the World Council of Churches is trying to come up with some sort of “conversion code of conduct” as a way of blunting governmental actions toward missionaries. Well, this has to be more insidious that what meets the eye, since the Catholic church is involved:
The World Council of Anti-Christ would like to see all true Christian evangelism end. That’s because this body believes that all paths lead to heaven anyway. Be prepared to hear American evangelicals from the left jump on board in the interests of world peace.
I want the jackals at the World Council of Churches and the evangelicals who have joined their howling pack to know that signing such a code of accommodation to the world’s false religions is treason against heaven. [emphasis mine]
One of the conspiracy-minded commenters then jumps on board with:
Sounds to me like things are “right on course†according to the apostle/prophet, Paul
2Th 2:1-4 Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.
Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.
APOSTASY MUST COME FIRST BEFORE THE DAY OF THE LORD. [emphasis not mine]
I won’t go into the full eschatology of this, but let us sum it up to say that this person is, first, trying to place modern events into scriptural prophecy (dangerous, at best), and, secondly, has chosen a prophesied event which many scholars believe has already come to pass (which doesn’t prevent a second occurance, mind you), when Vespasian desecrated the Temple in 69/70 AD by sacrificing a pig on its altar and declaring himself god.
Regardless, this is just another example (along with RFID/666) where certain folks try to force already-completed prophecy into modern events.
2) Here is an example of twisted orthopraxy in relation to following what Jesus taught in terms of the Kingdom of God and spreading the gospel. St. Francis of Assisi is quoted as saying:
“Preach the Gospel at all times. Where necessary, use words.”
This succinctly sums up an orthopraxy based on spreading the gospel through interpersonal relationships, (particularly as opposed to hit-’em and forget’em style street preaching). When taken in more depth, St. Francis’ philosophy is not to never preach the Gospel - but to be salt and light and to use words when necessary, particularly when your actions and your words are in alignment.
The writer of this particular article is one of the most frequent examples I hear of “Fire Insurance Sales”, focused on the eternal to the neglect of the temporal. What is interesting is that Rick Warren is criticized for pragmatism in attracting numbers, whereas this individual - praised by many of Warren’s critics - is just as pragmatic, though his pragmatism is derived from the numbers that can be reached with ”word only”, since missional/relational evangelism is much less “efficient”, requiring ongoing contact, extreme patience, actual faith, and full, heartfelt care.Â
One of the commenters to this article, calling himself a “pastor”, then commented:
To preach the Gospel by lifestyle is indistinguishable from government social workers, the non-Christian cults and false world religions who also can point to exemplary human works.
It is our message, in Words spoken by God Himself, that shows the world the difference.And keep in mind that it was the LORD God Almighty Himself that decided to save people through the “foolishness†of preaching. The word means to “proclaim†verbally.
Maybe it would be best if this “pastor” actually KNEW the scripture and quoted it in context. It is not the “foolishness of preaching” - it was the “foolishness” of the message that was preached. But don’t take my word for it:
For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 1 Corinthians 1:21
Preaching the word through relationships and lifestyle is far more than government social work (which only exists because the church has dropped the ball), but it is a whole lot more challenging than hawking the equivalent of eternal fire insurance on a street corner…
August 16th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
kērugma
“a proclamation (especially of the gospel; by implication the gospel itself): - preaching.”
I think that both verb and noun might be one and the same.
Scriptures such as Acts 4:23-30 and Psalm 2 address conspiracy theories. Men can concoct whatever they wish; it is all foreknown and part of the plan. That is why they plot “in vain”.
I am one who has serious disagreement with preterism and partial preterism. I also have problems with the dispensationalists, and men like Darby and Schofield, Le Haye, Hagee etc.
By relegating everything to the 1st century the scriptures are in danger of being irrelevant. There is a vast difference between the message of Jesus and the Gospel of Jesus.
August 16th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Ray Comfort’s whole style of “evangelism” just really annoys me. For as much as these people talk about “false conversions”, I don’t how they can support someone like him. It’s like evangelism by nagging. I imagine people being like, “if I say yes, will you leave me alone?”.
August 16th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
I like Ray Comfort.
He doesn’t come at people rudely. He has a sort of gentle, open way of doing things. He’s not insulting, but neither does he waver. I appreciate his use of the 10 commandments, how he helps people realize that they, indeed, are not “good enough” on their own. I appreciate that he doesn’t like to get embroiled in little Christendom spats.
You’d be surprised at how many people think they aren’t really bad, and therefore, are OK as they are. They probably go to church and are very glad that so-and-so five pews back is hearing this message that was obviously meant for them, not realizing their own souls are in just as much need. Those are the people Comfort really reaches, not so much people like me who think we’re pretty awful.
There’s a place for Comfort, just as there’s a place for other Christians who go about reaching people like me in a very different way.
Lumping Comfort with some of the other street/bullhorn “you’re going to hell you fag” evangelists really isn’t accurate. His style and the fact that he doesn’t want to even want to deal with denominational disagreements and such makes him different.
He’s not out there latching onto a piece of “meat” and growling and shaking and unwilling to let go like some Christians are over things like hymns and pews and skirt length.
There is a place for Ray Comfort’s message: “This is the law. You have broken it. You need Christ. You’re not good enough on your own. He’s your only hope.”
I heard him preach, and met him, and count it as a very beneficial thing. I learned to appreciate the value and importance of the OT. Before I was a kind of “Yeah, yeah, but that’s OT. Jesus came and it doesn’t count anymore.”
August 16th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Julie,
I guess I may have been too quick pass judgement on him personally, but I have seen people who have taken his methods and really abused them. To me it seems it is a fine line between learning how to talk to people and turning evangelism to a method, and seeing conversions as notches on a belt. To me it always seems like “drive-by” evangelism.
I actually asked a guy I knew who was using some of the recommended methods if he ever actually followed up with any of the people he talked to who said yes, and he kind of gave me a blank stare and said “no”. He actually got pretty mad at me because of it. I asked him how he knew if those people actually were making a serious commitment, or if they just were trying to get rid of him, and he said he didn’t know.
It just seems to me that the Great Commission involves more than just getting people to say “yes” once. We are told to make disciples, not converts.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Warning! Irony overload in this post on CRN. Proceed at your own risk!
LOL! - Ken is now accusing Chris of having a “lack of understanding” of prophecy. How dare Chris try to interpret Scripture in it’s orginal context! It’s just too funny!
August 16th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Julie,
It is not so much the ‘method’ of Ray’s (which does get under my skin a little bit when it’s put forth as the only way - which often comes across in his videos/writings), as it is that when I’ve followed up with a number of the folks who claim to use the same methodology and do not see that there is a need for relationship (or even follow-up) with the individuals they have witnessed to.
To use Ray’s food analogy (despite its fatal flaws, noted by the first commenter, I believe), it is like saying to a hungry person “let me tell you how to fish”, but never going fishing with them.
As for Ken’s article, he’s always good for a laugh. Like I commented elsewhere, Ken is living proof that the SBC’s qualifications for handing out pastorships must be on the level of being available in the bottom of a cereal box.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
I suppose that abusing/misusing teaching are what we do best.
What’s ironic, in what Phil describs regarding the lack of follow-up, is that one of the things Comfort talks about in his teaching is that the mass altar calls and decisions made without understanding of the law, combined with no follow-up (I think I got that right), make false converts. I read a book of his…called…I don’t know. It had a blue cover. I’m not a great source of useful facts.
Anyway, that was part of his discussion on modern conversion methods.
Now, if people are taking his techniques and still doing that in some other way…well.
That’s ironic.
Obviously, a street preacher can’t follow up with people. But for some reason I got the impression from the…book with the blue cover…that the lack of law plus no follow-up created the false convert.
I had borrowed the book. Sorry. I don’t know the title. Master something or other?
On some earlier post here, I made the comment that some people use relationship evangelism as an excuse for why they never have to never speak the Gospel, while others use drive-by street evangelism to never have to deal with the weight and responsibility of a relationship. Goes both ways. I think there is a place for both methods, since they both seem to have a precedent in the Bible. A place for both methods as long as they are not abused, that is.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Chris P
I understand your uneasiness with partial-preterism, which could be taken to an extreme (in the same way any other view can be) and misused.
However, where I find it to be useful is in keeping potentially eschatalogical prophecies in perspective, rather than assuming they are pointing to future events and then making orthopractic errors based upon false, fatalistic, assumptions.
The prophecies in the Olivet Discourse, for instance, have incredibly obvious comparisons to the real and actual events which occurred within a generation (which certainly seems to be what Jesus and others wrote about), when Vespasian brought the 5th legion to bear agains Jerusalem in 69-70 A.D. If you check where he gathered this army, as well, (Megiddo aka Har Megiddo (Heb) aka Armageddon (Greek)), a number of things start to click.
However, partial-preterism recognizes that there are still prophecies yet to be fulfilled re: the parousia.
Additionally, it does not preclude the “always be ready” theme taught by Jesus directly and in parable (the 10 virgins), though these are aimed at individuals and not nations.
Any Christian theological view or eschatological view is a dangerous one when taken to extreme.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
My point being, in that messy comment above, that Ray Comfort’s ministry and teaching has a valid place, even if those that latch onto it turn around and use it in a way that misses the point.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Julie,
Agreed.
Per E. Stanley Jones,
An individual gospel without a social gospel is a soul without a body and a social gospel without an individual gospel is a body without a soul. One is a ghost and the other a corpse.
Both are important…
August 16th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
“Evangelical groups have joined efforts spearheaded by Roman Catholic, Orthodox and mainstream Protestant churches to create a common code of conduct for religious conversions that would preserve the right of Christians to spread their religion while avoiding conflict among different faiths . . . .”
I would ask “which Christians have the right to spread their faith?” Do you know anything about the history of missions in Central and South America, about the animosity of Catholics towards Protestant missions in those areas?
August 16th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
haha~! Did you see Ken’s reply to you at comfort’s page? It is priceless. He alliterates, insults, pat’s his own back and picks his nose (no references to homosexuals here so some blocker kicks in! No sir!) all the while standing on one foot with both hands tied behind his back. Absolutely beautiful!
August 16th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
amy,
I am familiar with that, which, at the very least, makes me curious as to what the WCC is going to propose. Regardless, I don’t see that particular group’s issuance of a code of conduct as an alarmist cog in the wheel of a New World Order…
August 16th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Guys - the parameters of methodology concerning spreading the gospel are wide and varied. Making sure the message is clear and sound is the important essence. Breaking the law, all have sinned, go to heaven when you die, and many other ways to present Christ are well within the power of the Spirit to reach a seeking sinner’s heart and draw them to the Lord Jesus.
Some methods may be a little flawed, but many people have been born again responding to a flawed message. As a matter of fact, almost all human presentations are flawed on some level.
As far as eschatology is concerned we should be open to listen to many views. If a person believes that Jesus Christ will come back to this earth visibly and in glory, that to me is the acceptable core of eschatology. This part of the Bible can be so easily manipulated to one’s personal interpretation.
I agree with Chris about the necessity of corresponding actions without minimizing the verbal and written communication of the gospel invitation. Doing good deeds without speaking the gospel is like bringing out the rocket to the launch pad without blasting off. Preaching without manifesting Christ in our lives is like blasting off without the necessary fuel. Either way the gospel must be preached throughout the world.
August 16th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Chris,
I meant to address the 3:45 comment to you.
August 16th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Joe,
I saw it. I also re-read his article over at C?N. I notice that he took affront that I said that he calls himself a “pastor”. I do not disagree that he has that particular title. However, having a title is not even in the same ballpark as having the qualifications for that particular title. I wasn’t arguing the former, but apparently Ken’s thin skin can’t handle the latter…
August 16th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
In regards to Point 1, regarding the conspiracy, the scripture reference by the commenter is actually accurate… notice that the Apostle Paul is referencing “the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ”. Can the scholars, whoever they might be, be wrong? Of course they can (just as the lawyers and scribes were).
Secondly, the “man of lawlessness” is referenced in verse 9-10 of the same chapter… don’t think Vespasian produced any signs and wonders that deceived anyone…
So, your premise for your argument is wrong… the Catholic Church definitely does have an agenda, hence the WCC and their push for ecumenism. I would tread very carefully when speaking/mocking things that you’re not sure about.
August 16th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Paul,
There are a number of historical issues around the ‘man of lawlessness’ and the Caesars - particularly around the belief that the Caesars were gods who controlled the stars in the skies (which probably originated from the sighting of a comet for weeks after the death of Julius Caesar), and a general belief that Vespasian had the same spirit as Nero (who was fatally wounded). There are other “miracles” ascribed to the caesars that fit, as well, in addition to Domitian declaring himself “King of kings and lord of lords” and demanding that all call him thusly (including his own wife).
Also, who is to say that Jesus didn’t return for the early Jewish Christian church, which obeyed the warnings in the Olivet Discourse and escaped across the Jordan to Pella, but was not heard from afterward - with a predominantly Gentile church remaining in Asia Minor? This is a distinct possibility, though by no means a certainty.
The Catholic church may (or may not) have an agenda - and playing ‘guess the apocalypse’ is entirely unfruitful…
August 16th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Let us remember even if the RCC has an agenda, they are not our enemies (remember Chris?). If there is a growing and insidious movement it is fueled by the invisible spirits of the kingdom of darkness.
August 16th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
By the way, Chris, you are not dry. Deep maybe, but not dry.
August 16th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
“Let us remember even if the RCC has an agenda, they are not our enemies ”
But they most certainly or being used by the enemy. They are the flesh and blood behind which the enemy lurks and works.
August 16th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Yes, Dave, we all can be unknowingly used of the evil One. They are a false religion, but Christ died for them as well as for me. There are millions of Catholics who have been born again and now worship in evangelical churches.
We must be wise as serpents and harmless as doves.
August 16th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
Hi Chris. I considered your response but must disagree with you wholeheartedly as the Apostle was referring to the return of Christ and the establishment of His kingdom.
Let us not for a second consider that whole swaths of people actually believed in the Caesars devine status. Perhaps they believed for lip service’s sake, but you are mistaken if you attribute the scripture and its context to them.
In v 10 of 2 Thessalonians 2 we see the real essence here: “with all deceivableness”. In other words, the Devil replicates the truth but with a slant so that the common person is led astray.
This in in parallel with what Paul also said in 2 Corinthians 11: “For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.”
What are they preaching? The “gospel” - with a slant.
How did Jannes and Jambres withstand Moses (2 Timothy 3:8-9)? By copying his miracles.
That’s what’s happening today… I think the Catholic church is rather obvious to spot as not being representative of Christianity (as a former Catholic). However, those that are impersonating Christ today in the name of “love”, “tolerance”, “acceptance” and all manner of nonsense… those are the ones to be careful about in my view.
August 16th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
Paul,
In addition to Caesar worship (which was the basis of the Christian persecution under the caesars), you also had three other key cults - Mithra worship and Cybele worship and Artemis worship - all of which claimed miraculous births and had other similarities to Christian’s claims of Christ. Mithra is most likely referenced in John’s letter to Ephesus, and Cybele worship in his letter to Sardis. All three of these increased in prominence during the first century - all with miraculous claims of origin - with Mithra as the prime competitor to Christianity into the beginning of the Fourth Century A.D., with a great deal of pressure from Roman government to meld the two. These would have fit both Paul’s and Timothy’s descriptions.
While I disagree with much of Catholicism, I’m not ready to pin it as the whore of Babylon or give it a place in a reasonable eschatology (seeing how the premil/dispensational eschatology, as we know it, is about 200 years old, not 2000).
August 17th, 2007 at 4:58 am
Might be worth reading Ivans reply.
August 17th, 2007 at 7:19 am
The mission is the preaching/sharing of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The humanitarian deeds are the support for that message. Jesus commanded us to go and preach, but even in Acts they were urged to remember the poor which Paul later acknowledged he was eager to do.
A sinner can be saved by believing the message without being the recipient of any humanitarian deeds.
But a sinner who is fed and clothed but does not receive the message cannot be saved.
So in that we realize that works can never take the place of the gospel, but we can examine our walk with Christ to include some of the things He did to minister to people’s earthly needs and thereby open the hearts of lost people whose attention was garnered by our loving compassion.
August 17th, 2007 at 7:29 am
Ben,
The problem is that we’ve actually had this conversation with Ken before on a number of occasions, and he has placed all the emphasis on the method (preaching) as opposed to the message, which is one of the chief downfalls of the watchdawggie crowd, which often finds itself quibbling about externals.
What has been continually pushed by the Ray Comfort supporters in the past has been the importance of the method, with a rather arrogant supposition that any other message produces “false converts” (to use Ray’s own words). I do not doubt that Ray’s method works for some, but its emphasis is fully on the eternal in neglect of the temporal, which completely misses out on the message of the kingdom.
This discussion also hitches itself to the modern vs. post-modern debate. Whether we like it or not, our society - particularly in GenX and below - is increasingly postmodern (which has both positives and negatives), and as it moves in that direction, the primary methods of persuasion move from exposition to more of a Rabbinic or Socratic one (which Ray has adapted, I would agree, into his method, which is why it does seem a big step forward over many other open-air methods). However, open-air methods still miss the relational aspect that is most needed, or it still sees ‘relationships with unbelievers’ as part of a means toward an end (i.e. “loving with an agenda”). In short, it often misses the importance of actual love, settling for being a clanging cymbal.
When I use the word “love”, I am referring to the holistic definition, not just a “I’m OK, you’re OK” kind of thing, and also not the “new fundamentalist” version, either:
If it is harder to witness to a friend than a stranger (per Jane’s comment on the other site), that reveals something about us, and goes back to my point on how the open-air method is more of an expedient cop-out than something to be worn as a badge of honor…
August 17th, 2007 at 7:29 am
The gospel has always been both proclamation and demonstration. It seems to me that it’s not about picking which is more important, but just doing both as the Holy Spirit leads us. I think we just make things way too complicated sometimes.
I thought that the Ray Comfort article was largely attacking a straw man, because I don’t know offhand of any Christian organizations who take the supposed St. Francis quote to mean never speak the message. I’ve heard it before, and I always just assumed it was saying you can’t just preach to people and think that is your only duty as a Christian. Sharing the gospel is really a lifestyle.
August 17th, 2007 at 7:33 am
I disgree slightly, Phil. People have been saved by books, tracks, tapes, televison, and other forms of media that have no capacity for acts of compassion or lifestyle. In China they spread the word secretly and sometimes without the ability to interact with a lifestyle.
There can never be a blurring of the lines between the Word and lifestyle. Mormons are very gracious and so are many irreligious people. The Word must always be the foundation and can never be equated with any lifestyle no matter how glowing.
August 17th, 2007 at 7:40 am
Rick,
I agree and disagree… “Saved” encompasses two distinct, but linked, parts - the gospel and the kingdom of God. The spoken gospel can get to the first, but does not necessarily imply the second. Without both, what we’re really talking about moves back into the region of ‘fire insurance’ - which isn’t a bad thing, but isn’t a complete gospel…
August 17th, 2007 at 7:42 am
Rick,
Well, I wasn’t saying God couldn’t use one more effectively with one group of people over another. The Word itself is certainly powerful, and I know of people who became Christians just from reading the Bible on their own.
In America, it seems to me, though, that many people have heard the message, but don’t believe it because they don’t see a lot of Christians actually living it. It would probably go a long way for Christians in America to actually love their neighbors in a more practical way.
Like I said before, though, if we are sensitive to the leading of the Holy Spirit in different situations, He will guide as what to do and what to say. He knows the condition of people’s hearts and exactly what they need to hear or see.
August 17th, 2007 at 7:51 am
I believe “fire insurance” is on some level the complete gospel (Jn.3:16). To save us from hell and give us eternal life is the core. All the residual blessing are indeed important, but at the core of the atoenment is forgiveness.
I agree with exhibited compassion and that many times I’ve seen some believer’s lifestyles hinder the message, but that just means we must pay attention to that aspect in order to make our preaching more effective. I personally think the “kingdom” definition is over worked, it is just another way of defining the difference between the kingdom of darkness and the kingdom of God’s dear Son.
The message (spoken, preached, written, etc.) is the only conduit for enlightening a sinner’s heart, our lives can be used to demonstrate Christ through a human life. A person wanders into a church and hears the gospel and responds and is saved. He does not know the preacher or the people around him.
The Comfort article is a response to some who take the “kingdom” thing too far, and some emergents elevate lifestyle to the level of the Word as a response to some abrasive fundamentalists.
The message is the core. Everything else can be used to substantiate the message, but my life is a reflection of my discipleship not part of the message.
August 17th, 2007 at 9:03 am
Rick,
“Fire insurance” is only half of the equation - see John 3:16 and 17
The kingdom of God is not only about compassion and relationship. By definition, the kingdom is experienced in community where things are the way as God would have them be. In this world, the kingdom will be incomplete until Jesus comes to complete it.
What did Jesus preach? What did he have his disciples preach prior to his cruxifixion (before which, and in some cases, even after, his disciples didn’t understand the “gospel” in terms of an atonement for our sin)? The kingdom of God!
When would the kingdom come? First off, we know it was described by Jesus and John the Baptist as “at hand” - a Hebraism meaning something that you can reach out and touch. Secondly, Jesus tells us directly:
In the Hebraic teaching of the Kingdom, God saved, God saves and God will save. First, he saved His people before they knew Him (Exodus 6:7, Romans 5:8). Next, He saves his people and blesses them for the purpose of blessing the rest of the world (Genesis 12:12, Matthew 5:13-16; Romans 15). Then, at the end of it all, He brings the church as his bride into his Father’s house in matrimony (John 14:2, Revelation 19-22). The people of God already have a taste of ‘eternal life’, because the bride of Christ has existed, unbroken, since it was brought out of Egypt by the Father.
Salvation is about the journey, not the destination. When we talk about ‘being saved’, we miss this because we are only focusing on the destination.
“Fire insurance” is certainly a part of Jesus’ message, but it isn’t anywhere near complete.
August 17th, 2007 at 9:21 am
The elevation of the gospel narratives over the teaching epistles are a major part of the problem. If we believe that Jesus Himself instructed the Apostle Paul as to the true essence of the gospel (as Paul claims), then we must rely on them as the foundation of the revelation.
To use narratives as the foundation is inherantly precarious as we can see from even a comparison between Matthew and Mark. Salvation is a state, the journey is reckoning ourselves alive unto Christ. Many emergents so micro-manage some of this terminology that it obscures rather than illuminates.
If Jesus should tarry, the danger is that in the future people will tweek their lifstyle in order to appear consistant with the kingdom model and miss the born again experience without which they will never see heaven. Additionally, Jesus will be ackowledged as a way shower rather than the Passover Lamb of God and His life on earth will be followed without a conversion of faith that is sealed by the Holy Spirit.
I’m not saying that all emergents will morph into this, but some of the teaching will lend itself to this scenarion. Just like teaching cold, hard Biblical facts without compassion and humility leads to what we see in some of the blogasphere.
August 17th, 2007 at 9:44 am
Rick,
Salvation is a state as you say, just being alive in the natural is a state. The problem I see with the church is that we focus so much on people becoming born again, that we neglect to teach how stay “born again” (I don’t hold to the doctrine of eternal security, by the way).
I’ve been reading True Spirituality by Francis Schaeffer, and he says it this way. In a sense a person’s natural birthday could be looked at as the most important day of his life, because without that the person wouldn’t exist. In another sense, it becomes less and less important as a person lives his life, because he must do what he must to stay alive. The same could be said in a spiritual sense. Yes, getting someone to make an intitial commitment to Christ is important, it gets them in the Kingdom. But what they do to stay in the Kingdom and how they grow in the Kingdom is what really becomes important. I’m not arguing Salvation thorugh works at all, but rather Salvation through faith, which produce Christian who are naturally growing and doing good works.
The thing I would say about Paul is that I don’t think we can pit the teaching of Jesus and Paul against each other. We have to remember to Paul was for the most part writing to people who were already Christians. It seems to me that a large amount the content in his epistles were instructions on how to actually live the Christian life.
Some of this might be getting into the so-called “New Perspective on Paul” (on which there is a decent article in the newest version of Christianity Today about), but I don’t even think that matters so much with what we’re talking about now. It is clear to me that Paul was writing to the congregations he wrote to ensure they stayed on the right path. I don’t think he saw a disconnect between discipleship and evangelism.
August 17th, 2007 at 9:51 am
I agree. I don’t espouse eternal security, but behavior doesn’t remove you, apostacy(denying the faith) does.
Anyway we need more post salvation transformation, not just more “sinner’s prayer” scalps.