I’m not finished with the series on Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes, but it’s time for a break. We’ll return in short order.
One of the questions I’m most frequently asked is how to deal with bad elders. After all, even if we get our theology fixed and start doing a better job of appointing elders, there may still be a generation of elders brought up on a false gospel.
And even for very progressive Churches of Christ, bad elders can be appointed by mistake. Or good elders can become bad. It happens.
Obviously, prevention is better than trying to fix a problem. And many a bad ordination can be prevented with the following:
* Don’t ordain a man just because he meets the standards of Titus 1 and 1 Timothy 3. “Not a brawler” is a very low standard, don’t you think? What many churches fail to do is to require that the elder be qualified. Not disqualified is not the same thing.
If the man is not obviously gifted by the Spirit for church leadership, he should not be ordained. Period. Regardless of how many nominations he receives or how much political support he has, let the Spirit decide.
I would rather suffer criticism and be forced out of the eldership myself than ordain a man who is not called by God to the work. Indeed, to me, an elder’s most important task is to assure healthy, spiritual succession. There is no room for compromise or politics. Get it right, and get it right every single time.
* Leaders have followers. A good man with no followers is a good man, but not a candidate for elder.
* Never, ever ordain a man hoping he’ll grow in office and rise to the task. Many don’t. Only ordain men who are already acting very much as elders.
* Never ordain a man whose wife may prove an embarrassment to the eldership. If he can’t keep a secret from his wife and she is a gossip, he can’t be an elder. If she is likely to abuse her position as an elder’s wife, he may not be ordained.
While the wife of an elder has no authority or position, the fact is that members will defer to her on the assumption that she has a great deal of influence with the elders. She has to be sensitive to this and not abuse it.
* Never ordain a good man with a bad theology. Elders are called to teach. If he needs remedial instruction, his ordination has to wait.
* Never ordain a man with a following that is a faction. If a man is nominated because he speaks for the young members or the old members or some other faction, then he’s not an elder for the whole church. This is not Congress. Elders don’t represent segments of the church. Every elder represents the whole church or he can’t be ordained.
* Never ordain a man who isn’t Spirit led and gifted by the Spirit for the work of an overseer/shepherd/elder. If the Spirit is not manifestly present in his life and dealings with others and relationship with God, he’s not qualified, no matter how smart or successful he might be.
* Elders are supposed to be part of a plurality. Therefore, they have to be team players. Men who have to have their way, who don’t easily work in collaboration with others, are bad elders. It’s ultimately a failure to be submissive, and if you’re not submissive, you’re not much like Jesus.
I learned years ago (and have re-learned more than once since then, being a slow study and all) that if you hire someone you have doubts about, it’ll be a bad hire — and one you’ll regret. The same is true of elders. No one is ever 100% qualified for the job. No one but Jesus is Jesus. But when you have doubts about whether a man is suited for the calling, it’s likely a mistake to ordain him.
“And even for very progressive Churches of Christ, bad elders can be appointed by mistake.” Really??
You make it sound like being progressive–even very progressive–is supposed to make congregations immune from mistakes. Or at least, if a very progressive church happened to get a “bad” elder, it was an honest mistake, not because their decision-making process is flawed.
And maybe I’m reading too much into it, but it sounds like one of the big qualifications for “bad elder” is disagreeing with Jay (or whoever is deciding what’s good theology on this particular day).
I’m not sure I’m ever going to find a group of elders who agree with me on every theological question. Or agree with each other. More to the point, it would be a very unhealthy eldership if all they did was agree with the preacher, or agree with each other.
My brother was telling me how much he admired the elders who support his mission work. In their mission selection process it became clear that they disagreed with him on theology. They questioned him quite sharply, made their views known, and then hired him. In spite of their disagreement. They aren’t very “progressive.” In fact, they have build a congregation that to some extent is a refuge for people who don’t want to attend some of the more progressive congregations around them. But they are willing to disagree without discord, and without questioning the spirituality of those who disagree.
I don’t think being a good elder or a bad elder is particularly related to how progressive he is, or even–within limits–his theology. It has to do with his ability to shepherd the flock, feed the flock and to get along with the other shepherds. And particularly, his ability to recognize the voice of the true shepherd whom he serves.
“No one is ever 100% qualified for the job. No one but Jesus is Jesus. But when you have doubts about whether a man is suited for the calling, it’s likely a mistake to ordain him.”
Mat 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
Mat 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
Jhn 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
We need to be careful that when we throw many stones, that one does not richochet and hit us in the head.
“* Leaders have followers. A good man with no followers is a good man, but not a candidate for elder.”
Can you clarify this point? The first thing that came to mind for me was 1 Corinthans.
I appeal to you, brothers and sisters,in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.”
I’ve had a lot of interaction with both a capella Churches of Christ and Christian Churches. The former usually tend to have a high bar for selecting elders with the consequence that many go years and sometimes decades without elders. In areas like the northeastern US most Churches of Christ do not have elders. That doesn’t seem to be in the spirit of the New Testament. How mature were the elders ordained by Titus on the island of Crete when Paul wrote that it was true that all Cretans were liars and gluttons (even allowing for hyperbole)?
Christian Churches on the other hand tend to always have elders and simply appoint the best prospects they have. That seems fraught with danger to me. Their situation is also affected by the minister exercising more authority than would be the case in most a capella congregations (for good or for bad).
I don’t know what the precise answer is but I have long thought the best practise lies somewhere between the two. It also should be taken into consideration that our contemporary situation is quite different from the early practice of the church in only having one eldership per city or metropolitan area. I cant think of that having changed until the emergence of the Waldensians and other similar groups.
toddes asked,
Thanks for your question. I knew I’d failed to address exactly your point and then forgot to go back and fix my post. And so I appreciate your pushing me to fix my omission.
Yes, a man with followers can be the leader of a faction or he can be a shepherd. He can’t be both. Wise elders will discern the difference and keep faction leaders out of the eldership and add shepherds to the eldership at the earliest opportunity.
How do you tell the difference? Well, sometimes you can just look at which members nominated someone for elder. If they represent a faction — a group with an agenda that differs from the congregation’s vision — it’s a problem. (Of course, this presumes the congregation has a vision.)
Math is never adequately indicative of whether a man is filled with wisdom and the Holy Spirit (Acts 6:3). I mean, a man could, in theory, be nominated by 15% of the church and yet be supported by only that 15% — a 15% that is not submissive to the church’s leadership or even to Christ — or a man may be nominated by 15% because he shepherds that 15% as a small group leader or Bible class teacher but isn’t well known outside of the families he pours his life into.
There are a few keys —
1. The elders (or elder nomination committee) should look beyond the numbers to the individuals making the nominations. Most of us would hate to have that level of discretion — it seems like too much power — but if a factionalist is put into the eldership, the church is wounded severely, perhaps mortally. God had not authorized us to turn off our brains. We are called to “test the spirits” (1 John 4:1; cf 1 Cor 2:14), not to count votes. Those are two very different things.
2. Most churches quite properly put nominees before the church to ask for “scriptural” objections. Unfortunately, most churches have a tradition of limiting objections to the 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1 lists, ignoring the bigger-picture items, such as “Does this man have the gift of leadership?” “Is this a man God has given us as a shepherd?” “Does this man have the qualities of a shepherd, overseer, or elder?” As a result, if the members can’t prove that the man is a brawler or drunkard or childless, the church winds up with men who received a handful of nominations from friends who are utterly devoid of the Spirit’s giftedness for the work of an elder.
But if the church is well instructed to object if the man isn’t truly qualified per the big picture items especially, then the factionalists will be rooted out by the congregation, even if the elders don’t see it.
Laymond wrote,
Consider —
That requires judgment.
That pretty much seems to command judgment.
And so we have both Paul and John disagreeing with Jesus — as you interpret him. I’m inclined to go with Paul’s and John’s interpretations.
In the case of Jesus and Sermon on the Mount, Jesus was not calling us to naïveté but to avoid a judgmental attitude. More precisely, he was insisting that we be willing to submit to the same standard we impose on others. And I think he was condemning the honor-culture attitude of judging by appearances and judging very harshly. The NET Bible translators note:
Calvin writes,
Paul especially calls us to judge in love. The point of church discipline isn’t to hurt the person judged or punish them, but to show the love of Jesus. Really. If we see that someone is sinning in such a way as to risk his salvation — if he evidences the sin of rebellion — then his salvation is in jeopardy. Love compels us to try to call him from the brink of damnation — even to the point of withdrawing fellowship if that might change the situation (a judgment call, every time).
And if we love our brothers, we will, as John instructs, test the teachings of teachers to determine who might be putting our brothers and sisters in jeopardy by teaching a false gospel (not all error contradicts the gospel, of course).
In both cases, the motivation is love — and it must be genuine. Such loving discernment does not contradict the Sermon on the Mount. Indeed, it honors Jesus’ teaching that we love our neighbor.
Just so, love compels us to insist that only men truly qualified to be elders be ordained as elders. Sometimes we let a fear of conflict or of giving offense lead us to ordain unqualified men — which is a sin, and a particularly bad one. And so it’s a judgment that we can’t avoid if we love our brothers.
Ralph,
Context! I wrote,
I have to admit that this would be easier to follow if I’d not interrupted my own series on elders. My apologies for any confusion. Nonetheless, the point is that conservative theology always leads to bad elders. But it’s not the only thing that leads to bad elders.
I would go so far as to say that any man, no matter how great a counselor and leader, who advocates legalism is a bad elder. After all, the most commonly stated task of an elder/shepherd/overseer is that he teach the truth and refute error — and no error is more serious than a legalistic gospel. Read Galatians 1 and 5 (the whole chapters). A false gospel can damn, an error that can’t be compensated for by being great at hospital visitation.
We most often see the problem of legalism in elders who are harsh and judgmental. If you believe a false gospel that provides a false image of God — and so see God as quick to damn for the least error, for misunderstanding silences, for example — then you become like the god you worship. You become harsh and quick to fault and damn. And therefore a bad elder.
But even if an elder remains kind, gracious and gentle personally, if he teaches that God damns because you have a kitchen in the building or a fellowship hall or whatever — he is teaching a works salvation. He is teaching that faith in Jesus is not sufficient to justify. He teaches a faith + works justification.
And that terrifies me for the sake of the men and women he leads. I’ve seen and experienced the agony of not knowing whether you’re saved because you can’t get comfortable that you have every piddling doctrinal scruple right — and because every preacher your church hires has differing scruples and seemingly good reasons for each — and so you just can’t be sure what to believe to be saved.
And I’ve seen the arrogance that comes from believing you really do have every single doctrine right. It’s not pretty.
Therefore, I see the church described by Ralph —
— as very progressive indeed. I don’t define “progressive” in terms of a position on instrumental music or the role of women. To me, you’re progressive if and only if you tolerate disagreement on most doctrines, insisting on unity of the faith, that is, faith in Jesus as Messiah.
Those who wish to define “faith” as faith in a cappella music or faith in church autonomy deny the sufficiency of faith in Jesus, and that’s a false gospel.
Ralph,
I have seen what bad theology can do. I have been under elders with a legalist theology. They kept the church from moving on with important issues and called private meetings to attack other elders and ministry leaders they disagreed with. I know because I was one of the ministry leaders who got blindsided by it because I sent an email out suggesting that we work with churches that are not C of C. Their poor judgment and infatuation with bad theology set the ministry I was over back by two years. One of the more vocal of the legalistic elders has since left when he saw the church going in an “unhealthy” direction of praise teams and he couldn’t do anything about it. We have since left because we could not do any kind of service in that church without being grilled and labelled as heretics. The kind of theology that leads to those types of things is sad.
Jay,
I may have missed it but how are you defining conservative? It appears to be equivocal with legalistic which know is not how you intend it to appear. In most contexts it is an antonym for change or progress but change and progress aren’t always towards a positive goal.
Speaking only for myself, conservativism is based by Philippians 4:8-9. Conservative, in some circles, appears to have become a by-word. But to say that. “Nonetheless, the point is that conservative theology always leads to bad elders” is, IMO, closed-minded and legalistic in its own right if you are the one determining what the word means.
Excellent post, Jay. I’d love to hear your thoughts on a good process for removing an elder that needs to be removed.
Adam, did it ever cross your mind that you could have been wrong ?
Tim,
Thanks. That’s the theme of the next two posts. (Tim Spivey reads my blog!!)
Toddes wrote,
It’s been a while, but when this blog was new, I spent some time in posts and comments discussing what terminology to use for particular segments of the Churches of Christ.
I’m glad to share my thinking and have always been open to a better nomenclature. (PS: “univocal” is a very cool word.)
1. I see the real divide in the Churches of Christ as being between those who see issues such as instrumental music, kitchen in the buildings, the frequency of the Lord’s Supper, etc. as salvation or fellowship issues and those who do not. If you think instrumental music is a sin but not a salvation issue, then I see you as on my side the divide. I’m not here to advocate for IM. I’m here to advocate for grace — more precisely, salvation by faith in Jesus as Messiah.
2. What terms should I use? I think those who damn over such issues are legalists. In fact, I think they teach a false gospel and are in serious jeopardy for their souls under Paul’s teachings in Galatians. I am not at all happy about having come to that conclusion, but they are not teaching salvation by faith in Jesus. They teaching faith + Other Stuff — just like the Judaizing teachers in Galatia. Hence, I think “legalist” is a very fair term, although some are more legalistic than others.
(PS — Paul does not damn those deceived by the Judaizing teachers, but he warns them that they are in serious jeopardy. He does damn the teachers, quite plainly. He even declares Peter damned for refusing fellowship with the uncircumcised, and thereby appearing to condone the heresy of the Judaizing teachers. Really.
(Gal 2:11 ESV) 11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
Thus, I don’t see those deceived by legalistic teachers as necessarily lost — but in terrible danger. And I do not like knowing this. It drives me to post 1,500 words very nearly every single day of my life in an effort to change it.)
3. However, that group sees “legalist” as condescending and insulting. They use “legalist” for those who impose more rules than they — and there is nearly always a group even more legalistic — whom they call “legalists.”
4. We are instructed in 2 Tim 2:25 to correct our opponents with gentleness, and so I look for a word that they don’t take as innately insulting. They tend to prefer that they be called “conservative.”
5. However, I’m conservative by just about any theological definition you choose.
6. Nonetheless, I can’t find a better word. Hence, I use their own preferred term to speak of them, just as I refer to those who oppose funding institutions from the church treasury as “non-institutional” rather than “anti-institutional” or “anti” because “anti” has taken on such a pejorative sense and so they prefer “non-institutional.” I wouldn’t think of referring to someone of that belief as an “anti.” Why be unnecessarily insulting?
7. I admit that “conservative” leads to confusion, but better to have to occasionally repost my definitions than to be routinely insulting. Of course, I catch all kinds of grief for suggesting that treating IM as a salvation issue might be a false gospel, as it contradicts salvation by faith and seems to fit the Galatians letter — leading some to call me a “legalist” for my trouble, but one reason I write this blog is because I fear that my conservative friends are in deep, deep spiritual trouble. If they’re just fine with God, why bother to correct them? And yet it’s easy to see how very destructive their theology is, and you see the pain and damage done from the comments posted just today. That is not the true gospel, I’m sure.
8. For those who understand grace well enough to see that IM cannot be a fellowship/salvation issue, I need another term. My conservative friends and brothers prefer “liberal,” but that term simply does not apply in any real world sense. I’m a theological conservative by any standard definition. Hence, truly for lack of a better word, I’ve chosen “progressive,” although I’m not at all comfortable with the word — but many in my sub-sub-sub-tribe seem to like it fine.
9. In some denominations, “progressive” is a euphemism for “liberal.” Oh, well … that’s certainly not the intent. “Progressive” in this context refers progressing out of the error of 20th Century Church of Christ theology — most if not all doctrinal disagreements damn — into grace.
10. I would be thrilled if someone were to come up with better nomenclature. THRILLED! But so far, I’ve gotten no suggestions at all.
“I’m not here to advocate for IM. I’m here to advocate for grace — more precisely, salvation by faith in Jesus as Messiah.”
Jay is that what “grace” means to you? please explain to me just what the grace of God is.
Jay,
I appreciate your clarification of your use of the terms,”progressive” and “conservatives.” It has taken some time reading your posts to come to an understanding of how you use these terms. I’m glad to see that my sense and your clarification are reasonably close.
I am in the process of transferring my ordination credentials as a pastor from one denomination to another, in part because of the liberal, or progressive, theology of some of my colleagues in the denomination I am leaving. It is hard because there are many whose theology is very solid and it is the denomination in which I came to know and love Jesus. You are spot on when you say your theology is conservative “in any real world sense.” And while I might disagree with some of your approach on some issues from time to time, it is my growing conviction that we are truly brothers in Christ.
In the Master’s Service,
Mike
Pastor Mike,
I always feel complimented when I receive a comment from someone outside the Church of Christ world. It’s nice to know that some of what I write plays well in the larger evangelical community. I mean, my roots are pretty insular.
I can readily see how someone from outside the Churches of Christ would find our vocabulary confusing. It is — and I keep hoping someone will suggest better terminology. It would surely enhance our conversations.
Back in the 19th Century, the terms were “new lights” and “old lights.” But those terms have lost meaning to some and taken on very different meanings for others.
Around 1900, the Churches humorously referred to the a cappella churches as “inorganic” and the instrumental churches (who had organs, not rock bands) as “organic.” I rather like those terms, but the split in the Churches isn’t over music so much as “what is a salvation issue?” Hence, it’s really “faith” vs. “faith plus” — although the “conservative” churches would deny that they teach “faith plus.” That is, they would not consider that a fair term at all.
And so, I’m really at a loss for better words.
Laymond,
(Eph 2:8-10 ESV) 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
It helps, I’m sure, to recall that I take “faith” (pistis in the Greek) to include faithfulness. I do not take “faithfulness” to refer to obedience to particular commands so much as a condition of the heart. In more familiar language, “faithfulness” is near synonym with “penitence.” That is, the penitence that we must have to become saved in the first place must continue. “Faith” is not mere intellectual assent — it’s a change of heart, an openness to the work of the Spirit in our lives, submission to the Spirit’s work in transforming us into the image of Christ.
(2Co 3:18 ESV) 18 And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.
Hence, we confess “Jesus is Lord,” not meaning “Jesus is the second member of the Godhead in hypostatic union with God the Father” (although that is true), but “Jesus is the Messiah, the King of the universe to whom I utterly submit.” That is faith, and that saves.
(Rom 10:8-11 ESV) 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); 9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. 11 For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.”
What is grace? It’s God’s willingness to redeem and honor people who do not deserve it but who submit to his Son as Messiah, all as a result of God’s faithfulness. God is faithful to his promises, his covenant, to count faith as righteousness — a promise fulfilled by the death and resurrection of Jesus.
Yes we are to have faith, and we cannot be saved without it, we are to have faith in God, and yes we are to have faith that the word Jesus brought is the “word of God” the true word of God, that we can trust the salvation of our soul upon. Yes we certainly have to have faith that Jesus is the Son of God, because if that is not true, nothing else Jesus said matters.
Mar 11:22 And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God.
If we read closely, Paul never said we are saved by faith in Jesus, Paul said we are saved by the faith “OF” Jesus, the faith Jesus had in God.
Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith “of” Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith “of” Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Jesus wavered in the face of the task before him, but his faith in his God, brought him to where he needed to be, submissive to his God. That is where we all need to be submit to God.
Mat 26:39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou [wilt].
Mat 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier [matters] of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
Laymond,
What translation are you quoting the text “OF” from? Have you compared other translations?
Larry, The only one we knew, while growing up. Larry do you think God let millions of people believe they should depend upon him for salvation, when they were really to depend upon his son.
Larry we depend upon the faith Jesus had in his Father, after all Larry, do you have faith that can move mountains or feed thousands, or heal hundreds. I personally know only one who had that kind of faith, the Son Jesus. Yes even the apostles did their work through the faith of Jesus, do you remember who asked God to guide them ? The faith of the son, in the father, and the love of the father for the son, is what it is all about. That is what the sacrifice that God made so astounding. God’s sacrifice was even greater than that of Abraham, because it was carried through.
Yes we all cling to Jesus Christ’s faith in the Father, Have you tried walking on water lately?
Jesus’ faith in God, is faith that saves us all.
PS: Gal 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
” I live by the faith of the Son of God”
Larry, do you realize that you are saying, you saved yourself by your faith, answer one question who controls your faith?
Laymond,
“…The only one we knew, while growing up. Larry do you think God let millions of people believe they should depend upon him for salvation, when they were really to depend upon his son.”
What about the millions before the KJV prior to 1611, who had to rely on someone else to interpret the Scriptures for them. Who did they depend on? How does the Latin read? The Greek? Why the dependency on the KJV?
Jay,
Thank you for the clarification. If you don’t wish to insult the other side, perhaps you might be somewhat self-deprecating given the connotations of ‘progressive’.
My thoughts: regressive (to indicate a return or a reversion to grace from legalism). Of course, your blog, your rules. Again, thank you.
toddes, can you tell me the difference in the words “of” and “in” in the language in which Paul wrote, which was “koine” or common Greek. ? There were words that meant many things, the translators of the KJV were many in number, and they tried to keep the meanings of those words in context with other statements in the bible. such as Mar 11:22 And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God. If you notice Paul used both words (of and in) in Gal 2:16
The newer versions use the translation that closer relate to modern belief. I believe you know the belief of which I speak. (the belief that Jesus is God) I read different versions, but when I have doubts I go back to the KJV. and sometimes see if the new versions stay in agreement with the old testament.
Laymond wrote,
I can’t agree. I agree that we are saved by the faithfulness of Jesus. That’s absolutely true, but that salvation is only for those who have faith in Jesus. Countless verses so say.
(Rom 4:5 NET) 5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in the one who declares the ungodly righteous, his faith is credited as righteousness.
(Rom 4:16 NET) 16 For this reason it is by faith so that it may be by grace, with the result that the promise may be certain to all the descendants– not only to those who are under the law, but also to those who have the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all
(Rom 10:17 NET) 17 Consequently faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the preached word of Christ.
Etc. etc.
Toddes,
“Regressive”? Sounds too much like a tax policy debate. 🙂
Someone has suggested “Restorationist” because we progressives are trying to get back to the mindset of Barton W. Stone and the Campbells — who were much closer to the Bible than those who followed them — but, again, that would be confusing to those who’ve been taught that the 20th Century Churches of Christ were true to the original Restoration Movement.
“Grace centered” is often used, but I can’t think of how to say it as a noun: “Grace-centered Christians”? But the “conservatives” think they are grace centered. They really do. And, besides, I really don’t want to be grace-centered; I want to be Jesus-centered — which to me says it all, but which would be incomprehensible to someone coming from a “conservative” background. You see, “grace-centered” tends to overly focus on salvation and not toward mission. At least, that’s how I react to the phrase.
I gladly accept “change agent” as an appellation. But the term really only speaks to leaders among a movement.
So, still looking for better words.
Jay, I don’t want to prolong this matter, but I believe the bible says that Jesus trust/faith in God is what carried him to the cross, and without the cross I don’t see any salvation. (maybe in another way) but not by the blood of Jesus.
(Rom 10:17 NET) 17 Consequently faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the preached word of Christ.
And as I recall Jesus said he only preached the word of God, the words given him by his Father.
The words given from God that Jesus had absolute trust/faith in.
If Jesus had not first had absolute trust/faith in God there would not have been a cross, and humans could not have faith in something that never happened. Therefore we are saved by the faith of Jesus Christ.
Laymond,
You did not answer the question about which translation, but I noticed that you did not correct Toddes when he identified the KJV, therefore I will also assume the KJV. Actually, I was hoping that it was because the very same translation KJV will dispute your own claims about the source of faith. Prior to showing you exactly where, I will make a statement of my own about your concept. That is if it is Jesus’s faith in God that saves us as you state, the following is also true.
Not one human being could be lost or not saved without Jesus’s faith also being the the reason for the loss. No human being could commit any sin, crime or blaspheme the Holy Spirit and be lost, because the loss would be the inability of Jesus’s faith towards God (what you have stated) to redeem or pay the price for the sins. Jesus’ faith in God would either save all mankind or would save no one.
Now for the verses I promised to you. Notice Paul explains the exact opposite of your interpretation. Your statement, “If we read closely, Paul never said we are saved by faith in Jesus, Paul said we are saved by the faith “OF” Jesus, the faith Jesus had in God.”
(Mark 11:22 KJV) And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God.
(Acts 3:16 KJV) And his name through faith in his name hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know: yea, the faith which is by him hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all.
(Acts 24:24 KJV) And after certain days, when Felix came with his wife Drusilla, which was a Jewess, he sent for Paul, and heard him concerning the faith in Christ.
(Rom 3:25 KJV) Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
(Gal 3:26 KJV) For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
(Eph 1:15 KJV) Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints,
(Col 1:4 KJV) Since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and of the love which ye have to all the saints,
(Col 2:5 KJV) For though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding your order, and the stedfastness of your faith in Christ.
(2 Th 1:4 KJV) So that we ourselves glory in you in the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that ye endure:
It can only be your faith in Jesus that saves you and further keeps you saved, if you lose your faith or allow it to die then you will be lost or condemned.
This verse would not have a basis under your theory. (2 Th 3:2 KJV) And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men: for all men have not faith.
(Acts 14:22 KJV) Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.
(Acts 20:21 KJV) Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.
(Rom 4:5 KJV) But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
(Rom 9:32 KJV) Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
(Rom 10:17 KJV) So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
(Rom 14:1 KJV) Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
(1 Cor 2:5 KJV) That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
(1 Cor 13:13 KJV) And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.
(1 Cor 15:14 KJV) And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
(1 Cor 15:17 KJV) And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
(2 Cor 1:24 KJV) Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand.
(2 Cor 5:7 KJV) (For we walk by faith, not by sight:)
(2 Cor 10:15 KJV) Not boasting of things without our measure, that is, of other men’s labours; but having hope, when your faith is increased, that we shall be enlarged by you according to our rule abundantly,
(Eph 2:8 KJV) For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
(1 Th 1:3 KJV) Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father;
If Jesus was controlling your faith these verses would not be applicable.
(1 Tim 4:1 KJV) Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
(1 Tim 5:12 KJV) Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith.
(2 Tim 3:15 KJV) And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
(Heb 10:23 KJV) Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;)
A careful reading of Hebrews chapter 11 should help with an understanding of faith, who has it and what it is in.
As usual the Word is misunderstood without the foundational elements being considered.
”What station in the heavens if prepared for the righteous, who endure all manner of offence
from those that exasperate their souls, who avert their eyes from iniquity, and make
righteous judgment, and give bread to the hungering, and cover the naked with clothing,
and raise up the fallen, and help injured orphans, and who walk without fault before the
face of the Lord, and serve him alone, and for them is prepared this place for eternal
inheritance.”
When we are called to stand before Lord of All will we say “Oh Lord I believed. I believed
from the first day I heard the Master’s voice. I was not righteous but I believed! My faith is
sufficient isn’t it? They told me it was! Yes, that man, he told me and I believed! He had
a quote from the famous apostle that said I did not have to do anything! WHY are you
staring at me that way?
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?
Luk 6:47 Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like:
Yes there is more to it than believing Jesus is the son of God, and the lord over all, the anointed one. there is obedience to God, the creator of all.