It seems such a small point to some, I suppose. Why care whether the Churches of Christ teach faith in Jesus or faith in Jesus’ plan? Well, because the Bible declares that faith in Jesus saves — and nothing else does.
(John 3:18 ESV) 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
There’s no reference to a “plan.” Not in this verse, not in any verse. As Moser notes, the concept is foreign to the scriptures. Faith is in Jesus, a person.
Now, I must add that many who’ve followed in Moser’s footsteps have failed to articulate clearly why this matters, leading some readers to misunderstand and so reject their teaching. Sloganeering and catch phrases can do this. But, then, some things that are obvious once understood can be difficult to explain to those who’ve not yet grasped the concept. Long division is the same way: confusing and senseless until the lightbulb over your head lights up. Again, not because it’s hard, but because it’s foreign until fully integrated into your thinking.
You see, the Reformation approach to Christianity is to write down a list of important doctrines and demand that converts confess agreement with this creed. They are supposed to “believe” that the doctrines are true and confess their “faith” in those doctrines. And the Churches of Christ have drunk deeply from the Reformation fountain. It’s all about having the right positions.
And to people who think in terms of “positions” on “issues,” the “Plan of Salvation” is all about having the right positions on baptism and such. Thus, Phil in his article on faith condemns infant baptism and a failure to have elders and deacons. These are, you see, the wrong positions. Of course, wrong positions lead to disobedience, and salvation is based on obedience. It’s all very Reformation minded. But it’s not how the scriptures speak.
Of course, there are passages in the scriptures that speak of having sound doctrine (teaching) and such, but these are not the core of New Testament teaching — nor are they ends. They are means to an end. And the end is Jesus.
Now, you see, I just messed up. Yes, it’s true that the “end is Jesus,” but a reader from a legalistic background would find that sentence meaningless. For some reason, it’s very hard to express what I’m trying say in terms that speak to someone from a legalistic background. And as a result, we progressive types are often misunderstood — in large part because of our tendency to speak in a shorthand that makes perfect sense to us but can’t be understood by those working within a different perspective.
Let me try again: The goal of sound doctrine is not only understanding Jesus’ teachings, but getting to know who Jesus was and is as a person. Just as it’s vitally important to know your earthly father’s teachings, it’s vitally important to know God’s teachings. But your father would consider himself an abject failure if you never knew him as a person. Just so, God could have carved the New Testament on tablets and handed it to the apostles, but he preferred to send his Son — so we could get to know God as a person. Not just his teachings, but him.
And Jesus didn’t come to earth merely as an object lesson in how to live righteously. He came to show us God in the flesh.
(John 14:9a ESV) 9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.
By knowing God, his wishes, his passions, his purposes, and his ways through Jesus, we are much better able to understand what his commands mean and to understand which commands are of the highest importance. We can major in the majors, rather than the minors. And — more importantly — we can do it out of love and a shared heart with God rather than fear and obligation.
Let me try another way of saying it. We need to learn to think and to teach relationally. That means we should illustrate our sermons and lessons with relational comparisons — comparing our relationship with God to the relationship of a child to a parent or a wife to her husband. (That’s how the scriptures do it. We should give it a try.) It’s not until we think relationally that we “get it.” And we struggle to get it. It’s just hard to teach a relational truth in propositional logic. That’s why we progressives struggle so! We try to use the language of logic and polemics to teach something best understood relationally.
Alabama law allows an adult to adopt another adult. Unlike the adoption of children, adult adoption is legally very simple. The adopter and adoptee sign documents and they go to the courthouse, where the lawyer persuades the judge to let this happen. It’s not complicated — legally.
But relationally, it’s very complicated indeed. The adopter and adoptee must first form a personal relationship of faith and trust and love that’s so tight they want to bind themselves together in a relationship that’s stronger and more meaningful than mere friendship. The adopter (let’s call him the “father”) must want to provide the adoptee (or “child”) with an inheritance, because adoption means the child will inherit from the father.
The child-to-be must be prepared to live a changed life. He’ll now be someone else’s son, someone else’s heir. His natural father may even be jealous. The child-to-be must be committed to this new way of life.
And then they go to the courthouse to formalize the relationship, but it’s a relationship already forged because the child knows the father and appreciates his generosity. The child can’t buy or earn an inheritance. The inheritance is a free gift of love, resulting from relationship, from love offered and received.
Now, a person who doesn’t understand people and who sees the world through the statutes in the Code of Alabama might write a checklist on how to do this, but it’s really a love story and more about the intertwining of hearts than it is about legal process.
Let’s try it. The child must “hear” his potential father ask him to be adopted. He must “believe” that the promise is genuine and that the father will keep his word. The potential child must “confess” that he believes the adopter’s promise. That is, he must say, “Yes.” The child must be willing to change his life, becoming a son when he wasn’t before; he must “repent.” And he must go to the courthouse and tell the judge all this happened. He must be “immersed” by the judge into this new relationship.
There: if you want your rich neighbor down the street to adopt you and leave you an inheritance, here’s what you do (hold up your fingers): Hear, believe, repent, confess, be baptized. True in a sense. But not nearly representative of what’s really going on. If you suck the heart out of the story, you suck the story out of the story. Indeed, you make it hard for the story to even happen.
But what if I told you that your neighbor just gave his son’s life for yours? Would you visit him? Would you inquire of his motives? Would you want to know him as a person? Would you spend time with him? Or would you just read a book he’d written? Well, you’d read the book, but you’d be looking beyond the pages to the author to know what kind of person would do such a thing. Indeed, you might be so intrigued, impressed, and interested that you form a relationship in which you choose to let him adopt you.
Of course, this will dramatically change your life. Your earthly parents might even be upset! He’ll expect you to be a faithful son, who visits and honors his values and joins him in his purposes. Adoption is, you see, vastly more than a legal transaction. It’s a heart- and life-altering event built on a relationship of mutual trust and love. You trust your new father to love and care for you, even to leave you his inheritance, and he trusts you to be a faithful son whose life reflects who he is and what he’s about. He expects to be proud of his new son!
You see, adoption is all about the man. There’s a plan in there. But it’s not about the plan. You don’t trust or have faith in the plan. Sure, you’re counting on the Code of Alabama to make you a legal son, but your faith isn’t in the statutes of Alabama. It’s not in the process. It’s in the person. And if you don’t believe in the adopter and the gift of his son, you won’t forge the relationship that is the heart of adoption — even if you have 100% confidence in the statute that makes it possible.
And so, maybe I’ve given you an inkling of why it’s really more about the man than the plan — and more importantly — why the Bible never, ever even hints at salvation by trusting or having faith in a plan. It’s about faith in a man. It matters because you misunderstand nearly everything in the New Testament if you get this wrong.
Jay,
You are majoring in a minor here. You seem to have an obsession against the word 'plan'. I can only assume you have some detailed connotation in that word that turns you off.
Yet, throughout your post, you use words like: wishes, passions, a way, prepare, "must first form", formalize, and such. These all sound like elements of planning to me.
The adoption analogy (the attempt to relate things) doesn't fit at all. The state of Alabama and the child I wish to adopt are two vastly separate entities. My relationship with God and His plan are intricately interwoven.
Teaching relationally is an excellent method for teaching adults. We tend to understand new concepts better when we can see a connection with concepts we already know. However, teaching relationally has nothing to do with the level of truthfulness within the lesson. That can only be compared with God's desire for us.
"It seems such a small point to some, I suppose. Why care whether the Churches of Christ teach faith in Jesus or faith in Jesus’ plan? Well, because the Bible declares that faith in Jesus saves — and nothing else does."
Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Luk 6:46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?
Jhn 7:16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.
In Jesus' own words, Worshipping the "Man", without sticking to the "plan" won't do you much good.
It seems that the faith we should have in the "man" is, he brought us the right " plan."
Oh, by the way, I do agree with one statement Jay made
" It matters because you misunderstand nearly everything in the New Testament if you get this wrong"
And I believe The New Age CoC, is well on the way to misunderstanding it all.
Jay:
It is an amazing post. The adoption illustration is just perfect. In the post, what you’ve done for us is explain the reality behind the important steps.
There are progressives who insist that we can know Jesus without understanding His word. There are conservatives who assert that all we need to know is Scriptures and we know God. Both positions are independently inadequate. Here is what Jesus said:
John 5:39–40 (NIV) 39 You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, 40 yet you refuse to come to me to have life.
Note Scriptures testify about Jesus, and life is in the One about whom the Scriptures testify. It is that simple. Diligent study is good. Knowing Jesus is Good. Study is good for gaining knowledge about Jesus—no conflict there.
The Pharisee and Sadducees knew the law very well, but they did not recognize the lawgiver as he stood among them. They did not know the heart of God, and in their legalism they rejected God.
Surely you aren’t saying that of all who have a Reformation approach to Christianity.
Whenever you speak about the COC denomination’s failings, you want to pin their failings on the Restoration Movement. That is like a grown man saying, well I was wrong to go jump off that bridge, but that’s not really my mistake, you see there was a man that lived years and years ago who was telling people to go jump off a bridge, so I did it.
When trying to point your finger at someone you don’t like, always remember you have three fingers still pointing back at you.
Great post Brother…appreciate you!
Jesus saves!
Typing error.
Retype:
Whenever you speak about the COC denomination’s failings, you want to pin their failings on the Reformation Movement.
When trying to point your finger at someone you don’t like, always remember you have three fingers still pointing back at you.
Jay, but the child still won't be a legal heir until you follow the steps that the law has required of you.
So you can be a Christian without ever hearing the gospel, believing in Jesus, changing how you live, admitting that you believe in Jesus and then being baptized?
Jay,
I appreciate your work and your cordiality, and I think you summarize the difficulty of explaining your position (which is true) with this statement:
"… some things that are obvious once understood can be difficult to explain to those who’ve not yet grasped the concept. Long division is the same way: confusing and senseless until the lightbulb over your head lights up. Again, not because it’s hard, but because it’s foreign until fully integrated into your thinking."
I am not against my conservative brethren, I am simply stumped. I am out of answers to their questions, and I am out of ideas on how to present these truths with words for them to understand the things I say.
At the end of the day, I am beginning to believe that one of the following is true:
1) they are unwittingly blind
or
2) they are stubborn against the truth
I prefer to believe that my conservative brethren are unwittingly blind.
Anne, you've highlighted precisely the dilemma of being under law rather than under grace.
The law stands apart from the father and the adoptive son, and condemns them if they have not filled out the paperwork just right, if they have misunderstood the particular requirement. The Law mediates their relationship.
Jesus Christ has perfectly fulfilled God's requirements. He, not the law, mediates the relationship between the Father and all those he seeks to adopt. So regardless of what the law says about their relationship, the Father is free to treat me as his son, whether or not I've perfectly obeyed the law. Such is his promise, the promise he guaranteed by the blood of His Son.
Actually Nick I was pointing out a flaw in his analogy. His analogy seems to support a more conservative view than a progressive view. You can claim the son as your own but in the eyes of the law he is not your son until you have followed what the law has prescribed for adoption. Someone can claim to be an heir of God, but until he has done what God has asked to become an heir (coming into contact with the blood of Jesus) he is not an heir.
And I don't think the majority of us our trusting in a plan like a lucky charm. Sure Jesus has fulfilled the law and we are no longer under the law, but I don't think that means there is nothing that we do not have to obey. There lies the difference. Jesus said to believe and be baptized was he perpetuating the law? He said for the to go preach, didn't they have to hear? he said to believe and be baptized? are we not to require that people do as Jesus asked? Did he not ask us to confess his name and turn from our sins. I think you can find find all five steps in the gospel.
And you're certain, Anne, are you, that those are the only five steps in the plan?
What if there are more, and you missed them?
I'm not saying that that is all there is to obeying God I just don't understand what hangup some of you have with "the plan of salvation" I don't see anything unscriptural about it. And as I'm reading the scriptures they accurately portray what Jesus has asked us to do. If I'm teaching someone about Jesus and how to become a Christian I'm not going to be checking off hear, believe, etc. now you've come to step 5 you may now become a Christian.
You're still not answering my question, though, Anne. What if you miss something?
The problem isn't with teaching that God has a plan for salvation.
The problem is with teaching that our faith should be in our accomplishment of those steps.
I think I have answered it. I'm not trusting in checking off 5 steps to save me even though they only state what you find in scripture. I am trusting in Jesus to save me if I do what he has asked me to do. How can you have faith in Jesus if you haven't done what he has asked?
How can you believe you've done everything He's asked?
It was not without reason that Jesus said, whoever believes and is baptized will be saved. As John’s baptism was from heaven, so was Jesus’. While I agree that we have in many instances exalted the plan while ignoring the Man, our actions have not made Jesus’ plan evil.
Question is, what if we miss one?
Nick Which one can we miss?
Hear? Can you know Jesus having never heard of Him?
Repent? Repentance is the evidence of Jesus’ Lordship.
Baptism? Was it not Jesus who said whoever believe and is baptized will be saved. Should we consider what He said unimportant or unnecessary?
Which one can we miss?
The gospel of grace does not excuse us from obeying Jesus’ command. While we exalt the gospel of grace, we cannot ignore the fact that God has specific requirements for sonship.
26 You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. Galatians 3:26–29 (NIV)
As a son, I can KNOW that I have NOT done everything that Jesus asks, yet I am His son
Clyde,
So those five are the only ones "we don't have to miss?" in order to be a son?
By what Scripture do you come to this conclusion?
Boy, that came out weird. Let's try this again:
Clyde, so those five are the only requirements that we can't afford to miss?
What, besides the creativity of God that gave you five fingers, allows you to limit the plan to those five requirements?
That's the point of my question: what if there are MORE essentials than the five you've identified, and you miss one?
Nick,
I notice that you did not answer any of my questions :).
I addressed your last question in my previous post. But I'll restate: If one is a son, then he can know that he has not done everything that Jesus has commanded. In Christ, grace saves us. But there is no grace outside of Christ.
Limiting the requirements to 5 was not my intent. Obviously, since all are not Christians, there is point that one begins a relationship with Jesus. Jesus said, whoever believes and is baptized with be saved. Question is: Did He tell the truth?
I am confident that nothing happens outside of Christ. So which one? Is that in Christ or outside of Christ?
Grizz,
Thanks for your response. I was hoping for a few more. What you have suggested is, of course, a plan – and that is the point I was wishing to make. A plan of how to get it done is essential for faith, love, etc.
There is no contradiction between faith in Christ and a plan to do that. As a good lawyer, Jay has assumed to define the issue by his use of the word "or." However, "or" does not apply here.
@Nick so how do you know you've done what Jesus has asked?
Jay,
"Sound doctrine" literally means "healthy teaching." Healthy teaching is teaching that points us to Jesus and what He has done and is doing for and in us. If teaching does not do this, it is not healthy; ergo, it is unsound doctrine.
This is far removed from the use of "sound doctrine" as a code term that means "those doctrines generally and traditionally accepted in the Churches of Christ for the past 121 years" (that is, since the adoption of the Sand Creek Address and Declaration proposed by Daniel Sommer. This document set the tone for the development of the teachings of the Churches of Christ even to this day.
Jerry
Jerry
Clyde,
You've YET to answer mine 🙂 How do you know you've fulfilled all the requirements for becoming a son?
But I'll be happy to answer you.
I believe that faith in Jesus and repentance towards God cannot be missed.
This series by Jay is a solid intro to why he and I believe that faith in Jesus and repentance are the two clear essentials stated over and over in Scripture.
And, for your last question of this comment:
Of course he did. Questions like that are veiled ad hominem attacks that are not worthy of Christian discussion. Of course Jesus told the truth.
But, as was said by the professor when his student said that "no man may serve two masters" is the NT prohibition of polygamy, verses have contexts.
"The one who believes and is baptized shall be saved. The one who does not believe shall be condemned."
What of the one who believes, but is not baptized?
What of the one who believes, believes they were baptized, but in actuality was not?
I know I have not. I have never claimed that I have.
No, that would be a lie.
Several years ago, I stopped claiming that I understood all of, much less had fulfilled all of, my Lord's requirements. My trust was transferred from obedience to the plan to the power of Jesus.
Do I still strive to "work out my salvation?" Every single day. But I no longer live in terror that maybe I missed a requirement. That's not why I study the Scriptures, that's not why I talk to my brothers and sisters in Christ, and my faith in a plan is certainly not going to save me.
John,
No, that was KC Moser. What Jay is pointing out is the difference between "faith in Jesus" and "faith in the plan."
No one is arguing that there is no plan. No one is arguing that people should not strive to obey God in every way.
The argument rests upon where our faith should be place. Phil Sanders says the church needs "Faith in God's Plan." If, by "God's Plan," Phil simply meant the good news of Romans 1:1-4 and 1 Cor 15:1-3, Jay would have no argument with him. But as Phil clearly states in many places, these are not what he means by "God's Plan." He means the lordship of Jesus + the five steps + church organization and authority + the right position on MDR. We know this because of how he explained his position on 2 John 9 at http://graceconversation.com. It is placing faith in this plan, falsely called God's plan of salvation, that must be resisted, according to Paul in Galatians 1.
Isn't it a false way of phrasing the dilemma to say that it is between whether the Churches of Christ teach faith in Jesus or faith in Jesus’ plan?
Isn't the dilemma really between Jesus' plan vs Paul's unnecessary additions to Jesus' plan?
Anyway, I want to announce the creation of my own blog, the New Paths Advocate where I will deal with such questions myself. New Paths Advocate I'm calling it since in some ways it will be the opposite of the OPA. Cheers.
Neither do I live in terror that I've "missed a requirement".
I should have phrased the question do you know if you've done what Jesus asked to be saved? None of us will ever perfect our Christian walk here on earth , but I believe that you can know if you've done what has been asked to come into contact with the blood of Christ. And I know there have already been numerous posts on this awhile back on "right and wrong" baptism. I don't believe it is as difficult as some make it to be. If you believe in Jesus you are baptized for the remission of your sins. It doesn't seem that hard, but I am simple person.
Questions like that are veiled ad hominem attacks that are not worthy of Christian discussion
Whoa! Nick, I meant no harm by my questions. I apologize. I’ll leave it like that.
Nick,
It appears to me the progressive agenda leads to "nothing can be missed." Jay is saying God has no plan for us to follow.
There is a world of difference between someone who tries, but misses something, and is saved by grace and the progressive who says God doesn't care whether we attempt to follow His plan or not.
Come on, Clyde. You asked me if I believed Jesus was a liar. What else could you mean?
Regardless, thank you for your apology. Clearly I misunderstood the subtext of the question, "Did Jesus tell the truth?" I'm sorry for that.
Nick, no, that was not what I meant. It was my way of asking you: Do you believe what Jesus said? It was a challenge question.
Like you, I believe that faith in Jesus and repentance towards God cannot be missed, but I also believe what Jesus said about baptism cannot be missed either. As for the question that you asked, I answered previously:
How do you know you’ve fulfilled all the requirements for becoming a son?
Paul wrote. You are all sons of God through faith, for as many of you as were baptize into Christ have put on Christ Gal 3:26,27. So faith and baptism – as Jesus said
Yes. Over and over and over, Jesus taught that people need to trust Him and repent. I was thrilled, in February of 1994, to allow another believer to immerse me into Christ, because of the very promise that Clyde referred to earlier.
But I assert that nothing in that promise condemns those who've trusted Jesus, repented as well as they know how, but have misunderstood a particular form of submission to Him.
Anne, no one is simple. In fact, it is that very illusion of simplicity that makes the truth that much harder to apprehend. Peter thought if you believe in God, you stay away from Gentiles. He thought he was a simple fellow, too. But he grew up in a religious climate where certain things were addressed over and over and over again.
As you know, I happen to agree with you: it looks very clear to me that believing in Jesus includes submission to water immersion, at which time sins are taken away. But I also believe those promises wherein God says he will save those who trust in Jesus Christ and dedicate their lives to doing His will, even though they're mistaken about some specifics.
Name a denomination that rejects baptism. Let's not get into forms yet. Let's just try to find one that rejects baptism outright.
Or are you willing to accept that the vast majority of Christians over the course of history have accepted some form of baptism? I'm not asserting that most have accepted adult convert's immersion in water for forgiveness of sins. I'm simply asserting that the vast majority of believers believe, just as deeply as you do, that they've been baptized.
I have asked some people, who I didn’t really know well, to forgive me of things I have done, they didn’t tell me if you wash my car I will forgive you or if you walk my dog I will forgive you, no they freely forgave me. While many people will look at you and expect you to do something to deserve their forgiveness. There is nothing we can do to deserve God’s forgiveness. God does not throw out a bargaining chip (baptism) when we turn to Himand ask Him to forgive us.
To believe or have faith in Jesus means to trust that He is powerful enough to save us from our sins. The free gift of God’s grace is Christ’s Sacrifice, the One and only unblemished, sinless, holy Sacrifice sufficient to take away sins.
Jesus’ primary objective was to make forgiveness of our sins a reality, not just for us, but also for those before He came to the earth. When the angel explained Mary’s conception to Joseph, he declared, “And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins.”(Matthew 1:21). Jesus either can forgive me, as He forgave people from the Hebrew Scriptures, and as He forgave people when He walked on the earth, by His grace and mercy, or not.
No man has the power to condemn another person, for there is only One who knows the deepest of our hearts. There are people walking around who have been baptized who put on all kinds of fake masks pretending to be a follower of Christ, when they’re really in darkness not letting anyone else see. All the hidden things of darkness will be brought to light when the Lord comes.
1 Corinthians 4:5 “Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes, who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness and reveal the counsels of the hearts. Then each one’s praise will come from God.”
I don’t believe God needs a person to prove to Him whether they are His or not. Does God not know His own…really?? God wants us to believe that He is the One and only True Living God who came in the flesh and died to save us from our sins, that His worth and work, shedding His holy blood on the cross, is the only way we are saved, no other act is greater than that my friends! Praise God who did it all on the cross, “It is finished”(John 19:30), Paid in Full!!
Repentance seems to be the key. When we repent, we have a change of heart. We want to know Christ better. We want to be baptized. We want to know what he has taught. And we want to obey him. We want Jesus as our Lord.
We recognize that we have been saved from hell by God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ; and because of that grace, it becomes our pleasure to honor him in obedience. It's not a matter of trying to get everything right in order to save ourselves; it's a matter of trying to get everything right in order to bring glory to Christ. He deserves it for all that he went through to save me.
That's exactly right, Terry!
How much more will He do! I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that HE (not I, by getting everything right) is able to keep that which I've committed unto Him against that day!
I wonder how many people who teach the 5 step plan even know what the steps really mean, or should mean? Clyde mentioned one of them, (repent) as showing the Lordship of Jesus. How odd. Do we require, or expect, a lost person to demonstrate the Lordship of Jesus in his life? How can a person who is dead in trespasses and sins, a slave to sin, and God's enemy forsake his sins? By sheer determination?
How about the step "believe". Believe what, a set of facts? Does God require that we give mental assent to facts or does he require a dependent trust in a person (Jesus)?
The reason so many people we baptize never live godly, loving, lives is that they are not saved. They did the 5 steps according to our demands but they were not made alive by God. They go on their sinful way and we teach that they lost their salvation.
Maybe many of us would do well to listen more thoughtfully to Jay's teaching. We are not saved by doing but by what is done. As Edward Fudge says, "The gospel is not good "views", or good "do's" but good "news".
Royce
Royce, "dead in trespasses and sins" (Eph. 2.1) does not mean literally dead and incapable of movement or action as the Calvinists think. It means on death row, as also in Romans 8:10 where Paul says "your body is dead because of sin but your spirit is alive because of righteousness." Is your body literally dead Royce? Not yet. But sin has put it on death row, right? Not getting familiar enough with biblical idiom very often causes bad (very bad) theology.
Nick, don't the Salvation Army eschew baptism? Ironic as they "do" more in the world (than most other denominations) of the kind of work Jesus taught us to do – caring for the poor, widows and orphans etc…
Nick:
Good morning 🙂 I see that you are arguing against what you think I'm saying. You ask:
Name a denomination that rejects baptism. Let’s not get into forms yet. Let’s just try to find one that rejects baptism outright.
It appears as if you think I believe that only members of the church of Christ are saved. I do not believe that. But, here is what I believe. WHOEVER believes and is baptized will be saved. I do not, in fact cannot, determine who "whoever" includes. I am not suggesting that if one believes now and is baptized later, he is not saved, nor am I suggesting that style of worship invalidates sonship or that others do not teach and practice baptism
My point is as I mentioned earlier. Because we have exalted the plan over the Man, it does not mean that the plan is evil.
Royce, hi ? Repent is not a step (well, not really. It is not a step that one leaves behind to take another step). To repent is to take a u-turn, i.e., “turn to God.” The turn does not require determination; it requires conviction (Acts 2:36)
The new direction is fraught with trials, temptations, sin, and failings, but it is paved by grace that enables growth. In all of our trails, temptations, sin and failing, the fruit of my Lordship of Christ is obedience that is borne out of perseverance, patience and much prayer.
So, yes, repentance shows forth the Lordship of Christ in the life of an individual.
Hey Wendy! Yes and no…
The Salvation Army does not practice water baptism, according to their own publication.
However, that is because they understand the one baptism of Eph 4 to be baptism by the Holy Spirit. So no, I would argue that they do not reject, but misunderstand baptism in much the same way that many water-immersed for-remission-of-sins believers misunderstand the role of the Holy Spirit in baptism and Christian life.
Good morning, Clyde!
The plan is not evil, and whoever believes and is baptized shall be saved. On these matters we agree.
But you seem to take the words of Jesus to (what seems to me) an unwarranted conclusion. You seem to hear him saying, "He who believes and is baptized SHALL be saved… therefore he who believes and is not baptized shall not be saved."
We both know that's not what he says… and in fact that conclusion makes what he does say frustratingly redundant. Who does Jesus say will be condemned in that passage?
Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Nick, would you rather he said, but he that believes not, and is baptized, is wasting his time.
I don't see where he said he who believes, is definitely saved.
I do see where he said why do you call me Lord, and ignore what I say
But you seem to take the words of Jesus to (what seems to me) an unwarranted conclusion. You seem to hear him saying, “He who believes and is baptized SHALL be saved… therefore he who believes and is not baptized shall not be saved.”
Nick, my conclusion would be different. I hear Jesus saying, “He who believes and is baptized SHALL be saved. The one who does not believe what I say, will reject what I say and he will be condemned.
One of the most frustrating things for me as a college student was to get lost in the theory, but I always found comfort when an example of the theory was given. The example was reality of the theory. Acts 8 is an example of someone doing what Jesus said that he must do. The example ended with these words:
Acts 8:38 (NIV) “…then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.”
What I KNOW with certainty is what God has said. I can make assumptions about what He has not said. I may be correct, I may not be. What we both agree on is whoever believes and baptized will be saved. Our assumptions regarding those who have not MAY be right, but that’s all that we can say.
In order for God to be God, He MUST be true to His word.
The way Mark 16:16 is interpreted by Evangelicals and (as it seems) Progressives is similar to the distinction between the man and the plan.
Mark 16:16 speaks of daith and an outward step to follow. This step can be rightfully called a part pf the plan.
There are other parts as well:
Separation from the world (Acts 2:40) or becoming part of the church (Acts 2:41) and submitting to the Apostles teaching, to fellowshipping, breaking the bread and praying together (Acts 2:42).
All of this is part of a plan, namely, certain steps that must be taken in order to come to the goal of our faith, to be saved in the end (!).
All of this is and must be Christ-centered, but we cannot say that there is no plan for Christ-centeredness.
Those who divide the plan from the man give me the impression, that the "initial salvation" (by faith) is all there is to salvation, but the scripture is clear that faith must be completed by works (Jas 2:22).
So Mark 16:16 is consistent, in stating that faith must be followed by a first step of faith, namely baptism. Otherwise it is a dead faith. And other necessary steps will follow – summed up under obedience (Mat 28:20).
How foolish is it therefore to say: "Mark 16:16 does not say who is not baptized will be lost even though he believes." This is not even remotely thought of by the author, but faith and baptism are tied together in an way man must not separate. So we must not call this separation OK (as it is in the Salvation Army, or any pedo-baptist church) – because it not OK. This is a man-made reduction of God's Plan. It is sinful and a danger to many souls!
The Man has a plan, and there is no fork in the road, but there are some who leave the road and depart into the desert ….
Alexander
As to whether an initial justification by faith is all there is to justification, why not see the words of Jesus himself in the parable of the net.
Matthew 13:47-50 ESV:
“Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was thrown into the sea and gathered fish of every kind. When it was full, men drew it ashore and sat down and sorted the good into containers but threw away the bad. So it will be at the close of the age. The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
Initial justification is being caught in the net. But being caught in the net does not ensure final justification, for of all those initially justified, a separation is made in the end of which are good and which are bad, and the bad are tossed.
So then, the gospel really does teach that the good go to heaven and the bad don't. You can't throw out the moral aspect and say that its just we can't be good so instead God said "just believe"–not according to Jesus, and it is Jesus who is the Son of God, not Paul.
Anyone who maintains that Jesus taught faith-onlyism in face of this must surely be counted as a Judas (even if it is Paul himself). Paul himself says "it does not matter to me what they seem to be, for God accepts no man's face." So it is. Whether it be Luther or Calvin, or Paul himself, we must reject the doctrine of final justification by faith alone wherever it is taught.
Here are some of his words, to which – as you correctly assert – He must be true.
(Mark 9:23) “‘If you can’?” said Jesus. “Everything is possible for him who believes.”
(John 1:12-13) Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.
(John 3:14-18) Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life. “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.”
(John 3:36) “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.”
(John 5:24) “I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.”
(John 6:29) Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
(John 6:35) Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.”
(John 6:40) “For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”
(John 6:47) “I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life.”
(John 7:38-39) “Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him.” By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.
(John 11:25-26) Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?”
(John 12:46) “I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness.”
(John 20:31) But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
(Acts 10:43) “All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.”
(Acts 13:38-39) “Therefore, my brothers, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses.”
(Acts 16:31) They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”
(Rom. 1:16-17) I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”
(Rom. 3:22-24) This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
(Rom. 3:25-28) God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.
(Rom. 4:4-5) Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.
(Rom. 5:1-2) Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God.
(Rom. 10:4) Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.
(Rom. 10:9-13) That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, “Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame.” For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
(1 Cor. 1:21) 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.
(Gal. 2:15-16) “We who are Jews by birth and not ‘Gentile sinners’ know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.”
(Gal. 3:2) I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard?
(Gal. 3:22) But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.
(Gal. 5:6) For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.
(Eph. 1:13-14) And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.
(Eph. 2:8-10) For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
(2 Thess. 2:13) But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth.
(1 Tim. 1:16) But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his unlimited patience as an example for those who would believe on him and receive eternal life.
(Heb. 10:39) But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who believe and are saved.
(1 John 3:23-24) And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. Those who obey his commands live in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us.
(1 John 4:2-3) This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.
(1 John 5:1) Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well.
(1 John 5:3-5) This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome, for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith. Who is it that overcomes the world? Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God.
(1 John 5:13) I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.
Conveniently all from 'John' and Paul.
Really?
Does your Greek copy of the Fourth Gospel have quotation marks proving that the words in John 3 don't come from Jesus?
Did 'John' just make up the words I quoted above, from John 5, 6, 11, 12 and 20?
How about Luke's quoting of Peter's sermon in Acts 10? Are they antichrist also, as you accuse the apostle Paul of being?
How about Mark 1:15? Is that inspired enough for you?
How about Luke 8:12?
I'm sorry you reject the teaching of Paul – there are others here that also reject the inspiration of his writing and teaching. May you, like the heretics in Galatia, repent and believe the words of the prophets of God.
Mark 1:15 says "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel." It says repent. That doesn't sound like faith-onlyism.
I only mean that faith onlyists must conveniently avoid the synoptics and rely heavily on John and Paul.
So Luke 8:12 says the devil doesn't want people to believe because he doesn't want them to be saved. Did anyone say that you don't have to believe Jesus' message to be saved? No. The question is whether belief alone is sufficient or if the message is such that it must be obeyed or it is proven that you didn't believe.
This is where your aversion to the synoptics comes into play. Let's look at Matthew 7:24-25 ESV:
“Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock."
What I ask is the rock here? Is it Jesus' death? No. Is it Jesus himself? Actually, contextually, no. Its his word.
He who hears Jesus words and does them has built his house on the rock–the rock is Jesus' words. If then the faith that we need is not simply to have faith in a fact, nor in a person's existence, but in his words, a faith which requires obedience to those words, then we are certainly not dealing with a situation where faith alone is even a remote possibility.
He continues. Matthew 7:26-27 ESV:
"And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.”
So then, although you supposedly may put your faith in Jesus' person or his face or his death or in some sets of facts about him–yet if you do not do his words, your life will be utter ruin in the end. It is faith in his words and in doing his words–this is the rock, this is the faith that will save. Faith in his existence or any fact or facts about him or just devotion to his person will not do.
"May you, like the heretics in Galatia, repent and believe the words of the prophets of God."
They believed in Peter, James, and John. That's what had Paul so riled up.
My comment from last night at 8:11 responds to the points you've tried to argue, NPA. You may construct a straw-man entitled "faith-onlyism" and attack it, but you will find very few people (certainly not the owner of this blog) who hold to the principle you're attacking.
This post and this post, as well as many posts in this collection, prove without a doubt that Jay neither believes nor promotes such a position as you're attacking.
Those that would attack Jay's understanding of the traditional Churches of Christ "plan of salvation" language (again, an odd phrase for a people enamored of calling themselves the people who 'call Bible things by Bible names') would also do well to look at the "Plan" posts in that collection.
And he said to them, "O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!
(Luk 24:25 ESV)
Perhaps you have Corinth and Galatia mixed up, but either way, rejecting the words of God's prophets has never been a wise way to live.
Did ‘John’ just make up the words I quoted above, from John 5, 6, 11, 12 and 20?
Nick, be careful with those challenge questions 😉
I accept that the passages quoted are the Word of God. Are you suggesting, however, that those who came to believe were offered optional responses to hearing the gospel?
Some may be baptized some may not?
Some may repent, some may not?
Those passages must be understood in light of the context. For example; you quoted from Romans.
To the Romans Paul wrote, “… or don’t you know that all of you who have been baptized in Christ Jesus…” Romans 6
As for Acts, Luke begins with giving an account of what was told to those who ask, “what shall we do?”
Galatians, “for all of you who have been baptized into Christ…”
Jesus told His Disciples to make disciples, and He told them how the disciples were to be made. Many of the passages reference were addressed to disciples. Those disciples were frequently referred to as “believers” or those who “believed.”
"This post and this post, as well as many posts in this collection, prove without a doubt that Jay neither believes nor promotes such a position as you’re attacking."
I thought I was talking to you, not Jay.
"Perhaps you have Corinth and Galatia mixed up, but either way, rejecting the words of God’s prophets has never been a wise way to live."
I don't know what prophets you are talking about apparently, because I thought you meant Paul and now you're making it sound like you meant Old Testament prophets. Perhaps you are equating Paul's human interpretation of the Old Testament with the Old Testament prophets themselves?
I haven't confused Galatia with Corinth. The epistle to the Galatians is all about how the Galatians have rejected Paul in order to follow Peter, James, and John. This makes Paul mad, and he retaliates and calls Peter, James, and John a bunch of nobodies who only seem to be pillars and tops his attack on these other apostles off with “it does not matter to me what they seem to be, for God accepts no man’s face.” Then he accuses both Peter and Barnabas of being hypocrites.
In Corinth there is a similar situation where some brethren reject Paul to follow Peter and some others reject Paul to follow Apollos. And although Paul pretends he disagress with such factionizing, by the time we get to chapter 4 of first Corinthians, he is saying things like "although you may have 10 thousand instructors, you have only one father, ME PAUL" and "follow ME" and "I will send Timothy to remind you of MY ways" and if you accept my ways I will come to you in love, but if you reject them I will come "with a rod."
Paul clearly has issues getting along with the other apostles, and this leads eventually, after the failure of Galatians to recover his credibility in Asia (after his attack on Peter, James, and John and his misrepresentation of their position in that epistles does the opposite), after all that I say, it leads finally to his total and utter reject by ALL ASIA as he writes to Timothy at the close of his life "ALL ASIA HAS REJECTED ME." John the Revelator even writes to Ephesus (in Asia) saying "YOU HAVE TRIED THOSE WHO CLAIMED TO BE APOSTLES AND FOUND THEM TO BE LIARS."
Paul's lack of credibility among his own converts in his time is a major issue. In 1st Corinthians Paul is even accused of taking along a woman he isn't married to a traveling companion and it is used as a grounds to deny him monetary support, to which he angrily replies "do I not have the right to lead about a woman, a sister, as Peter does?" Well, Paul, since Peter is leading about his WIFE and you just some random woman, it kinda looks bad. The brethren have an issue with it. They don't want to support your ministry anymore. He argues as if he is above reproach and he has all the faith onlyists and hypocrites convinced, but the actual Christians in his time were wary of him as real Christians are today.
"Did ‘John’ just make up the words I quoted above, from John 5, 6, 11, 12 and 20?"
I put John in quotes as 'John' because the author of the gospel is not the son of Zebedee but a John the elder from a later time. His disagreement with the overall tone and doctrinal thrust of the synoptics certainly does make him questionable when he conflicts with them.
"How about Luke’s quoting of Peter’s sermon in Acts 10?"
You mean this? Acts 10:34-35 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him."
That doesn't support your faith-onlyism either. (Yours not Jay's. You said Jay doesn't believe in it, but you never said you didn't, and it certainly looks like you do.)
BTW, none of my comments are related to baptism, but to what Peter mentions there in Acts 10, morality. "But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.” What I am opposing to falth-onlyism is not ceremonialism — its morality, the teachings of Jesus, the words or sayings of which Jesus says "if a man hears my words and does them, I liken him to a man that built his house on a rock."
People see what they're looking for.
I'm unconcerned with whether you stuff me inside your straw man before you set it afire. Jay is doing important work here, so his reputation matters to me. My own? The people here who know me, know me. I have no interest in defending myself from your accusations.
But, for the record, no: I meant these words of Peter's:
(Acts 10:43) “All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.”
Paul's gospel (the gospel he preached) was received by direct revelation from Jesus.
Read Romans 4 and reject it if you will, but you will be rejecting God's truth when you do.
Royce
NPA, I was about to believe I was the only one who could see all the controversial things Paul said, and the enormous amount of time he spent defending his claim to be an apostle of God, while condemning those who walked with Jesus. I believe we need to spend a lot more time knowing the messenger, as well as the message. I have brought up the issues raised by what was said about rejecting the false prophet, people almost fainted, that was not speaking of Paul, they shouted. everything you have said here shows just how controversial Paul was in his day, and why he was rejected by many. But the people of today follow Paul when it becomes a choice between Jesus and him. Most if not all controversies in churches today arise because of something Paul said runs counter to what Jesus or one of his apostles have said. well at least I am not alone, defending Jesus Christ and his true apostles, Nick has many times called me a "Red Letter" christian, and I am proud to wear that name.
All,
This is not an appropriate place to debate anyone's accusations against Paul or to seek to remove the Pauline corpus from the canon.
I'm deleting all comments that argue against the apostleship of Paul. I'll do a more thorough job when I have more time.
This blog is not a place to challenge the inspiration or truth of the scriptures. Rather, this is a place to delve more deeply into what the scriptures teach — testing ourselves against the scriptures — NOT testing the scriptures against ourselves.
I'm always saddened by these discussions.
We have these arguments because they are easy and quantifiable. They are Greek in structure.
Jesus wasn't Greek.
As soon as we live in harmony with the earth, care for the poor, have solved the orphan problem, stopped our gluttony, given away our wealth, emptied our savings accounts and 401k's – all to the glory of God, then maybe this conversation could have some meaning.
Until then, in spite of our differences, let us walk together pouring our lives out in service or the one true God and his son, our lord and savior, Jesus the Christ.
Is it OK if I call this "Soft-core-gnosticism"? Not in a offending way, to be sure, but I believe separating the plan from the man leads to "faith-knowedge" or a sort of Gnosticism.
Let me contrast this quote with an inspired statement on the goal of sound doctrine:
Love is the heart of all we do – not only believe; so it is about actions.
A Good conscience is part (or even goal) of our covenent with God through Christ (1Pe 3:21). We maintain our good consciece, by striving to live obediently and by confessing our wrongs in order to be cleansed from all unrighteousness (1Jo 1:9).
The unfeigned faith is faith that will stand in the face of God who sees our heart.
So the goal of sound doctrine is not to know Christ, but to follow Christ. To live a life reflecting Christ.
Another one:
I don't speak much about "faith", because that is indeed misleading in the light that "faith" and "knowing" Christ is often misunderstood as a primarily intellectual activity. I rather spak of discipleship and obedience. And of separation and good works.
These are clearly defined goals, that reflect a plan of salvation. It was God's plan to redeem a people that would be separated from the world and be zealous for good works.
The whole man vs plan debate sound like the old debate faith vs works. At least it as a footnote to the latter; and I think it is a wrong debate. You cannot and must not separate the Man from His plan. There is no fork in the road, and the road remains narrow.
Alexander
The matter of a minister of the One True God rejecting the word "faith" is a matter for another time.
But again, lest we say it till our heads pop off: no one is denying that there IS a plan. Even Moser didn't deny that God had a plan.
What Moser denied, what Jay is arguing against, what I am voicing my opinion against, is precisely the thesis of Brother Sanders' article: "What the Church Needs is Faith in God's Plan."
No – what Christians need – what the church needs – is Faith in Jesus Christ. True faith in Him will lead inexorably to obedience to the plan. Faith in the plan (which can be disconnected from the maker of the plan as easily today as Torah was disconnected from its maker in Jesus' day) leads, eventually, to a time when a person will stand before the Father and say, "Lord, Lord, look at all the things I did according to your plan!" (Matt 7:22-23)
Amen Nick
Would it be clearer, Alexander, if we just quoted Romans 1:5?
What the church needs is to strive to obey God's plan (the gospel) because of its faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Trust & Obey.
Trust the One you obey.
NOT Trust What You Obey.
Been watching this for several days.
After all the debate, I think the following statement from Nick, encapsulates the whole issue:
"Trust & Obey.
Trust the One you obey.
NOT Trust What You Obey."
Kudos Nick!
This blog is not a place to challenge the inspiration or truth of the scriptures. Rather, this is a place to delve more deeply into what the scriptures teach — testing ourselves against the scriptures — NOT testing the scriptures against ourselves.
Amen Jay!
I'll have to say the Paul thing was quite a diversion.
"The goal of sound doctrine is not only understanding Jesus’ teachings, but getting to know who Jesus was and is as a person."
This statement, for me, sums it up perfectly.
I spent 37 years of my life not KNOWING Jesus. Sure, I knew what He said. I knew what He did. But I did not KNOW Him.
It may not be this way for anyone else, but it certainly is for me – when I spend time getting to know Jesus by reading about His life, I invariably am closer to Him and find it much easier to therefore follow His commands.
When I am not spending time with Him, guess what? I find it considerably more difficult to follow His commands. I love how Paul described it in Philippians 3:7-11. He lived to know Christ. I cannot say it any better than he did there.
It seems to me (and perhaps I misunderstand) that some of the "conservative" brethren hear or read some of the things that the "progressive" brethren say regarding this subject and immediately become protective of the plan. There seems to sometimes be a kneejerk reaction that the "progressives" claim it doesn't matter what we do so long as we have faith in Jesus. Oddly, though I have heard that accusation made many times in my days around "conservatives", I have yet to find that accusation to be true. I don't know if both sides simply don't understand each other and get into a battle of semantics or what. It does get frustrating to read the comments sections sometimes.
Incidentally, I don't like the labels of "progressive" or "conservative." I prefer the label of "Christian" and wish we could leave it at that.
But back to the point…when it comes to Christ and the "plan" as we will call it, I find it awfully hard to separate the two.
I agree with Jay and Nick in that, at least in my experiences, there has been much more emphasis on the plan than there has been on the man. And that is unfortunate because when I have finally started to attempt to KNOW Jesus, I have been absolutely amazed at what I see. And I then feel much more compelled to be LIKE him (though I fail miserably in that regard). Perhaps that is my shortcoming for taking 37 years to get to that point. But I also know where the emphasis was in those 37 years of attending various congregations.
Anyway, I contend that for the person who truly knows Jesus Christ, there will be no question as to whether or not His teachings are important or are to be followed. We do it because of what He did for us. There is no other way.
"The goal of sound doctrine is not only understanding Jesus’ teachings, but getting to know who Jesus was and is as a person."
This highlights my objection to Paul. He could care less who Jesus is or was. He never quotes him, never refers to his doctrine, only to a mythical superstructure he has built around the name 'Jesus' and to his own mythical Christ that is nothing more than a prop for him to teach faith-onlyism in direct opposition to the real Jesus.
"I agree with Jay and Nick in that, at least in my experiences, there has been much more emphasis on the plan than there has been on the man. "
I agree as well, and the reason for that is Paul's rejection of the man.
NPA,
I've made my position clear regarding comments questioning the apostleship of Paul or the inspiration of his writers: This is not the place. If you can't abide this rule, I will place you on moderation.
Discussions here will proceed on the basis that we are to be judged and tested by the scriptures — not the other way around.
Nick, you used the following to make a point, and got a big amen from Royce. can either of you explain just what Jesus said here.?
Matthew 7:22–23 (ESV)
22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’
(can you please explain, what law Jesus was speaking of, that was being broken)
Mat 7:21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
(am I way off base when I say Jesus rebuked these people for saying they "followed the man, but not the plan"
Laymond,
Why do you feel the need to break that one passage into two separate parts in order to make your point? Could it be because it is clear that Jesus is talking about the same people in v22-23 as he is in the first part of v21?
Why are you still acting as if anyone in this discussion is promoting rejection of God's plan? Even if Jesus was rebuking those people for saying they "followed the man, but not the plan" (which he isn't, as the text itself makes plain), such a rebuke would not bear upon the discussion of where our faith should be placed – in Jesus (Jay's assertion), or in the works we do to please Him ("Faith in God's Plan").
In Matthew 7:21-23, Jesus says that there will be a time when those who believe that their mighty works have reserved a place for them in heaven will receive quite the shocking message. What "law" would they treating as if it didn't exist (anomion) in order to receive the rebuke? What, contextually, is "the will of my Father in the heavens?"
What is the consistent theme of the Sermon? Selfless living, dedicated to and trusting God for everything we need. In the wider context of Matthew, who does Jesus say he will "know" on "that Day?"
cross-reference that last line with the judgment scene in Matthew 25, and you will begin to get a picture of the difference between the self-glorifying, self-justifying "workers of lawlessness" that Jesus will not acknowledge and the selfless, Jesus-proclaiming disciples who "will by no means lose their reward."
…lol…Great post Jay, appreciate you!
Nick asked the question, "Why do you feel the need to break that one passage into two separate parts in order to make your point?"
Then he goes skipping around like a school girl with a jump rope, he even jumped right out of the chapter.
Sticking within the same chapter, I might ask Nick,
Mat 7:3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?
Mat 7:4 Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye?
Another question that seems to bother Nick, why do we see it as one or the other.
It could be because of the title of the post. " The man
(or) the plan". Seems the title restricts us to one of two choices, not either or both.
Laymond, I apologize. Your wisdom and experience exceed my own. I only sought to discover the purpose behind your reversal of the two statements, and to answer your question as completely as possible.
If this were the only word Jesus had spoken on lawlessness and who he will acknowledge at the judgment, I would have kept my remarks to this passage alone.
How would you answer the question about Matthew 7:21-23 without leaving Matthew 7:21-23?
Laymond,
Philippians 2:9-11
9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.
At the judgment, every living being will understand and acknowledge that Christ truly is Lord, yet many will not enter heaven.
The difference will be between those who had faith in Christ and those who did not. Genuine faith may produce confession, repentance and baptism, but faith is in Christ, not in self-righteous ability to accurately discern and complete the appropriate entrance rituals.
"Discussions here will proceed on the basis that we are to be judged and tested by the scriptures — not the other way around."
Go on then, Jay, and Live in your heathen fantasy land where questioning Paul's false doctrines on the basis of Jesus teachings is categorized as testing the Scriptures by yourself. But the fact is that when Paul is tested by the criterion of what Jesus himself taught, he fails. When Paul is even tested on the basis of seeing if his Old Testament quotations and usages line up with the places he is quoting or using in the Old Testament, there he fails too. This is not testing Scripture by oneself but by Scripture. But the faith-onlyist, the hedonist, and the hypocrite, and most especially, the ambulance-chaser, will never have sound reason.