I listen to a local "christian" radio station that carries a wide variety of "christian" teaching. Recently they have shuffled program time slots around, did some deletions and additions, and I laud them for pushing their infomercials to less "prime time" slots. One new show, a call in one, features teachings on the basic doctrines of grace. The show's hosts are teachers that teach from the perspective that salvation is 100% God's work (and 0 % our own.) This is biblical and understood through the writings of the Apostle Paul.
On another show, also a call in one, that airs about two hours earlier, a certain teacher with some letters associated with his name, a doctorate of some sort, went on a week's vacation, but took the opportunuty to create some pre-recorded shows (eliminating the possibility of immediate rebuttal), and the topic was "hypergrace" or the "heretical" notion that all of our sin, past present and future, was "forgiven" through the redemptive price of God's own blood, through the crucifixion of His Son, even our Lord Jesus called the Christ, blessed forever. Amen
While this Dr. wasn't about to use the names of the teachers from the other show, he nearly quoted their teaching with respect to some passages from 1st John, and had no problem identifying it with "known heresy." I wouldn't call this a bold move as it seemed staged and somewhat cowardly. You could hear some indignation in his voice, but it seemed to be indignation at the rejection of his scholarship, rather than a genuine concern over doctrine. I am concerned for this man, first because he seems quite sincere in his desire to advance the kingdom of God, and second because he would rather accuse some teachers of heresy rather than confront them in public and open debate (perhaps he desires to do so, and the other parties refuse out of a desire for peace within the body of Christ. Only these parties and God know the reason.)
I am inclined to believe that these two teachers I've mentioned first have the more "mature" understanding of the doctrines of grace, though I certainly could be mistaken. If a man were able to come to a perfect understanding of scripture through "proper" exegeses and scholarly effort, it's unlikely that the Pharisees of Jesus' first appearing "in skin" so to speak, would have condemned Him. A "carnally minded" reading of scripture will never reveal all those things which the Spirit of grace has hidden for those who know Him, though what is explicitly stated of doctrine remains explicitly stated.
Now, the center of the "Dr.'s" attack on these "heretics" was about their interpretation of these verses:
8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us. 1 John 1:8-10
The first two teachers explain this verse in context, contending that it is meant for unbelievers who were a part of the congregation(s) being addressed and effectively a "gospel" message, which then goes on to commend those who have already received the gospel.
Our indignant Dr. makes much of the original language and the use of the word "we" since it would apply to the author of the text as well (excellent scholarly point; he get's double credit.)
The Dr. really did make a strong point, why would the apostle identify with unbelievers? Were there believers who hadn't really understood and received the fulness of God's grace, not actually believing that it is God who alone saves us? Or perhaps, was John referring to God's sanctifying grace and trying to reassure those with immature understanding?
Being new to their ministry, I've called in to the show with a few questions, to try to evaluate the understanding of the first two teachers. All the parties involved have made what appears to be sincere confessions of faith. All believe that they are called to "the ministry" and demonstrate a desire to serve the Lord in the advancement of His kingom, though the first two have a gospel ministry and the latter an "activist" ministry. I don't have a problem calling any of them brothers, though one seems a bit petulant inspite of his age, qualifications, and genuine zeal for the word of God.
One aspect of the doctrinal argument, the controversy called "hypergrace," is the notion that asking for forgiveness after having already received Christ by faith is itself sin. I haven't heard the two teachers mentioned first say exactly this, but they stress the point that it is silly or pointless to ask for forgiveness from God, when a person has already accepted it: "The gifts and calling of God are irrevocable," etc. This arguement leads to the doctrine of the assurance of our salvation. Yet many teachers out there make the claim that a person can loose salvation, which flies in the face of most New testament scripture, including our Lord's own statement: “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life. John 5:24
There are a number of similar statements, all from the same gospel account, and all from the same author as that of 1st John. So why did John give us those "troubling" passages in his letter called 1st John?
Could it be that God is a little less concerned with our understanding of salvation, than with our relationship to and with Him?
He walked with Adam in the cool of the morning in the garden of Eden. He wants to walk with us now, instructing us through His Spirit and His word. He wants us to always be praying to Him, not just with requests and praises, but with discussion like a father conversing with his son over the issues of life, concerns, regrets, hopes, fears, etc. In this life, He is preparing us for eternity, for an ongoing and permanent fellowship. As a "good" Father, shouldn't He be concerned for our best (and isn't He?) Shouldn't He be steering us away from destructive behaviors and disciplining us when necessary?
I'm convinced that God has forgiven us of all sin if we have indeed received Him, but confessing our sinful actions to Him will certainly help us to "unburden" our conscience and be reassured of His love for us, in the confidence that He has already forgiven us in our adoption as sons. What does the scripture say? 22 Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. Romans 14:21-23
Now anyone who teaches a pure doctrine of grace opens himself up to accusations of being a libertine, and such was the case with the Apostle Paul. However, our sanctification is a process, and praise the Lord for His grace, because if any part of my salvation relied upon me, I would fail. Do you know a perfect man? I do, and His name is Jesus.
This is a discussion forum so feel free to agree or disagree, but let our stand be upon God's word and not upon our own understanding, and I pray that civility will be the rule if the rule of love is insufficient for such a divisive arguement. Let His Spirit reign in our hearts and in our mouths (or in our fingers as is the case now.) Amen
On another show, also a call in one, that airs about two hours earlier, a certain teacher with some letters associated with his name, a doctorate of some sort, went on a week's vacation, but took the opportunuty to create some pre-recorded shows (eliminating the possibility of immediate rebuttal), and the topic was "hypergrace" or the "heretical" notion that all of our sin, past present and future, was "forgiven" through the redemptive price of God's own blood, through the crucifixion of His Son, even our Lord Jesus called the Christ, blessed forever. Amen
While this Dr. wasn't about to use the names of the teachers from the other show, he nearly quoted their teaching with respect to some passages from 1st John, and had no problem identifying it with "known heresy." I wouldn't call this a bold move as it seemed staged and somewhat cowardly. You could hear some indignation in his voice, but it seemed to be indignation at the rejection of his scholarship, rather than a genuine concern over doctrine. I am concerned for this man, first because he seems quite sincere in his desire to advance the kingdom of God, and second because he would rather accuse some teachers of heresy rather than confront them in public and open debate (perhaps he desires to do so, and the other parties refuse out of a desire for peace within the body of Christ. Only these parties and God know the reason.)
I am inclined to believe that these two teachers I've mentioned first have the more "mature" understanding of the doctrines of grace, though I certainly could be mistaken. If a man were able to come to a perfect understanding of scripture through "proper" exegeses and scholarly effort, it's unlikely that the Pharisees of Jesus' first appearing "in skin" so to speak, would have condemned Him. A "carnally minded" reading of scripture will never reveal all those things which the Spirit of grace has hidden for those who know Him, though what is explicitly stated of doctrine remains explicitly stated.
Now, the center of the "Dr.'s" attack on these "heretics" was about their interpretation of these verses:
8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us. 1 John 1:8-10
The first two teachers explain this verse in context, contending that it is meant for unbelievers who were a part of the congregation(s) being addressed and effectively a "gospel" message, which then goes on to commend those who have already received the gospel.
Our indignant Dr. makes much of the original language and the use of the word "we" since it would apply to the author of the text as well (excellent scholarly point; he get's double credit.)
The Dr. really did make a strong point, why would the apostle identify with unbelievers? Were there believers who hadn't really understood and received the fulness of God's grace, not actually believing that it is God who alone saves us? Or perhaps, was John referring to God's sanctifying grace and trying to reassure those with immature understanding?
Being new to their ministry, I've called in to the show with a few questions, to try to evaluate the understanding of the first two teachers. All the parties involved have made what appears to be sincere confessions of faith. All believe that they are called to "the ministry" and demonstrate a desire to serve the Lord in the advancement of His kingom, though the first two have a gospel ministry and the latter an "activist" ministry. I don't have a problem calling any of them brothers, though one seems a bit petulant inspite of his age, qualifications, and genuine zeal for the word of God.
One aspect of the doctrinal argument, the controversy called "hypergrace," is the notion that asking for forgiveness after having already received Christ by faith is itself sin. I haven't heard the two teachers mentioned first say exactly this, but they stress the point that it is silly or pointless to ask for forgiveness from God, when a person has already accepted it: "The gifts and calling of God are irrevocable," etc. This arguement leads to the doctrine of the assurance of our salvation. Yet many teachers out there make the claim that a person can loose salvation, which flies in the face of most New testament scripture, including our Lord's own statement: “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life. John 5:24
There are a number of similar statements, all from the same gospel account, and all from the same author as that of 1st John. So why did John give us those "troubling" passages in his letter called 1st John?
Could it be that God is a little less concerned with our understanding of salvation, than with our relationship to and with Him?
He walked with Adam in the cool of the morning in the garden of Eden. He wants to walk with us now, instructing us through His Spirit and His word. He wants us to always be praying to Him, not just with requests and praises, but with discussion like a father conversing with his son over the issues of life, concerns, regrets, hopes, fears, etc. In this life, He is preparing us for eternity, for an ongoing and permanent fellowship. As a "good" Father, shouldn't He be concerned for our best (and isn't He?) Shouldn't He be steering us away from destructive behaviors and disciplining us when necessary?
I'm convinced that God has forgiven us of all sin if we have indeed received Him, but confessing our sinful actions to Him will certainly help us to "unburden" our conscience and be reassured of His love for us, in the confidence that He has already forgiven us in our adoption as sons. What does the scripture say? 22 Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. Romans 14:21-23
Now anyone who teaches a pure doctrine of grace opens himself up to accusations of being a libertine, and such was the case with the Apostle Paul. However, our sanctification is a process, and praise the Lord for His grace, because if any part of my salvation relied upon me, I would fail. Do you know a perfect man? I do, and His name is Jesus.
This is a discussion forum so feel free to agree or disagree, but let our stand be upon God's word and not upon our own understanding, and I pray that civility will be the rule if the rule of love is insufficient for such a divisive arguement. Let His Spirit reign in our hearts and in our mouths (or in our fingers as is the case now.) Amen