We’re working our way through Leroy Garrett’s book: What Must the Church of Christ Do to Be Saved?
Now, by “saved” Garrett doesn’t mean that he questions the salvation of the individual members of the Churches of Christ. Rather, he is concerned to save the Churches of Christ as a “viable witness to the Christian faith. What must it do to escape extinction in the decades ahead …?”
Chapter 15 is entitled “Discover the good in the good news.”
We have been critical of big-time evangelists like Billy Graham for “not preaching the gospel” since he does not preach baptism. We fail to apply this same rule to the apostle Paul who insisted that “Christ sent me not to baptize but to preach the gospel.” If this means anything it means that there is a distinction between preaching the gospel and preaching baptism. Did any New Testament evangelist ever “preach” baptism? They preached “the gospel of the grace of God” and they preached” Jesus Christ and him crucified,” but did they ever proclaim any ordinance? Was it not always a person, the Person of Jesus Christ, that they proclaimed?
Would it not follow then that anyone who proclaims Jesus as the risen Christ and the Savior of the world is preaching the good news of the gospel, all of the gospel? Granted, the likes of Billy Graham may err in not properly instructing people how to respond to the good news by repenting of their sins and being baptized for the remission of their sins like Peter did on the day of Pentecost. But if one preaches Jesus Christ as the Savior of the world he is preaching the gospel, apart from what he might or might not say about baptism. (pp. 175-176).
I think the scriptures plainly do not include baptism in “gospel.” That doesn’t mean that our views on baptism are necessarily false, but that it’s wrong to preach seven sermons on baptism and call it a “gospel meeting.” It also means that a “gospel preacher” should preach mainly about Jesus, not baptism.
Garrett shows that our emphasis on preaching the actual gospel has declined over the years —
Bill Love, former minister to the Bering Drive Church of Christ in Houston, in a book titled The Core Gospel
, has studied the content of preaching in the Restoration Movement during its first four generations, from the early 1800’s to the 1950’s. His aim was to determine to what extent Restoration preachers preached the core gospel (the Cross) in comparison to New Testament preachers. His findings are disturbing, for while the NT preachers referred to the Cross in all the 33 sermons in the NT (100% of the time), Restoration preachers in the hundreds of sermons that Bill studied referred to the Cross only 25% of the time.
Love’s study reveals that there was a continual decline in the preaching of the Cross from the generation of Stone and Campbell (56% of their sermons pointed to the Cross) to the generation of G. C. Brewer and Foy Wallace (23% of the time). In the first two generations, before the Church of Christ was a separate church, preachers referred to the cross an average of 52% of the time, while in the two generations of Church of Christ history our preachers averaged only 25%. (pp. 179-180).
The solution, of course, is to re-center our teaching on Jesus and the good news he announced.
We can look at the world and say every one is lost except those that the Bible says will be saved, or we can look at the world and say every one is saved except those that the Bible says will be lost. Which is good news: You are lost, therefore repent; or You are saved, won’t you accept it?
Jesus is the Savior of the world, not the potential Savior. He has not died for all men if . . . He has died for all men (period!) Christ died for you; you are saved by his grace, no strings attached. Only accept it. That is the good news of the gospel. Everyone is saved! The only exceptions are those the Bible clearly states will be lost — those who persistently and finally refuse to accept the free gift. The Bible condemns only those who refuse and continue to refuse to believe and obey Christ. (pp. 184-185).
Garrett is not teaching universalism. He is saying that the emphasis of our preaching must be on Jesus’ salvation, not the fact that man deserves damnation. Of course, it’s true that we deserve damnation, but the New Testament emphasis is on the salvation that is found in Jesus.
Now, at this point I have to note a disagreement I have with Garrett. He teaches what is known as the doctrine of “available light,” that is, that only those who reject the gospel are damned. He defends that view very ably, and his views are shared by many good men whom I respect. But I disagree — respectfully — as shown in the Available Light series where Al Maxey and I discuss and disagree on the doctrine.
Jay said, “It also means that a “gospel preacher” should preach mainly about Jesus, not baptism.”
Jay, how about preaching the message Jesus preached?
Exactly what is it that we don’t understand about Jesus that needs to be drummed into our head over, and over again.
That he was sent by God to deliver a message, of good news, the gospel. If we take the story of Jesus seriously, shouldn’t we preach that same “gospel” I believe that is what he told the apostles to do.
Leroy said, “Would it not follow then that anyone who proclaims Jesus as the risen Christ and the Savior of the world is preaching the good news of the gospel, all of the gospel?”
One thing about it that would surely shorten some long boering sermons.
Jay…did you respond to Al’s response on the “Available Light” discourse ?? Pretty strong argument for being judged on one’s response to truth…else a man is condemned based on the effort, or rather, lack thereof, of another…
The most disturbing thing I found when I started visiting CoC churches was the almost total absence of preaching that talked about Christ. In fact often there were sermons that once the text was read, scripture was never referred to again. I am pleased that I found a Christ Centered Church, but of the 4 churches we visited it was on the only one that consistently talked about Christ and what he did for us.
I know I’ve mentioned this book before, but in Evangelism after Christendom by Bryan Stone, he makes a very long and detailed argument about the kerygma of Christ as compared and contrasted to the kerygma of the apostles. I won’t present his argument here, but the conclusion is that by preaching the person Christ, you are in fact preaching what Christ preached – the kerygma of the apostles, who preached Christ, and the kerygma of Christ, who preached the new life in the Kingdom, are one and the same.
Seems I’ve heard this before. I think I heard me saying it before.
The good news is telling about Jesus Christ and what he accomplished for ungodly sinners like me and you by his living, dying, and rising again.
I agree, a person who claims to be a “gospel preacher” and never gets around to preaching the gospel is not a “gospel preacher”. Sadly, many preachers don’t know what the gospel is.
I cease to be amazed how the Holy Spirit is alive and well in churches that preach a different understanding of baptism. And I’ve been in several different ones lately.
Now, what is it that is good about the Gospel? “Grace people” focus on (of course) grace and forgiveness, which is certzainly good. But Christ never even once used the term Grace in the Gospel. Did he preach good news then? Yes, he did: The good news of God’s Kingdom!
I missed the Kingdom in the post, Jay. You can’t talk about the Gospel without the Kingdom as well as you can’t talk about it leaving out the cross.
Alexander
I would note that one contributing factor in this decline of preaching about the cross and the essential work of Christ is the fact that more recent CoC preachers spend most of their time preaching to the choir… so to speak. That is, their audience is made up almost exclusively of people who have already been saved, and a few of their unbaptized offspring. So, more sermon emphasis may be going to themes of Christian living and conduct than was previously the case.
Okay, preachers, that’s all the defense I have for you in the face of this data. Sorry.
The other contributing factor is that, because of a generalized doctrine of “get it right or go to hell”, much time is spent reminding one another that this body of believers does indeed “have it right”, reiterating again and again the basic doctrinal distinctives which make the CoC the essential “New Testament Church”. One of these distinctives has long been regenerative water baptism.
The main, and most troubling, distinction I see is that where Campbell, Stone, et al seemed to center their messages on Jesus, the modern Restorationist CoC sermon is most likely to revolve around the denomination and its members. Sadly, much preaching in these quarters has devolved into an entirely different “five steps”–
1. “We’re okay, because we do it right. Here are the details.”
2. “They are not okay, because they don’t do it right.”
3. “Don’t be like them.”
4. “Oh, and Jesus loves you.”
5. “Let us stand and sing.”
Sigh.
And at the risk of really barbequing a sacred cow here, much preaching has replaced the focus on Jesus with a focus on the Bible. It is as though the canon has been deified as a fourth person of the Godhead. The Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Bible…
…not necessarily in that order.
My experience about the use of scripture in sermons is different from Johnny’s. Sermons have often become little more than a stream of bullet points with scriptures in parentheses after each point. (Just poke around the Web for CoC preachers posting their sermon outlines to see this phenomenon.) Biblical revelation of overaching spiritual truths have given way to strings of proof texts for every jot and tittle. When a preacher opens his sermon saying that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and feels the need to then provide a supporting BCV for that point, something has been lost, both in communication and in content.
In too many cases, we have wandered from digesting real spiritual food to a perverse pride in simply being able to recite the menu.
Not sure this quote more appropriately applies to this post or to the one on missions work…perhaps both…
“Preach the Gospel at all times…when necessary, use words.” St. Francis of Assisi…
Price,
The entire discussion is at /index-under-construction/theology-general/available-light/
I addressed his argument from Rom 2 in the earliest posts, as well in the later in “Romans: God Is Not Fair” series.
Abasnar/Alexander wrote,
Agreed. Garrett does not articulate a full-fledged Kingdom theology in his book, but then he is responding to particular errors and not writing a systematic theology.
I don’t know Garret. But considering all of what you quoted from him I wonder whether he really has an understanding ofthe Kingdom. If he had, he’d write with a very different perspective (as in the Hauerwas-posts).
I do agre that the churches of Christ need to change in a number of areas, but i think he is approaching it from a wrong angle. I cannot identify with his perspectives – but I am not the one who counts …
Alexander
“We have been critical of big-time evangelists like Billy Graham for “not preaching the gospel” since he does not preach baptism.”
Mr. Graham has stated: “I believe baptism is important, and I have been baptized. But I think we violate the Scriptures when we make baptism the prime requirement for salvation … Paul’s central theme was Christ and His saving power. Although he spoke of baptism, he said: ‘I thank God that I baptized none of you … lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name’ (1 Corinthians 1:14-15).”
“Baptism is a conclusive act of obedience and witness to the world that we are Christ’s. I believe in it wholeheartedly. In our crusades we don’t baptize because we feel that this should be done by the local pastors—and that if I baptized, some people would say they had been baptized by me, and that would be putting the emphasis on the wrong person. To one who has received Christ, baptism is a necessary and meaningful experience. But, I must say with Paul: ‘Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel’ (1 Corinthians 1:17).”
“You may know that we urge immediate and extensive Bible study for each convert. As the Scripture is reviewed, the place of baptism will surely be discovered. If baptism were a requirement for salvation, we would certainly say that. But you couldn’t support that knowing, for example, that the thief on the cross had no opportunity for baptism or church membership. Yet on his confession, paradise was secured. Jesus said to him, ‘Today shalt thou be with me in paradise’ (Luke 23:43).”
http://www.billygraham.org/articlepage.asp?articleid=1980
“Baptism is a conclusive act of obedience”
How very wrong Mr. Graham is, baptism is the first visiable “ACT” of obedience.
According to Billy, and Royce and many others, the curtian has come down on acts of obedience when we are raised from the watery grave. but not according to Jesus Christ. The obedient Christian life is just beginning.
I believe the fault in either Paul or Billy baptizing, does not lay within the “baptized”
but the one baptizing. either self aggrandizement or the failure to explain baptism fully.
Laymond,
The thief was still under the old law since Jesus hadn’t died yet so baptism wasn’t required YET!
.
Once Jesus had died, the thief would of been wasting his breath as he couldn’t under the new law of been saved like that.
What a difference a few minutes could make.
No wonder a caravan of cars with the one to be baptized drive slowly to the water whenever someone comes forward at a church building with no baptistery.
One thought though.
Where does it say the man hanging beside Jesus had never been baptized?
Just because he was a thief sure doesn’t mean he wasn’t an erring child of God, a member of His Church baptized and all. If so, all is well as he only had to ask for forgive as an erring brother just as we can do today.
Alabama John,
Are you sure you believe that for hundreds of years people were saved one way and a few days later (after Jesus death and resurrection) a degree of difficulty was added that did not exist before? Did God make it harder to be saved?
Laymond, Your statement is symptomatic of the way you argue and reason. You put words in someone’s mouth they never said or hinted at. You said.
“According to Billy, and Royce and many others, the curtian has come down on acts of obedience when we are raised from the watery grave.”
What an absurd distortion of the truth!
Royce, No!
There have been many I have seen die that studied, repented, confessed, prayed, and did all they could to be obedient but because they were prevented from and not baptized were considered by many to be lost.
Same with the caravan with by the way, the one to be baptized riding in the car in the middle with all caution being taken, thinking if there is a wreck, this person if he(she) died would be lost.
The thief on the cross is always brought up but just as a side note, we do not know his history, baptized by John or not.
Ever how it was, I believe our merciful God would of saved him as He stated, whether he did the commonly quoted other 4 requirements and was baptized (Number 5) or not.
I do not like speaking for God and telling it like it is as if God has put you in charge and now retired like many believe the Holy Spirit did when the Bible was written.
I believe the Thief and so many others that stated “I want to stroll over Heaven with you” to Jesus, are strolling over heaven with Him now.
We do know the thief died after Jesus did and was not baptized in his name yet was saved. And according to Acts, the baptism of John was not sufficient. So that point is irrelevant.
I see the theif on the cross being discussed again as being positivly saved. I would like for someone to show me through the scriptures that he was saved. Here is the problem that I have found 2 of the writers of the Gosples state that both theivs were railing upon Jesus, 1 writer has given us a statement that was stated by one of the theivs that has been catagoryized as accepting Jesus and supposing he became a believer with faith in Jesus, necessary commitments for Christ to offer him salvation. But, it seems to me that the conversation between Jesus and the theif, is very different than any conversation that Christ ever had with anyone that he forgave sins to. Notice, the “today” why would Jesus tie a future state of the theif to a “today” time frame? What about tomarrow, would he be with Jesus tomarrow? Where was Jesus today and where did he go tomarrow? Read the scriptures closely and you will see. The word paradise is mentioned, since that word is only found 3 in all scripture, is it’s translation unquestionable, some words have different meanings in the context that they are used. The scriptures do not state that Christ that day went to a place that we have understood to be a heavenly paradise. They tell a story of Christ decending into the depths of the earth and preaching to the spirits in prison and actually bringing many back to life, so was the theif with him? The message of the other writers, the specification “today”, the fact that Christ’s normal message would have mentioned something about forgiven sins and knowing where Christ was, where he went that day, understanding that there could be a possibility that the message that Christ intended here is not the message that we have understood from our consept of the word used, has led me to beleive that many have used this to promote an avenue to salvation that was not described by any of the teachings of the apostles.
Baptism makes it harder to be saved? What was necessary before Christ came, then? Faith only – UNDER THE LAW? Not really, Royce.
Men had to be circumcised in order to become part of Israel and to benefit of the promise under tha Law. Which one is harder: Circumcision of the the fleah or ofthe heart? The latter is a work of God, far superior to the first which is just a shadow of the New Covenant Relationship. But this circumcision is tied to baptism:
I have the impression that many evangelists sort of reduce the Gospel by omitting baptism as the means to obtain the grace they so fervenbtly preach about! And this actually is counteracting all their evangelistic efforts! Showing people the Kingdom of God but not the door to enter it, is all but helpful … often enough it is misleading into a false assurance of salvation.
Even worse: Evenagelists typically disconnect the Gospel from the Kingdom, they only speak of Jesus, the Cross and forgiveness to be obtained simply by faith. So the Kingdom is being omitted and baptism as the way to enter into the Kingdom. Boy, how will such preachers stand before the King who instead of preaching the whole counsel of God, present only fragments of the Gospel?
Alexander
Those that were baptized by John were baptized looking forward for what was to come later.
Seeing and really believing that what you were baptized for is hanging next to you seems relevant to me.
Alexander,
That OT Law applied to the Jews only. Any of us men had rather be baptized than circumcised any day!
In this world at that time there were far more people alive scattered across it that were non Jews than Jews.
They didn’t have to follow Jewish law to be saved.
baptism is preached 90% more than grace. I might be wrong on that 90%, it may be higher..
Alexander, Is it your position then that Jesus didn’t save anyone during his earthly ministry? And may I ask, which came first to Abram, being declared righteous by God or circumcision? Circumcision routinely was done when the child was 8 days old, as was Paul’s. Are you saying Paul was saved by circumcision?
I suppose by your brand of theology no woman was saved. Circumcision never saved anyone. Don’t you understand that Nicodemus was circumcised? Yet he needed to be born again.
Larry, I will never understand why it is so offensive to many people that in the case of the thief on the cross, or the woman at the well, or the poor sinner on the street, God can save a sinner any time he chooses. God is God and not bound in any way by by Restoration tradition or theology.
Alabama John, John’s baptism was “unto repentance” but the act of baptism was not repentance. People who were baptized were doing so because they had repented and wanted to be identified with the people of God. I heard of one poor fellow who was immersed 5 times while he was a student at Magnolia Bible College and had been immersed once before he got there. Not what was his problem? Faith or baptism? I think perhaps he expected baptism to do something for him only Jesus could do.
Opps…”Now” what was his problem?
@ Alabama John
Maybe baptism is preached 90% more than Grace among Cocs, but not among Evangelicals (where I originally come from – and Billy Graham was quoted). That’s the background to my statement.
@ Royce
You misread me. Or I am a terrible communicator – or both.
What do you mean with “save”, Royce? He healed, he forgave sins out of His own authority … he served predominantly the Jews who, by circumcision (right this is required only from men) were part of God’s covenant-people.
After His resurrection (not before) he gave the great commision to preach the Gospel (of the Kingdom) among all nations and to baptize the disciples.
My point was:
a) Many leave out the Kingdom: This applies toe Evangelicals and COCs alike. A reason might be that we don’t understand Psalm 110, the most often quoted Psalm in the NT, or even the concept of a Kingdom. Nevertheless, by omuitting the Kingdom from our Gospel presentations we don’t preach the Gospel at all. Serious issue.
b) Many (mainly Evangelicals) leave out baptism as the answer to the Gospel and the way to obtain the Grace that is offered in the Gospel. I can#t imagine, that CoCs cann leave out Grace when talking about baptism for the remission of sins – i suspect that this is a misrepresentation; but maybe it is so, then it is wrong.
Leroy challenges us to …
But he leaves out the Kingdom and he belittles baptism (if you read the other posts). So, while I understand what he means – More about the Cross and Grace – I cannot follow Him, because he is also one of those who have little or no understanding of the Kingdom. So what Gospel can he preach? Not one that has God’s promise.
Alexander
Royce,
At least we know of 6 times he was without sin. LOL
For many years all I heard was what we are against. That teaching and preaching still continues to overshadow even til today.
What I want to hear now is what we are for.
It would help many to hear and study our history to see where so much of this division and choosing sides comes from..
Start with the history and strong positions and why of the Gospel Advocate, Firm Foundation and even the Bible Banner to understand what I am saying.
Larry is uncomfortable with the idea that the thief on the cross was saved. First of all, if he was not, then Jesus was both capricious and cruel. I don’t buy it. This is the worst sort of ill-natured hair-splitting.
As to why folks have problems with this, Royce, it is in part the parable of the servants. We don’t like the idea that anyone gets eternal life who did not have to work as hard as we did. The other is that some folks would rather see a person doomed to hell than to consider that their doctrine might not be airtight. I see the same dynamic regarding supernatural healing. A preacher of whom these people do not approve lays hands on a person and that person celebrates being healed. These critics do not rejoice in that healing. Rather, they are angered and disappointed, and even accuse the healed person of lying or being duped…much like the synagogue leaders did with that blind man whom Jesus healed.
Better they be sick or dead than we be wrong. Sigh.
Charles McLean,
Amen
“These critics do not rejoice in that healing. ”
Charles, you talk about being cruel, if God bestowed the gift of healing on some, and they do not use that gift except when it benifits their agenda, that is cruel.
If there are spiritual healers among us where are all the lines, it is not like there is a shortage of sick people to heal now is it.
Abasner,
Billy Graham was preached against all my life.
The only way we saw healing done was in a service far into the woods where we would never let folks we attended church with know we participated as it was a Native American healing. But, done by the same God we all worship today. Seems God only does this for those that believe He can and will.
I was just thinking the same thing AJ, even the healing done by Jesus was to those that had the faith to be healed. I wonder if I have enough faith to be healed? Spiritually healing is probably the same…those that have the faith to be healed can be healed.
My view of the time and ministry of Jesus Christ upon this earth is that it pointed to one simple issue that God was trying to teach us… He was teaching us in terms we could understand what God is really like so that we can model our life after His attributes. When we are legalistic, we’re not like God. When we are mean spirited, we are not like God. When we are unforgiving, we are not like God. Now ask yourself honestly if your local church is legalistic, mean spirited and unforgiving? If it is, it has missed the mark and the whole meaning of Jesus’ earthly ministry. To be sure, God will be God and that includes punishing those who disobey Him but he never does that in a legalistic, mean spirited manner and He always gives His children a chance to find His forgiveness. So should we… so should Christ’s Church.
Laymond wrote: “Charles, you talk about being cruel, if God bestowed the gift of healing on some, and they do not use that gift except when it benifits their agenda, that is cruel.”
I would suggest that when Jesus ascended to the Father, there were still sick people somewhere in Israel. So, if not healing everyone you can is cruel, you have Someone Else to take that up with. As to this suggestion that people who have healing gifts sometimes use that gift only to benefit their agenda, that one is so leaky I don’t know which hole to point out first. So, I will ask for some more information. Laymond, exactly who are you talking about here? I need a name, please. Just one.
Otherwise, this is all just “sound and fury, signifying nothing”. Nothing except to confirm my previous post, perhaps.
Charles, any and all those who get on TV begging for money, a few miracles never hurts.
I don’t believe, faith was one of the requirements for Jesus healing. or for that matter raising the dead, I don’t know what faith the dead had. Jesus had faith that God would heal these people , and that was all that was required.
Laymond, now you’re just blindly ragging on an undefined group of people whom you don’t know but you don’t like. I gave you a shot at actually discussing the details what you suggested is a problem, but you passed entirely on offering any substance to your complaint. As I suggested before– “sound and fury, signifying nothing”.
I don’t think it would ever be appropriate to seek someone’s healing in hopes that they would pay me. (Some people preach for money, but that’s a different offering…) But it’s funny to me how we go to the doctor and ask him to heal us and offer to pay him, and that’s just fine. And if it doesn’t work, and we remain ill, the doctor bills us anyway, doesn’t he? No warranty offered in medicine. In this way, how is Dr. Bob different from Brother Bob the Tent Revivalist?
Except that Dr Bob does NOT just pass the hat.
“I don’t think it would ever be appropriate to seek someone’s healing in hopes that they would pay me.”
Charles, are you saying, that you are one of these blessed healers, and have a resume of doing so.? or that you at least know someone who is.
Charles, a medical doctor is getting paid for his hard work, not a gift from God. (the gift he recieved from God, was the mental ability to become a doctor)
“In this way, how is Dr. Bob different from Brother Bob the Tent Revivalist?”
Charles, if you don’t already grasp that difference, there is no need for me to try and explain.
There are many ways to exibit this power other than claim to have cured an obscure ailment, one that is not seen, heal a person with a gunshot wound, or one with a severily broken arm, or leg.something seen by bystanders , before and after. that would surely put the doubt behind us.
You know why they don’t, because they can’t. they only heal unseen maladies.
Mar 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
Charles there are three things mentioned here that might distinguish believers, but if you notice only one is ever exibited in proof of that faithful belief.
The cat must have someones tongue 🙂
Alabama John said.
“The thief was still under the old law since Jesus hadn’t died yet so baptism wasn’t required YET!”
John, are you really sure of this statement?
If I asked you when the covenant with Abraham was enacted, you could show me. You could do so with the covenants with Moses and David as well. Can you do this with the new covenant? can you show me?
Laymond, I don’t lay claim to anything under your dubious terminology. I can testify, however, that I personally have cast out demons, have laid hands on the sick and seen them spontaneously and immediately recover, and have witnessed the same on many occasions at the hands of others. It’s just not all that uncommon among the believers I know. What does that make us? Believers, my brother, nothing more. It is those who do NOT believe who like to have labels printed up for us.
The fact that you have not experienced such things is not evidence that they do not occur. I have never seen my neighbor’s kidneys, but that does not suggest that maybe he only has one. In fact, if Nazareth is any clue, your very unbelief may be the main reason you have NOT experienced such things.
You seem to be arguing just like Thomas did, “Unless I see the wounds myself, I won’t believe.” Not the best biblical model, IMO, but you could argue that you are following apostolic example. I would point out that your reasoning would reject the healing of the centurion’s servant by Jesus himself. Nobody knows what he had and nobody in Jesus’ group ever reports having seen the man.
Oh, BTW, I have seen medical documentation of a healing, but I suspect even that would not convince you. While in utero, my son was found with a large mass on his liver. The obstetrician was very troubled and immediately sent us and the videotape of the sonogram to a renowned specialist at Scott & White. I laid hands on my wife and prayed. When we got to Scott & White, the specialist did another thorough sonogram and found no mass at all. I asked the specialist if there had been some mistake. He replied, “No way. I read the previous sonogram, and you can see the one I am doing now. There was a mass on this baby’s liver in the first sonogram, and it is not there now. I can’t explain that.” We could.
But, it has been my experience that those who hold to their unbelief do not respond to such testimonies with joy, but with skepticism. Their intial response is to deny that the laying on of hands and prayer is what predicated the healing. How did it strike you at first, my brother? Did you praise God, laymond, or did you scowl?
Charles, I have no doubt that God is just as powerful today as ever, and he has the power to heal, prevent death, and even bring the dead back to life. The power of prayer is a magnificent thing to behold. As far as God going through the hands of a man in order to perform those miracles, I have strong doubts that happens, and I don’t believe we should be taking credit for the work of God. God is no respecter of men. All glory belongs to God. No I don’t believe your laying on of hands ever cured anyone, just as I don’t believe your burying someone in water saved their soul.
Laymond,
Read all of my post. I was poking at the old teachings a little.
Its good to feel free to do so here as in church it was frowned on.
Well, you could do it, but would not ever be asked to teach a class because of your non conforming thinking.
The topic is What must the church of Christ do to be saved, and this keeping silent out of fear or speaking up knowing the reprisals is sure on my A list!
In most cases its not must they do but rather what must they STOP doing.
When I think of Jesus on that cross, I hear my folks and friends sitting around a fire in the woods singing many old songs and one especially .
“When He was on the cross, I was on His mind”
How true that is and singing it sure brings a personal relationship acknowledgement doesn’t it.
I think, Laymond, that was a scowl.
No problem, it’s common among many reliigous folks. Funny thing, I have yet to share that testimony with a single unbelieving friend who was not pleased and astonished at what he heard. But quite a few Christians have demonstrated that they don’t like that story very much.
In this story, our own Hero, our own Father, does a wonderful thing among his children. A professional skeptic comes face to face with a miracle. And it has a happy ending. One would think that such a story would be more popular among people who call themselves “believers”. But if I tell those same folks I found a fifty-dollar bill on the sidewalk, that story makes them happy.
Go figure.
Charles McLean —
I read all of your posts with great interest. You are gifted with your words (or typing fingers?). 🙂
In another of your posts, you noted that both your brother and father are COC ministers, so I am going to go out on a limb and assume that you were probably raised COC, and have since gone a different direction (not in your faith; in your heritage).
I only mention this in hopes that you understand the position of skepticism from which a lifelong COC’er is coming.
That said, I WANT to believe the things you wrote. But I have no problem saying that my faith is too weak. I struggle mightily with the idea that prayer has any effect whatsoever. Because:
1) What if lump on your son didn’t disappear? Bad prayer? Faithless prayer? God wanted your son to die en utero?
2) I pray for God to help me with my faith struggles…and they become worse! Of all things, why not help me with that?!
3) If the “Spirit intercedes for us” when we know not what to pray for, how arrogant can you and I possibly be to even pray in the first place!! Wouldn’t the best prayer simply be, “Dear God, please have the Spirit intercede for me. Amen.” Can you or I possibly ask for/offer praise/offer thankfulness better than Spirit?
4) Assuming you don’t say, “Well JMF, #3 is a great point, and I will start praying only that prayer!”, then that would lead me to think that the only purpose of prayer is relationship. God wants us to share/talk with him.
Now Charles, I’m not asking you to rehash a bunch of thoughts on questions like “why do bad things happen…” or “why doesn’t God answer my prayers…”, etc. That isn’t where I am going.
I am asking, how does someone like me (skeptical) come to a faith that accepts the things you’ve suggested? Like Laymond, my COC-ness has taught me to doubt any such suggestions — yet I want to believe. I’m just cynical and skeptical.
That said — and I spoke with my minister about my faith struggles this last week — God has come to me in dreams two times in the last month during this season of doubt that I am experiencing. And believe me, I am the last person on Earth that would claim something like that for attention or to appear “special”. In fact, I didn’t care for it. I told my preacher, my response was to “hurry up and sin” the next day b/c I didn’t like the idea of feeling special. Run that one past Freud. 🙂
I guess it kinda feels like I am scared to have faith. Does that make any sense?
Wow. What a ramblefest. Feel free to send me a bill. 🙂 Seriously, some of these thoughts are on a tangent, but I guess the main thing that I see in your posts and wonder is, “How do I get faith?”
JMF said: “I guess it kinda feels like I am scared to have faith. Does that make any sense?”
Absolutely! I know that feeling! We are often aware, consiously or no, of the cost of believing. Peter certainly knew that the deep end of a stormy Galilee was no place for a man to be. It is often hard to step out and believe, for the rational man asks this one simple question,”But what if it doesn’t work?” That’s the challenge. It is never otherwise. We live by faith, and that is not natural to us. What is natural to us is to walk by sight, by knowledge. But that is Adam’s world, not the reality of life in Christ. It is being governed by what we know best, not by what God reveals to us. I have seen many miraculous things, and still I find myself wavering at times. Some things become easy to believe God for. Some are still hard. Most of that is our own character, something which the Holy Spirit is faithfully changing into the image of Jesus. It’s an uneven process. Walk on water one day, deny Jesus the next. That’s not just Peter, that’s life.
One thing that helped me along was that I found my “reasonable questions” being identified in a way I did not like. I found myself to be judging God, evaluating whether his words were actually true based on what I saw. When this reality became clear to me (read Job, it helped me a lot), I got to repent. A lot.
About your #3, you are closer than you think to some real revelation here. Consider this, if you would: John tells us that if we pray according to the will of God, we have what we ask for. Big statement. And it can be taken only one of two ways. Either God is willing to reveal his particular will to us in specific circumstances… or John is just toying with us about something we can never touch. So, a major part of our prayer life is to know the will of God. Not to have him know our will –which is the flavor of most prayers– but to be able to come into agreement with our own Father that we might somehow participate in what He wants to do in the earth. If all I got from prayer was that, I would consider myself of all men most blessed.
Another little sentence from Job has helped me regarding our faith challenge, which continually asks us, “But what if he doesn’t?” Job says, “Though he slay me, yet will I trust him.” So, the answer to “What if?” is “I will seek His face.” That’s an awfully short answer to a big question, but it’s a starting place.
I have also learned to set aside the questions about what MIGHT have happened. No offense, but I see no point in pondering what might have happened had God not healed my son. I don’t have those answers, nor do I find much value in them.
And I have serious experience in this area. Before my son came along, my 8 year-old daughter was hit by a car and killed near our home Her mother had specifically prayed for her protection before our child walked down the block. So, I have faced this straight up. I will spare you the tale, but will give you the result. I, like Job, had to decide whether I would trust God because of who He is, or if I would judge Him for what had happened. When I made that decision to trust him, IN SPITE of my experience, the healing began.
BTW, you are correct about my background. Quite literally “born and bred” in that group. I was also a full-time preacher in the CoC for about seven years. So I understand where my CoC brothers are coming from. But I have seen things that some of them have not. And as Peter said, I cannot but testify of what I have seen and heard.
Be of good cheer, my brother. You are not losing your faith. You are merely examining it, and as long as you realize who its Author is, and direct your questions and troubles to Him, you will find that faith grow. Not so much in what God can do or will do, but much more, in who He is.
Oh, one other thing. Do not submit to the common syndrome of “crabs in the bucket”, where you don’t want to be somehow “special” because you have received something from God. Joseph’s brothers will always be around. You may even find yourself in their pit from time to time. And they are just as wrong now as they were back then. Don’t ever agree with them. Humble yourself and keep listening to the Spirit, and never be ashamed of that coat Daddy gave you.
Charles wrote,
Guys, this is very profound — and not easy. It requires God’s help. Only a Spirit-infused person is capable of that kind of faith.
Charles —
Just wanted to let you know that I’ve read your post a few times and greatly appreciate it! I am still gnawing on it.
I agree with Jay — that is a profound point! So profound, unfortunately, that I may be losing my wrestling match with it! 🙂 I will come back to this in a few days with some questions about the point Jay noted.