Category Uncategorized

Apr 20 2010

The Good Life


On June 27th I will be the magical age of 65, by all measures a certified senior citizen. My life has been mostly good with  a scattering of road blocks, dead-end streets, lots of pot holes, but on the whole, pretty smooth sailing.

Now I am one of those wise old men! I have the white hair, many years under my belt, and experiences….ahh, the experiences…almost enough for two lifetimes.

I have a good life!

  • I am certain of my future. It is as sure as God is faithful. I have an authentic Christian faith that has sustained me in good and bad times for over 50 years.
  • I have a wonderful wife. Carol is a beautiful, talented lady who is devoted to me and she makes my life full and complete. The sound of her voice in the morning sparks joy in my heart. We are one, one in Christ, one in purpose, one in loving our family and friends.
  • My family is the best! My daughter and her husband and three boys, and my son and his wife and their three daughters are the absolute best! (I can’t bear to call Kelly and Jason step children..) They are smart, ambitious, godly people and every one loves Papa!
  • We share a great home with good neighbors. We built our dream home and love it every day we live here.
  • I am as healthy as a horse! Few men my age have as few health issues. Except for some allergies I have a clean bill of health. For this I am very, very thankful! It is very rare to be my age and in almost perfect health in every way.
  • I am blessed with good friends. I have some I see often, some not so often but many who would spare nothing to come to my aid should I ask. I have many old, tried and true friends, who at the end of our phone chats will say “I love you”, both men and women. That to me is very, very special.
  • In spite of divorce and death, and the dark days associated with them, God has given a blessed ministry. I am able to help others who are hurting, teach the truths of God to others, be an encourager, help folks bury their dead, and comfort survivors. It was necessary for me to walk a while in the silent darkness of despair to be prepared to walk that road holding the hands of others. For that I am full of thanksgiving.
  • I fish, I bowl, I watch NASCAR on TV, I keep my little spot of planet earth manicured, I enjoy the sights and sounds of N E Louisiana and look forward with anticipation to each new tomorrow.
  • I have folks who read what I write. Enough that I made the list of the top 25 Progressive Church of Christ blogs, and there are hundreds, maybe thousands of them. So, I do appreciate my readers. Almost all of them are kind, even when they disagree. Unfortunately and unintentionally, sometimes I rub folks the wrong way. For that I am sorry, it is never my plan.

This is a snapshot of the life of an old, happy guy. I am living the “Good Life”!

Royce


Mar 29 2010

What Calvinism and Arminianism Have In Common


Lost in a thicket of Arminian and Calvinist debate,
we sometimes lose sight of the grand truths
we hold in common…

By Edward Fudge

What does it mean that Jesus died for all? The question is beguilingly simple. You would not know from the face of it that the question has been at the center of a heated and sometimes vociferous debate. For almost two thousand years, Christians have struggled to understand the effect of Jesus’ death and the scope of its saving power. With the publication in recent months of a number of books by evangelicals on the fate of the unevangelized, larger questions about the scope of the Atonement are gaining renewed currency. Does “all” refer to individual human beings, or nationalities and peoples, or just the elect?Within the Reformation mainstream, two contending viewpoints have emerged, which observers often label Calvinist (after John Calvin), on the one hand, and Arminian (after Jacob Arminius, an early Dutch opponent of Calvin) or Wesleyan (after John Wesley), on the other. On the Calvinist side of the debate, you have Augustine, Calvin, and their followers. They argue (with varying degrees of explicitness and forcefulness) that the “all” refers to the elect: Christ died to save only those whom the Father had predestined to eternal life.

On the Arminian side, represented also by Wesley, believers argue that Christ in his atonement intended to make salvation available to everyone. It is faith (or, in some versions, obedience) that makes the saving work complete. The debate includes a host of related questions. What are we to make of this preposition “for”? If Jesus died “for” every human ever born, can anyone finally be lost? Does a yes to that question mean Christ’s death was somehow ineffective? And just who are these “elect”? Does this scriptural term refer to an indeterminate and nameless mass of people (as Arminians would tend to argue), or does it describe specific individuals with faces (as Calvinists would suggest)? Do we speak of Jesus’ death making salvation possible for all people, or, as the traditional query phrases it, does a “particular” atonement necessarily exclude those who are not saved?

The question is also sometimes phrased in terms of those who have never heard of Jesus. Will they all be lost? If so, why? Because they never heard — or for some other reason? Does Scripture allow (or even encourage) one to conclude that, based on Jesus’ atonement, God might finally save still others who in life never knew what Jesus had done on their behalf?

For those who take Scripture seriously, these distinctions represent more than abstract theories. These “theories” express convictions. And they may collide with the convictions of other Christians — people as sincere and informed and committed as we are. When concern for people and for theological integrity seem to clash, the anguish only increases. Sometimes people from the different camps lose sight of their brothers or sisters in the doctrinal thicket.

I was trained through graduate school in the Arminian viewpoint as expressed by the Churches of Christ. Later, I studied under Calvinists at Covenant Theological Seminary in Saint Louis, Missouri. These queries thus reflect the honest uncertainties of one who has been the lone Arminian in a classroom of Calvinists and a suspected Calvinist in a fellowship where that term is no compliment. Today, some 20 years downstream, I am certain that neither “side” has the whole truth in its pocket and that no human analysis can fully contain or explain what God accomplished for sinners in Jesus of Nazareth.

Yet we can speak truthfully even when not exhaustively. Convinced that evangelicals of all stripes share more than they generally realize, I propose the following seven couplets as a modest attempt at bridge building. Of course, this is only a step. But perhaps we can at least survey the terrain, establish some boundaries, and drive a few stakes. Doing so is surely better than defending our doctrinal turf while firing volleys of proof texts at each other.

Couplet 1:

– Every accountable person deserves to be lost.
– No accountable person deserves to be saved.

On this point Scripture is transparently clear: “All …are under the power of sin…that…the whole world may be held accountable to God” (Rom. 3:9, 19). “[A]ll have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23).God requires absolute obedience, and not one of us has presented it. The mystery is not that some are finally lost but that any are finally saved. Every person finally lost will receive justice, whereas every person finally saved will receive mercy grounded only in its giver (Rom 1:18-20, 32; 2:5; 3:4-8).

There are important differences between Augustine and Pelagius, between Calvin and Arminius, between Whitefield and Wesley. But this is not one of them. Every careful Calvinist insists that God deserves no blame for the fate of the lost. Every careful Arminian affirms that God deserves all glory for the salvation of the redeemed. Stressing each of the two points in the couplet can help us minimize needless misunderstanding, define genuine differences with sharper clarity, and cultivate a fraternal climate in which to study jointly the Word of God.

Couplet 2:

– God takes no pleasure in the final destruction of any.
– God finds pleasure in the salvation of every person who is saved.

God finds no joy in the death of any sinner. “Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, says the Lord God, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?” he asks rhetorically in Ezekiel 18:23 (see also Eze. 18:32; 33:11). He is not vengeful or vindictive. The Creator dues not delight in the destruction of any person he has made, not even his enemies. He desires “all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4). Whoever is finally lost will not see God smiling as a result. Indeed, the Son of God says, there is celebration in heaven over every sinner who repents (Luke 15:7,10).

Couplet 3:

– No one can come to Jesus unless the Father draws him or her.
– Every person whom the Father has given to Jesus will come.

These statements did not originate with Calvin, Augustine, or even the apostle Paul, but with Jesus himself (John 6:37, 44). The assurance that God is in control should stimulate courage rather than contention; it should inspire hope and not harangues. To know that God has a plan and a people emboldens us to proclaim the gospel to every person we meet (Acts 18 : 9-10) . What God initiated in eternity he will consummate in his own good time (Eph. 1:1-14; Rom. 8:28-31).If we recoil at the prospect of divine sovereignty, as though God’s gracious choice of some requires his unilateral rejection of others (a notion sometimes described as “double predestination”), we may rejoice that Scripture here is “splendidly illogical,” to borrow a phrase from biblical commentator A. M. Hunter. For, as Hunter notes, “the opposite of election is not predestination to destruction; it is unbelief a self-incurred thing.” Many Calvinists urge the same point. Instead of charging them with “doublespeak,” Arminians should welcome the unexpected common ground and rejoice. Until one claims to know everything personally, there is room to tolerate paradox in others. The hallmark of a Christian is not logic, but love. The proclamation of God-who-acts-to-save is as old as Exodus and as relevant as next Sunday’s sermon in our day of positive-attitude platitudes and self-help schemes. It ignites holy boldness even as it smites our pride. That God is sovereign means that none can come to Jesus — despite our clever phrases, latest methods, and polished salesmanship — unless the Father draws him or her. At the same time, it assures us that every person the Father has given to Jesus will come — without exception, and despite our own faulty choices and often bumbling work. If prophets are mute, donkeys can speak. If disciples remain silent, the stones can cry out. If the church should prove unfaithful or disobedient, God’s plan still will see its intended end.

Couplet 4:

– The ultimate basis of condemnation is the lost person’s own works.
– The ultimate basis of salvation is the work of Jesus.

Calvinists and Arminians already agree that every person finally saved will enjoy salvation only because of what God did in Jesus. “No one comes to the Father,” said Jesus, “but by me” (John 14:6). “There is salvation in no one else” (Acts 4:12). All who “receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness” will do so “through the one man Jesus Christ” (Rom 5:17) . It is his “act of righteousness” alone that “leads to acquittal and life” (Rom 5: 18).These truths apply equally to those who lived before Jesus and to those who lived after, to Jew as well as to Gentile, to those who hear the gospel and to those who do not. None will be saved except on the basis of the atonement Jesus has made. Salvation will be conclusively “to the praise of [God’s] glory (Eph 1:6, 12, 14). The mere presence of each redeemed human will attest throughout eternity to the “immeasurable riches of his grace” (Eph 2:7). On the other hand, all who ultimately perish in hell will do so despite the fact that Jesus died for sinners and despite the fact that he receives everyone who truly wishes to come.

Couplet 5:

– Salvation occurred objectively two thousand years ago in Jesus’ work.
– Salvation occurs subjectively as each person believes the gospel.

Jesus himself announced that he came “to save” the lost (Luke 19:10; John 12:47; 1 Tim 1:15). He accomplished his stated assignment and triumphantly proclaimed from the cross “It is finished” (John 19:30; Heb. 1:3). God scrutinized what Jesus had done and was satisfied (as foreshadowed in Isa. 53:11). Then, to confirm the mission accomplished, God raised Jesus from the dead (Rom 4:25). After he had made purification for sins, Jesus took his place at God’s right hand (Heb 1:3; 10:11-14). If we preach that Jesus’ death was the payment for our sins, we may also proclaim that his resurrection was God’s paid-in-full receipt.All this occurred in the historical experience of Jesus, our substitute and Savior. God reconciled the world to himself in Jesus’ fleshly body (Col 1:19-22; 2 Cor 5:18-19). Salvation is not a theoretical possibility but a _fait accompli_. It is “the good news of [our] salvation” (Eph 1:13). We may speak of this finished aspect of Christ’s work as “objective” salvation. It happened once for all, outside us but for us, in the personal life and death of Jesus of Nazareth almost two thousand years ago.

On the other hand, every person who enjoys salvation in this life does so by a response of faith to God’s gracious call. Whatever the case in the age to come, no one can enjoy salvation now apart from hearing and believing the gospel. We may speak of this present participation in Christ’s work as “subjective” salvation.

Just as President Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation and, by the stroke of his executive pen, freed every slave in the Confederate States effective January 1 , 1863, so Jesus, by his perfect act, effectively saved every human being who finally will enjoy eternal life. Yet just as no slave empirically enjoyed the benefits of Lincoln’s act until she or he heard and believed the good news of emancipation, so no redeemed sinner experientially enjoys Christ’s redemptive blessings now except through hearing and believing the gospel (1 Cor 1:18). Until women and men learn the good news of their salvation, they continue to live as if nothing has happened. They remain as they were — without hope, not knowing God, unaware of his forgiveness and favor. The gospel ministry is for the sake of such individuals, that they may obtain salvation in every sense, subjectively as well as objectively (2 Tim. 2: 10). Like Paul at Corinth, we need to declare the good news fearlessly and without ceasing, so long as God’s patience indicates that he still has others who do not know they have been reconciled in his Son (Acts 18:9-10; 2 Cor. 5:18-19; 2 Pet. 3:9).

Couplet 6:

– Every person finally lost will have knowingly rejected God’s goodness.
– Every person finally saved will have accepted God’s goodness as it was known to him or her.

Scripture speaks of some who perish “for lack of knowledge” or “by believing a lie” (Hos 4:6; 2 Thess. 2:8-10) This “knowledge” is relational as well as cognitive; it is not only intellectual but also moral and spiritual. Whoever rejects this “knowledge” does so by conscious choice and inevitably courts condemnation (John 3:19). Yet, because God is so just, and because Jesus’ saving work is so extensive and so powerful, the apostle Paul confidently affirms that only those who consciously reject God’s light will finally be lost (Rom 5:13-14, 18-21).Not all who are finally lost will have rejected the gospel, at least not in this life. But even those will have consciously rejected knowledge of God in some form, whether in nature (Acts 14:17; Rom 1:19-25), conscience (Rom 2:15-16), or divine revelation (John 5:45-47). God’s judgment of condemnation will be manifestly just in every case (Rom. 2:5-12).

On the other hand, Scripture indicates that all those finally saved will have welcomed in a spirit of faith the light of God they had. “God is one,” Paul writes, “and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised because of their faith” (Rom 3:30). Abraham is the prime example of one who was justified by faith though neither Christian nor Jew, and with limited gospel understanding as well (Rom 4:9-22). Jesus had in mind those who hear when he said: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:15-16).

Couplet 7:

– No person is better for not hearing the gospel. – No person is injured by hearing the gospel.

Sometimes people mistakenly assume, upon learning that Jesus’ work saved all who are finally saved whether they hear the gospel or not, that those who never hear are somehow better as a result. That inference is neither necessary nor proper.The ultimate rejection of God is in the rejection of the light of the gospel. For that reason, whoever willfully rejects Jesus incurs the greatest guilt (Heb 10:26-31). It does not follow, however, that those who gladly receive God’s dimmer rays before they learn of Jesus will reject the brightest light when it appears. Each heart remains the same regardless of the degree of light to which it is exposed (Luke 16:30-31; Rev 22:11). We may be sure that no person who rejects the gospel and is lost would have been saved if only that one had remained ignorant of Jesus. It is inconceivable that anyone who cries “yes” to God from the hopeless darkness will suddenly shout a defiant “no” when the bright light of the cross and the empty tomb burst finally into view.

Common ground

These seven couplets come short, of course, of providing a third alternative to Arminianism and Calvinism, although with cultivation by brighter minds they might furnish seeds for a biblical “via media”. Even so, they can serve a useful purpose. For they stake off common ground — to the surprise, at times, of participants all around — marking a safe and neutral area large enough for both groups to stand while growing together in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. After 450 years of constant controversy, perhaps that is no small step.

_____________________________________

It is my hope that there is indeed common ground as Brother Edward Fudge presents these convincing statements. Surely, those who have of a certainty experienced the love and mercy of God in salvation should be able to accept those in love who disagree on the finer points of theology and doctrine but who also are trusting only the claims of the good news about Jesus who died for our sins according to the Scriptures, was buried, and was raised from the dead according to the Scriptures. I submit that there is no room for name calling, condemning, and treating as infidels those with whom we disagree.

It seems clear to me that both Calvinists and Arminians work toward and expect the same outcome, that every person might hear the gospel invitation and come to faith in Christ and be saved. I cannot imagine a Christian who desires anything different.

Let us contribute to making Christ and His work for sinners known and not our petty, selfish, and often ill-informed differences.

Agape’

Royce

Mar 19 2010

PATTERNISM IN CHURCHES OF CHRIST: A TEMPLATE FOR SIN


Today I did a Google search for this term, “What is the Church of Christ pattern?” The search returned 905,000 hits. In most every case, the churches and individuals that came up in my sampling insist that the New Testament provides a “pattern” for worship which must be followed.

Interestingly, I could not find many who stated what the “pattern” is. Those in my sample who did define it included “pattern” components different from each other. Many patternists teach that the “pattern” extends far beyond worship, and their “pattern” is more elusive than the first.

No agreement as to definition

One Church of Christ insists that the five acts of worship (singing, praying, preaching, giving, and the Lord’s Supper) are the pattern. So they will quote verses that support those five things. Another Church of Christ will add baptism for the remission of sins and singing only a cappella to the pattern of “the one true church.” Still another adds to the “pattern” a requirement that only the King James Version of the Bible be used in public readings. The width and breadth of the supposed “pattern” is limited only by the number of people who define it.

The problem with “patternism” is the pattern. If what devout patternists proclaim  is true, wouldn’t it make sense that it would be relatively easy to find in the Bible? I am well aware of many of the proof texts but I must ask, “Is everyone reading the same Bible?”

What about those earliest Christians who, for perhaps two generations, got along quite well before many of the proof texts were written, and for sure before they were widely distributed? Were those early believers not able to worship God acceptably?

When patternism becomes sin

The title of this article is rather strong indictment. Tell me I’m wrong. At least one book has been written, plus scores of articles in periodicals and on blogs, condemning North Richland Hills Church of Christ in Texas, for its decision to include instrumental music in one of many Sunday services.

The attitude of those passing judgment is simple: Forget all the Christian service this church provides in its community, forget its faithfulness to preach Christ, to baptize believers and to live holy, loving lives. No Sir! These Christians went outside the supposed “pattern” and are damned because of it.

It is one thing to decided what is permissible individually or for my congregation, but when I apply that standard to every other Christian, and then teach that they will be lost if they do not comply, I am guilty of teaching “another gospel” and commit a grievous sin.

I recently listed over 40 different issues about which some Churches of Christ have divided, refused to acknowledge each other as brothers, and condemned each other to hell-fire. In each case, one group insists the other violated “the pattern.” In each case, the folks condemning have concluded that what the other people are doing is “unauthorized,” which puts them in open rebellion against God and means they are lost.

When this happens, Patternism becomes a template for sin! Those who design the template require everyone who claims to follow Jesus to fit their exact template or be lost. In Jesus’ day, the patternists were called Pharisees. Among some Churches of Christ today, they are called “elders” and “preachers,” but they are cut from the same cloth.

Yes, there is one “pattern” we should apply to our lives as believers. His name is Jesus.

Royce

Jan 22 2010

Jay Guin, Change Agent


When you visit Grace Digest you will see a list of blogs on the right side bar that I like and read. One of those is “Jay Guin“. If you move your mouse cursor over his name the caption will appear “A site that values truth over tradition“. I still believe that brief statement is an honest summation of Jay’s blog, OneinJesus.info.

Jay Guin is an elder at University Church of Christ in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. He serves as an elder and is busy teaching and shepherding the flock. Jay is also an attorney so the bills get paid at home. He has been a speaker at some of the most popular and well-known Church of Christ lectureships and is an author. His book The Holy Spirit and Revolutionary Grace: God’s antidotes for division within the Churches of Christ and at least four others are favorites of many readers.

Jay Guin is best known for his blogging. Oneinjesus.info is a favorite daily stop for hundreds of anxious readers including yours truly. Jay’s blog I am sure gets more hits by far than any other Church of Christ blog. (Edward Fudge and Al Maxey get tons of traffic but they are not in blog format. Both are wonderful but not blogs.)

For lack of a better term to describe Jay’s teaching I’ll say he is “Progressive”. He fearlessly challenges traditional CoC teaching and tradition and expertly defends his positions clearly with Bible texts carefully selected and used in context. (sadly, a rather rare skill among bloggers). While I don’t agree 100% of the time with Jay, I respect and love him 100% of the time, even when he gently chides me for being off topic in my comments on one of his posts.

I lovingly titled this post and labeled my friend, “Change Agent”. Traditionalists in churches of Christ label anyone who challenges the traditional views as a “change agent” and it is not a flattering term. I used that unflattering term to describe this good man because he is indeed a “change agent” for good. In the last few days I read comments from at least two of his readers who stated they had begun to shake of the shackles of legalism and to know and experience the freedom the grace of God is. It is this kind of change I appreciate and applaud.

I first started to pay attention to Jay Guin when he and fellow grace-man Todd Deaver challenged traditionalists to an online dialog. Jay Guin and Todd Deaver on the “Progressive” side and Phil Sanders and Greg Tidwell on the “Conservative” side. (I think “Traditionalist” better describes that position than “Conservative”. It isn’t “conservative” to be wrong.)  Grace Conversation was very interesting reading, both the content and the readers comments.

As I anticipated, Phil Sanders and Greg Tidwell, (and later Todd Deaver’s father Mack Deaver) were unable to defend the main tenets of their positions using the Bible. The traditionalists finally threw in the towel but along the way many, many readers were taught truth by the writing of Jay and Todd and comments by scores.

Jay Guin is some sort of superman! I can’t comprehend how one man can do so much. He posts from 1 to 3 excellent posts every day, teaches up to three times a week at his church, works at a law firm, and has all of the domestic duties of any husband and father. I don’t know how he does it but I am sincerely grateful that he does. A big Christian salute to my friend and the king of CoC bloggers, Jay Guin.

Agape’

Royce