Brad and I are/were both Baptists but we are very different Baptists. One thing we do agree upon is the lack of importance of denominations. Being brought up under one doctrine creates a bias against scriptural truth. People often believe the way they do because that's all they know. Brad realized that but had a hard time shaking it. They can't let go of what they believe because that means they reject their denomination, and even their parents.
In politics, many people still vote a certain way because their parents did. That is a noble thing to do because honoring one's parents is commanded. However, parents can be wrong, and likely are. Likewise, denominational doctrine can be wrong and likely is. "Brad" confesses in his book that he had been a product of his Independent and Southern Baptist upbringing. He was endeavoring to escape from his prison but yet even in his writings he clung to Calvinism while attempting to escape it.
In denominations with Calvinistic beginnings, legalism is a damning word. We know from scripture that the sect of the Pharisees were called "vipers" by Jesus because they, in public at least, made a show of obeying every law and regulation. However, they had no love in their hearts. They obeyed because they perceived that they must in order to be saved.
Before I proceed, Brad and I had much in common. We both realized the importance of Christ crucified and the resurrection. Much of Paul's teachings were the necessity in accepting the atoning blood of Jesus and that He still lives. Brad knew that most people have little idea on the subject of the atonement. I submit that neither do they have much of an idea on what being "born-again" means!
In our doctrinal differences, Brad and I had much in common. Because he was more of a biblical scholar, Brad had much more knowledge of scripture and the technical aspects of the original languages, era, and societies. However, being more educated in the seminary, he was more exposed to modern thought. That is not all bad, but professors in seminaries sometimes leave more questions about scripture than answers. Thus many preachers graduate with the four-cornered hat, but remain confused.
Brad's learning made him think. He rejected orthodoxy to some extent even though he called himself orthodox. My own definition of orthodoxy is thinking the way the apostles thought. They knew Jesus first-hand and wrote what he inspired. Liberal thought always distances itself from regulations and past beliefs. Unfortunately, taking the liberty to change inspired word, leads to false teaching. To be like Christ, is to accept him in an orthodox way: he Is who He says He is, and He did what He said He could do. I accept that without question. Therefore, I am orthodox. Part of orthodoxy is accepting canon for what it is. My belief is that the sixty-six books of the Bible are the inspired word of God because God is in charge. He inspired early Christians to select these codex, and they remain as such because of God's will. Why would He desire for us to have Holy Scripture if it wasn't holy?
Brad was desperate for truth. His book is full of despair, but at the time of his book, he had hope. The book was written with the thought that he was enlightened. The Church is not what it should be! Of course, it's not. However, my own thought is that Calvinism is a doctrine of hopelessness and despair. Deep within their minds, Calvinists know they have a choice, and that they must "do" certain things to be saved. Brad seemed to reject free will. He said that free will is not in the Bible but it is: in the Old Testament there was a free will offering mentioned in several places. In the New Testament that free will offering is made more obvious:
Romans 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.Paul didn't use the words free will but look at what he says: you do something - sacrifice yourself. God doesn't make you - it is your choice. Our own free will sacrifice is to sacrifice ourselves - or not. It takes work to present the sacrifice but because of the mercy of God it is possible.
The notion of free will flies in the face of Calvinism. That doctrine is deterministic. Since salvation is all grace, there is little an individual can do to be saved. They live their lives without hope, and even deny when salvation happens!
1 Thessalonians 5:8 But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation.
Calvinism accepts the notion that we are at liberty to sin. That is valid scripture. Sin is always a choice, and if we sin, God does not damn us. Therefore, we are out of bondage, not being a slave to sin nor its restrictions. Rejecting sin is legalism because it's the Law which is rejected.
Brad had a different idea on the Old Covenant which we call the Old Testament. For him, it was a covenant of legalism. My own doctrine is that is was and still is a covenant of grace. What I am saying, except for the patriarchs, the Jews missed the point. Like the Pharisees, they misunderstood the Torah - the book of the Law. Adam was "saved" by the grace of God with original sin, and we are still saved by grace today. Adam felt shamed and attempted to cover his own shame with fig leaves. We still do that! Our "doing" things to relieve the guilt of disappointing God is the first step to reprieve. Mankind ever since, has been saved by grace. (I use the common "saved" here although "the hope of salvation" is better. "Saved" denotes the assurance of the salvation which comes at death).
Why the Law? So that we are without excuse. Before the Law, the Jews could plead innocence. With the Law, their rationalization are to no avail. The Law operationalizes love - love of God and love of others. The Ten Commandments, which God meant to endure forever, are written in stone for that reason. Jesus didn't come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it. The Law is as valid today as it was when it was hot off the press!
Before I was born-again, I attempted to "clean up my act" so as to become presentable to the Lord. That's what legalism is. It's an attempt to save oneself. In other words, my own "fig leaves" to cover my shame were works - the same as Adam did. Adam's way was noble but wrong. Not really being God, he didn't have any power to cover his own sins. Likewise, I don't have that power either, but Jesus does! When I came to that enlightenment, just as Jesus taught Nicodemus, I was born-again. The "old person" tried to save himself while the "new person" depended on Jesus to do it.
Legalism is noble because it shows conviction. It is ignoble in that it leaves Jesus out of the birthing process. However, I am a legalist, and am not ashamed of that! Let me explain. The Law is still valid but has been reduced to one. That one Law has a corollary. We are to love God and love others. Loving others is how we demonstrate our love for God. The Apostle John wrote that Jesus desired that we obey the commandments if we love Him. Therefore, right reasons come into play.
If we merely obey to save our lousy skins, then legalism is futile. However, after our flesh is safe, obedience is a way of saying, I thank you for your grace and love you for it! Calvinists place little importance on obedience because they see it as legalism. They deny the will but the will is what must be sacrificed. Just as Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son, he didn't have to do it! Just as I don't have to not sin, I must be willing to life righteously. Free will is important and necessary doctrine, but Calvinism deny it!
Calvinists then operate in one of two ways. They are happy with their new birth experience and obey the Law which they call legalism and disdain. There are many righteous Calvinists in spite of Calvinistic doctrines. On the other hand, since they are "saved from all sins", they have no responsibility to not sin. One Calvinist replied when I questioned him, "That sin was forgiven two thousand years ago." Indeed, it was but where was his respect for Jesus who died because of that sin?
Paul tells us in Romans 3:25 that his blood was shed for "past sins". Of course, "all sins" were on his shoulders, but when we accept that propitiation, it is for our own past sins. Therefore, continual refrain from sinning and repentance is necessary. Once we're born again, Jesus's desire for the Christian is that we sin no more. We are to be legalists in the sense that we are willing to obey God, albeit we may fail often. (Abraham's obedience was credited to him as faith; hence, obedience is faith as Brad proposed).
1 John 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.With these words, we must put them in context. Sin can't mean one time. Paul expounded upon that in many places. The English Standard Version says it a little differently using the phrase makes a practice of sinning. Since walking with Christ is following his Way, we are to obey Him. Sure, we may slip and fall but we must be willing to follow Him.
For Brad and other Calvinists, I believe that the inability to obey God's will is depressing. It is for me, because when I sin often, my hope dwindles. Brad equated faith with obedience. That is not Calvinism! Somehow, in spite of his upbringing, Brad realized that obedience is important; it being a measure of faith. Sin produces guilt, and a Christian who is depressed with guilt has no joy. We all know that even one sin makes a Christian ashamed. On the other hand if a Christian sins without remorse, he or she may be reprobate; what analysts call psychopaths because they feel no guilt.
To relieve guilt, Christians repent. Jesus forgives seventy times seven - without end actually. Calvinists believe in eternal security. For them, there is no need to repent because without regard to sinning they are "saved" anyway. Conditional security depends on us. Things we must do to be saved. Those works are not of the hands but the heart. We must be willing to remain pure. Will is so important to salvation yet Calvinists reject it! Since free will is a gift of God when He designed man in His own image, using our will is still grace. For instance, our faith is a gift of God, but continuing in faith is a work which is our responsibility.
Somehow Christians know that they must obey. When we fail, guilt sets in. Unless that guilt is dealt with by repentance and a willingness to obey, our hope is dismal. Why would God want us if we serve two masters? He is a jea1ous God. He was jealous of Adam when he did his will, and not God's will. Even today, we pray that God's will be done, but yet Christians do their own will! That's our futile attempt to be as God. We fail God, and communion is gone. Sinning Christians isolate themselves from God, and hope is lost.
This two verses scare and depress those Calvinists who live a life of sin:
Hebrews 10:26 (ESV) For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries.They deny that it was meant for them and rationalize by saying, "It was meant for the Jews!" Then after saying that, they use other Hebrews verses for Gentiles. God is not a respecter of persons and what is true for one is true for all. God doesn't have different standards of salvation - there is one Jesus and one Gospel.
When Christians continue to practice sin, life becomes difficult. By serving two masters they will eventually choose one over the other. That is scriptural! (Matthew 6:24). Sure, Christians continue to believe in God but serve themselves. They are the master of themselves; not God their Master. The Christian's belief may be sincere, but their heart remains uncircumcised. The desire to sin must be hung on the cross by Jesus.
This is not to say that the Calvinist is not a born-again Christian but "know not what they do," as the Jews didn't at the crucifixion. I believe God's mercy extends to those with confused doctrine because of His grace! Christians cannot just keep on being the "old person" after they are born-again and still have hope. Their joy is diminished because obedience is a measure of faith. If I realize that I am a man of little faith, I am disappointed in myself. Thank God that even a "little faith" is saving or I would be reprobate!
However, it is important to do the legal things to show God that love and appreciation for redemption. When I reject cursing, boozing, smoking, doping, immodesty, gluttony, lustfulness, and lack of seriousness in worship, and the messing with the Lord's Day, I am a legalist. Not doing those things are not "saving" but they are demonstrating love for God. Christians who continue to break those regulations and Laws know they disappoint God. I know that I can't live with that because I hated to disappoint my own dad, let alone my Father in heaven. That is not to say that I am "sin free" but I am willing to refrain from sin. Again, it's not the doing but the willingness to do right. In the kingdom of God, trying is succeeding!
Brad's knowledge helped me understand him. He battled with sin by his own admission. Just with that confession, he showed that his heart was right. He was willing to please God but his flesh was weak. We all battle with sin. Continual study of the word, confession, and repentance is the solution. No one said that life would be easy, but in death there is hope.
No comments:
Post a Comment