Well, It’s Sunday, and I have a little time to reflect on the weekend conference in Ft. Myers, Florida. Don Preston, Mike Grace, Jeremiah Thompson and Alan Bondar spoke (and myself). Where to begin?
Well, first, I had to miss Thursday’s lectures. I had to work a little in the day and fully at night until 1:00 am, then drive to Ft. Myers. I arrived a 3:30 am, read myself to sleep (I have a copy of Dr. Birks’ book, The End of Sin, which he recently sent me). Not that this book put me to sleep! I usually drift off with a book.
I awoke on Alan’s couch (thanks Gail!) at around 7:45 am only to see Don Preston sitting at the kitchen table, showered, shaved, and with tie on, at his laptop. Was I in heaven? Was this a dream? Ha! We chit chated a bit, but my mind was on the fact that I had to speak in just in a hour. This is my life it seems….little sleep, lots of play.
My first lecture of the Friday set was on the OT in the NT. I used Kyle Snodgrass’ material from a standard work on NT interpretation to demonstrate that we are on solid grounds, exegetically speaking. My lecture material will stay within the accepted norms of biblical hermeneutics. And, so, I proceeded to give several NT examples of OT quotations and allusions. Isaiah 6.13b was my main text, drawing off of Keil and Delischtze (in loc.) OT commentary on Isaiah. The download should be available soon on Alan’s website. It will cost you $4,000 dollars since we are in this for profit.
Mike Grace followed up with a overview of “story” in Hebrews which was mainly in line with Evangelical scholarship, since, well, he only referenced an Evangelical scholar for his material! That is, he got it from “the church”. Good stuff.
I then followed Mike with another (and last) lecture on that nature of Man and the resurrection. I covered the material in my series on RCM from Gordon Clark’s book on the Biblical Doctrine of Man. Man does not “have” the image of God, he “is” the image of God. Man is what he thinks. Man equals soul, and this is “the whole man”. Man is a soul who has a body fitted for him in his earthy dwelling. Then we discussed Adam’s “death”, and so on. General stuff.
Don spoke on marvelous material and ended one lecture on the Ethipian Eunich which I won’t spoil here. You simply HAVE to get that lecture. The room was silent. Those of us who have heard basically everything Don has done usually get treated to some “new stuff” he is working on, and this was one of them. I got a chance to privately talk with Don about some personal matters going on as of late, and it was very encouraging. I appreciate and am thankful to God that he as brought Don into my life. I can learn a lot about character from this man.
Alan Bondar spoke on the Judgment of the nations, and took and interesting route as to how to go about defining this in an A.D. 70 framework. Alan tends to be quite “heady” in his approach, and you have to listen to every word – that is, pay attention. I enjoy his spirit in that he is, if nothing else can be said, rightly trying to “figure these things out” with a rigorous approach. He is not settling for what has now passed as “Full Preterism” and realizes that we are far from over in formulating a theological worldview (new covenant EYES). We have different approaches at this time, but at least he is pushing the envelope – and Ibelieve he is doing so in the right spirit.
Jeremiah Thompson tackled an admittedly difficult subject on “Papal Protestantism”. The themes he spoke on could each take a lecture in themselves. That’s when it hit home to me that some of us are trying to do just that; take the fact of the Parousia in A.D. 70 to all areas of human thought. This is “beyond A.D. 70″ stuff. What I fear is that we let the genie out of the bottle a few years ago within Preterism, when more unity was displayed, and now, we want to put the genie back into the bottle and label it “Full Preterism”. This would be a mistake at this juncture. I am not competing with Thompson and Bondar. And, though we, at this stage, disagree on probably a great deal of things, the right spirit was there. We are not competing to “get” people on Bondar’s “side”, or Frost’s “side”. We are ALL at the point of formulating something that appeals to the families of the earth which is the object of the “blessings of Abraham” – the new covenant. What is it? What does it mean? How does the Bible teach us in how to apply it in “the age to come”? That’s what I took away from the conference. Whether one supports any of the early attempts of answering these questions is one thing – the FACT is, they are now seriously being asked. It is, if I may be sociological at the moment, a sort of “second stage” of Preterism. The bedrock, laid so solidly by the likes of Preston, Siegle, Scott, Stevens and, in many ways, the partial preterist works of Gentry, DeMar, and earlier works like Terry and Russell (and even further, Eusebius and Athanasius) is here to stay. I recently finished reading non-full Preterist Perrin’s work on the coming of the son of man. Marvelous stuff. Right up our alley. But, the human mind always wants to know, “and, so, now what?” Exactly.
I cam away refreshed on my 2 hour drive back to home (where I was awarded four tickets to the USF game, which I took my two wonderful boys and a friend of theirs). Sitting there, with a coke and a horribly made pizza (which costed 6.50 with 4.50 cokes!) with my boys, overlooking the field, the people……the “generations in the AGES TO COME” Paul spoke of about as he peered way, way beyond his “generation” (which we Preterist so focus upon), I couldn’t help but to smile. No. We were not watching Christians being slaughtered by the lions. We were not watching sickening pornographic displays for public viewing. Here we were, with 20 some thousand people, enjoying a football game. Many thousands were undoubtedly “saints clothed in white linen”. The Kingdom was present. It was ruling. Invisible to some who are still outside its gates, to be sure, but not to us. God was there, dwelling with us. Present. He was present in the man sharing his popcorn with the kid in another seat. He was there in the polite conversation I had with a man I never met. A man of color, who, say, 50 years would not have been allowed to sit there in the “white” section. He was there when the beer sellers said, “last call” before the start of the fourth quarter. There was morality all around me on display. Manners. Order. Kingdom. It takes new covenant eyes to begin to appreciate this. It always takes new covenant eyes to see the other side of the street, where there is disorder, chaos, drugs, alcoholism, and voilence. Does Preterism hit that area? Does A.D. 70 have anything to say to that? Maybe we are too busy cutting our own spiritual throats online to see it…..
Anyway….that’s the weekend I have, and I thanked my Father for it.
Trinity Season, 2010
Anonymous
Felt like I was there. Good review, Sam. I’ll be interested in your take on “The End of Sin.”
Wanda Short
Awesome stuff Sam! Really was a fantastic time and the face to face fellowship was so needed! I hope that you will write an article on the question from the Q&A Panel discussion on Saturday regarding eternal punishMENT vs. eternal punishING…that really grabbed my attention and I would love to hear more of your thoughts on that. Thanks for everything – see you soon! w
Samuelmfrost
Wanda,
It’s developed from the Annhilationist view (Edward Fudge, A Consuming Fire is the name of his book – which is probably the most developed treatment of the Annhi. view). He makes a distinction between punishING and punishMENT. The punishment is eternal, never to be repeated, one time thing. Punishing is ongoing. He then does a large analysis of the word “aion” and “olam” (Greek and Hebrew words) for “eternal” and other hyperbolic terms like “never ending” and “without number” etc. We have to understand that the Bible employs homonyms – words that are spelled the same, but have different meanings according to the subject matter and context, etc. Fudge, if nothing else, has demonstrated that eternal conscience torment is a legitimate, exegetical approach (i.e., Evangelical) and this is demonstrated, again, in that Seventh Day Adventists are welcomed in the Evangelical Theological Society with their own chapter and study groups. In other words, these two views are not to be held as litmus tests within orthodoxy – and that’s pretty much where I am at. I have not formally made any declaration as to where I stand, having made the points at the conference that the argument against eternal torment cannot be based on “that’s not fair” or “that’s unjust” and the like. If God so deemed such a punishment, it is righteous on that account for all that He deems is righteous because He is righteous. The argument, then, would have to be based on Scriptural exegesis.
Chris W
Hey Sam, thanks for the update. Saw that Birks sent you his book. Does that mean you two have somewhat buried the hatchet? I don’t mean to pry into personal issues I just have a real heart for reconciliation. God bless
Chris W
Samuelmfrost
Chris,
We are working on that. It’s a deliberately slow process, but, yes, we are in communication again, Praise the Lord!
Anonymous
Sam, is your unfrocking dependent upon your agreement with Kelly? =) I’ve never known anyone to be “frocked” so I would suppose deFROCKING is kind of like drinking the unCola. :) What I find somewhat distasteful is the fact that relationships become contingent upon theologically like-minded convictions. I’ll forgive you IF you sing my tune. I’ve gotta believe reconciliation is ALWAYS a good thing, but it saddens me that it’s often conditional. Once it sounds like you may be on the verge of eschatological alteration, all of a sudden those who treated you as a heretic are interested in dialogue. This is troubling.
Samuelmfrost
Chuck: “deliberately slow process”……..
Anonymous
Sam,
I was edified and equipped through your teaching. Your humility and sincerity was so very evident. And I agree with Alan’s sentiment when he said “That guy is beyond brilliant.” Those who would malign you and tear you down obviously do not know you.
As well, your entire demeanor was one of a man who deeply and earnestly desires that the Body be united in Spirit. Are you perfect? Admittedly, no. But let he who is cast the first stone of judgment. :)
It was an honor to meet you.
Your brother,
Dustin…
Samuelmfrost
Dustin,
And an honor to meet you, brother. I had a wonderful time. Sorry we did not get to spend more time together, but you know where you can find me. I am, too, sorry for those who fan the flames against me personally as a liar. You words are very encouraging to me and come at the right time. Blessings and prosperity, brother.
Larry Siegle
Frocked, DE-Frocked, RE-Frocked…. A new form of “FROCK n Roll”—or is that the Pentecostal version of being Frocked? Birds of a feather FROCK together, (description of a preacher meeting?)….
Wanda Short
I actually wore a lovely FROCK to our worship gathering Sunday…we missed you Larry! And I second Sam’s comment about it being an honor to meet Dustin! He is spot on awesomeness! (oh and his buddy David is pretty cool too – even with his twang!) Blessings brothers!
Samuelmfrost
F Rock…..Frost Rock…..Fro…..ck…….you could have some fun with this….oh, I see you already are!
TomG in TX
Sam: “It will cost you $4,000 dollars since we are in this for profit.”
Sam, that is no problem because your followers are multi-millionaires who want to spend truckloads of money on your nefarious cause.
;-)
Anonymous
Sam, I got the “slow” part in your prior comment. :) Apparently until now, it wasn’t time to reengage until you showed some promise. Employing a little behavior mod , eh? If you change this, that, and the other, then you might qualify to get back into my good graces. This conditional grace is known as FRACTOLOGY, which was originally referenced as frocktology. The fickle frocktology of fate is clearly in view.
Samuelmfrost
Well, Chuck, you know me. I am an old softie. You have got onto me in the past for being to “quick” to forgive and reenter relationships destined to sour again. It’s funny, because I have broken off relationships recently, only to have this one come back.
There is, of course, something to be said about “change” and “repentance” and “acceptance”. The reason why a relationship breaks is because of some perceived wrongdoing, real or not. Correct that, and the relationship can resume. There is a biblical quality here. “Forgiveness” is not this sloppy, greasy grace. Notice that the father in the Prodigal Son received the son…..AFTER he returned. Had he not returned……
Now, I know that some are reading this with great forensic detection to find some clue as to my “drift away” from Full Preterism (rofl), and here they read into my talking with Birks again as a “clue” as to where I am heading. We are having a good laugh at this kind of paranoia. It is best that the brothers dwell together in unity, and I have always preached that….but sometimes certain brothers make that almost impossible. Love hopes for the best….love does not “suspect” with “suspicious” detective work……
Anonymous
Sam, you know me as well. I’m all for genuine restoration. I’m hard-pressed to find anything more heartening in new covenant life than reconciliation. If repentance is in order, then great. What gets under my skin is refusing to accept brothers until they change a particular theological view. Once some people perceive that you’re drifting back in their direction, the love-fest begins. That conditional acceptance, in my view is almost always short-lived and will ultimately break down again once other areas of departure come to light. But don’t mistake my skepticism for a lack of enthusiasm. If it’s real and remains then Heaven rejoices and so do I!
Samuelmfrost
Chuck,
I see unconditional forgiveness in the bible, but I do not see unconditional unity. I don’t believe the Bible teaches unconditional unity.
Anonymous
Sam I totally agree. Unity of Spirit is a far cry from unity of doctrine. We can be united in Christ without agreeing on EVERYTHING.What I have been arguing against for several years is what I call “Doctrinal Salvation”. It’s akin to “Lordship Salvation”, that those in mainly reformed circles continue to perpetuate. They’re quick to to point to specific believer’s shortcomings as proof that “genuine” faith never occurred. This view has become rather popular and a successful means whereby, in my view, believers can be more easily managed by the gatekeepers. And each local congregation establishes those pet behaviors that clearly delineate who is and is not a Christian. In a critique of Francis Chan’s wildly popular book “Crazy Love”, the following was written:”But Chan’s method is sometimes very disturbing. He makes the assertion that if one believes in Christ, but doesn’t follow His commands, then that person isn’t going to Heaven. Pages 83-84 he states: ‘As I see it, a lukewarm Christian is an oxymoron; there is no such thing. To put it plainly, church goers who are “lukewarm” are not christians. We will not see them in Heaven.’ What I have been arguing against for several years is the first cousin of “Lordship Salvation,” namely “Doctrinal Salvation”. Much like the list of sins (and some are actually not even sins), they create a list of doctrines that simply cannot be believed by the Christian. Once you cross the line, now you qualify as the damnable heretic, do not pass go, and must go directly to purgatory…where the hope is that you’ll drop this non-orthodox view and be restored.Both views trivialize and subjectify the work of faith that God initiates. What I have been amazed at is the frequency I’ve seen preterists argue for “Lordship Salvation”, when “Doctrinal Salvation” is lurking around the next corner. Often, fellowship becomes conditional upon espousing specific beliefs. Once you begin to question the status quo, fellowship is withdrawn. In my view, it’s as dangerous to the health of the body as it is insidious in it’s masking. It’s done with the utmost display of Pharisaical arrogance. “We’re only attempting to ferret out bad doctrine,” they say. As if those who are so adept judging doctrinal error have clearly morphed their own views over time. So how can they be so quick to point the finger? I’m not suggesting that we should allow the winds of “another Gospel” to sweep through out midst, nor am I saying that we should accept unseemly behavior as though it isn’t destructive. However, I think we’ve got to be far more loving to our brothers, willing to allow them the space to work through the theological maze. Compassion, patience, forgiveness, gentleness, humility…these are the marks of faith that need to be in clear focus. If we strive for these Christ will be glorified and we will be untied in spirit.
Wanda Short
Sam – I love this that you said – “There is, of course, something to be said about “change” and “repentance” and “acceptance”. The reason why a relationship breaks is because of some perceived wrongdoing, real or not. Correct that, and the relationship can resume. There is a biblical quality here. “Forgiveness” is not this sloppy, greasy grace. Notice that the father in the Prodigal Son received the son…..AFTER he returned. Had he not returned…..”
Amen brother! I too have in the last several months experienced the absolute joy of reconciling with a dear brother in Christ and it was a humbling process that taught me a lot about the three things you mention – change, repentence, and acceptance. God was in the details every step of the way and I have to say that our restored friendship is stronger and deeper than ever before and my heart is leaping at working in ministry locally again! Again and again the sovereignty of God brings me to my knees and teaches me upon whom to rest my worries and cares. You are in my prayers and on my heart friend!
Samuelmfrost
Wanda,
When ANY relationship breaks down, both parties are to look at the reasons why. In Christian spiritual development, we are taught to ask, “what is my part in it? Could I have handled this better? How was my approach a turn off? Could I have worded this better?” In other words, it is not biblical to always seek to “blame” to the other – as if you had no part whatsoever. That’s the “blame game”. Thanks for your post
Anonymous
Chuck,
When you say “Lordship Salvation,” what do you mean exactly? And is this something you embrace or reject?
Dustin…
Anonymous
Dustin,Thanks for the question. “Lordship Salvation” is a mainstay within most reformed circles. The basis is that one cannot accept Christ as Savior if he or she doesn’t also make Him Lord. To be clear, I believe making Christ the Lord of our lives is paramount and is THE process of becoming a disciple. What I don’t believe is that it’s automatic simply because the Holy Spirit resides within us. I believe in the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, not the impartation. People often quote Ephesians 2:10 as proof that every believer MUST walk in a manner worthy of his or her calling or they are not a Christian. The problem is in identifying exactly what that looks like practically. We ALL have dry times. We all shrink back from following Christ to the degree that we ought. So, Dustin, what I have witnessed is the usage of this Lordship view as a litmus test of salvation. He couldn’t be a Christian, look at what he just did! She can’t possibly be a believer, she’s so unloving. Martin Luther is quoted as saying, “We are saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves is never alone.” I could disagree more. There have been times when my faith was very alone. Yet, as I look back, I don’t believe I was unsaved. At any rate, I believe it’s an insidious doctrine that does two things:1. It turns some Christians into Pharisee fruit inspectors2. It undermines the assurance of salvation (If we’re forced to look to our acts of piety or anything but the grace and mercy of God, to “prove” that faith has been manifested in us, I think we are most to be pitied)Blessings!
Samuelmfrost
In other words, there are strongs Christians, “spiritual” as Paul called them (which was not always a negative term), and there are weak ones. Obviously, someone in leadership must have “requirements” (deacons, elders) as Paul listed, right? we must separate the “salvation” issue from the practical issue. In practice, a Christian may be in a dry time, and hardly look or sound like one who is “saved”, but, in fact, is. This person we would not have for an elder, would we? Or give him a time of leave or something (which is done, even for pastors). “Qualifications”, then, is a good term, no? I think we confuse “lordship” with “works” and “greasy grace” with “no works” etc. If God has dtermined those “good works” in you, they WILL happen…..you WILL perform them, period. He also has determined walks in the valley of death. highs and lows…..(the Westminster Confession on this is plain). This is why I think “elders” is a literal term: OLD GUYS who have lived a few years with Christ, up and down, and have demonstrated integrity in this highs and lows – that is, they kept getting back up, though they occassionally stumbled. The TRUE CHRISTIAN BELIEVER will always get back up. “The righteous may stumble, but shall NEVER fall….” He cannot stay down…..LIFE is at work in him…..it is IMPOSSIBLE. That’s my take…..
Anonymous
Chuck,
I think I see.
So although you believe that “making” Christ Lord is the process of what a believer does, they do not have to accept Him as Lord of their lives as a contingency of regeneration?
Out of curiosity, what do you make of Colossians 2:6: Therefore, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him…
Thanks,
Dustin…
Anonymous
Chuck,
I think I see.
So although you believe that “making” Christ Lord is the process of what a believer does, they do not have to accept Him as Lord of their lives as a contingency of regeneration?
Out of curiosity, what do you make of Colossians 2:6: Therefore, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him…
Thanks,
Dustin…
Jason
“Martin Luther is quoted as saying, “We are saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves is never alone.” I could disagree more.” – Chuck
Chuck, i’m just curious. Do you know the context of that quote? Have you read Calvin’s commentary on James? I don’t think you understand the point in its context.
Anonymous
What I do understand Jason, is how that quote is used to prove the Lordship Salvation point.
Dustin, I’m not saying that when we “believe” that we aren’t submitting to the whole council of God. Bringing Christ to bear on all facets of our lives (Lordship) is a process. If it were not so, there would be no need for all the Scriptural exhortations to mature in Christ. If any believer unambiguously and continually has fully made Jesus Lord of their lives, then I believe they are not being honest. It’s all a matter of degree. So, if we begin to gaze upon the manifestation of God’s righteous work in us as the “proof” that God lives in us, I think that’s a mighty slippery treadmill. By relegating belief to the land of the subjective, I think we will spend the rest of our lives attempting to prove, either to others or to ourselves, by what we do or do not do, the outcome of our faith.
Sam, although I agree that “The TRUE CHRISTIAN BELIEVER will always get back up”, we don’t know when or to what degree. I do not think there’s a test known to man that can prove that someone “believed”.
Is a Christian capable of committing any sin that a non-believer can commit?
Jason
Chuck, my point is…what exactly are you disagreeing with if you don’t know what Luther meant? I don’t see how anyone can disagree with Calvin and Luther on this point. Genuine faith WILL bring obedience. Yet, as even Calvin admitted, the light of the gospel will sometimes appear smothered in the life of the elect, but never extinguished. Very similar to what Sam wrote. That’s the “Lordship” view i have heard and read about in the past and i don’t see any problem with it.
Anonymous
Jason, by this standard, others have determined that you aren’t a Christian because in their estimation you don’t demonstrate the fruit of brotherly love. Whether you care or don’t give a rip what others may conclude, is not the point. The fact is, fellowship between believers is, in my view, often greatly hindered by arbitrary determinations as to who is and who is not a Christian. So we have people insisting that Sam can’t be a Christian because he has had a problem with alcohol or that I can’t be a Christian because I’ve succumbed to eschatological heresy. I’m speaking in practical terms…not theologically. And what does “smothered in the life of the elect” actually mean? Sounds like an “out” clause to me.
If I attempt to prove my eternal condition by a measure other than my faith in Christ, then I am most to be pitied. Others are free to use any measuring stick they so choose. In so doing I have seen great damage done to the body of Christ.
My question still stands. “Is a Christian capable of committing any sin that a non-believer can commit?”
Samuelmfrost
Is a person who believes that standing in front of an oncoming Semi Truck will smash them, going to then stand in front of a Semi Truck that will smash them as a result of that belief?
Anonymous
Is a person who truly believes Christ is Savior and Lord going to continue to engage in destructive behavior that denies both?
Samuelmfrost
no
Anonymous
Chuck,
Thanks for the clarification. What you are saying makes sense, if I am understanding what you are saying correctly.
I have heard it advocated that a person does not need to submit to Christ as a part of Who and what the Gospel is. This, however, seems foreign to Who and what the Gospel was as far as the Scriptures are concerned.
Dustin…
Anonymous
Dustin, the way I read it, we are either slaves to sin or bondslaves to Christ. Thirty eight years ago I was purchased by His precious blood and was therefore freed from the bondage of sin and in-turn made a slave to Christ. How the latter plays out on a day-to-day practical level, is what I have attempted to address. Jesus is my savior and my Lord no matter how I live my life. Too often I believe we take snapshots of one another (and ourselves) and then form conclusions based upon inadequate sample sizes. I don’t believe we are equipped with the ability to KNOW whose names are written in the book of life based upon what people do or don’t do. If behavior, and not faith, becomes the yardstick, then all determinations turn decidedly subjective. Many Mormons look more like Christians than those who have put their faith in Christ to absolve them of sin. Once behavior supersedes faith, then assurance is lost. How do I know I’m saved? Because of my works of piety, my interest in God’s Word or abstinence from certain sins? All those things are highly subjective and wax to and fro with the wind. Others may be more confident in what they do as a testament to their faith, but I am all to leery of basing my confidence on my behavior. Once I finally determined that my objective measure must only be my faith in Christ, my day-to-day angst dropped immensely. Dustin, my life has mirrored the stock market. If I base my assurance during a bear market or even a roaring bull market, I am most to be pitied. Above I asked, “Is a person who truly believes Christ is Savior and Lord going to continue to engage in destructive behavior that denies both?”I added what I think are two trap words in that question…”truly” and “continues”. Both put faith in the land of the subjective. How do we begin quantifying “real” faith from that which is supposedly “unreal”? Behavior, right? Pretty miserable measure if you ask me. Some may not, but the fact is that I “continue to engage in destructive behavior” that grieves my Father. Saying otherwise would be ignorant of the nature that still binds me. It’s all a matter of degree. What percent of the time do we fail to live up to God’s standards? And am I going to turn right around and use the few successes to “prove” that my faith was in fact “real”? I no longer travel that road. Why is this issue so important to me? Because I want to do everything in my power to accentuate faith. In my view, the ONLY measuring stick the Bible gives us is “belief.” As I read the 4th Gospel I am struck by the number of references there are to belief (and to my knowledge it’s never qualified i.e. they “really believed.” In Acts we read where some of the religious leaders “believed” and yet what do many of us do? Because some of them remained secretive in their commitment to Christ and because they may have blended in all too well, we determine that their faith wasn’t effectual. Are there times when the majority of Christians are any less clandestine?Dustin, I believe we must cease making statements like: “He’s too unloving to be a Christian”, “She couldn’t be a Christian because she dresses too provocatively”; “He can’t possibly know Christ because he drinks too much”; If she was truly a Christian she couldn’t believe the resurrection was past.” I’d prefer that we put the emphasis on Christ and Christ alone. Should our lives reflect our faith in Christ? Of course, but by what measure? The truth is that we will all go through spiritually dry times. The ten years prior to comprehending preterism (which was nothing more to me than recognizing God’s faithfulness), I may have “looked” like a Christian by outward appearances, but as I’ve said before, my heart was as cold as ice. I rarely prayed or read the Bible other than obligatorily. How could I continue to turn my back on God for 10 or more years and still have been a Christian? Had the Lordship advocates known what was really going on in my mind they would have immediately concluded that I couldn’t have been a Christian. And they would have been dead wrong because with everything that’s in me I believe the Lord gave me faith 23 years prior. After enduring 6 miscarriages, the 2nd to the last being the most egregious; a growing jaundiced view of the Scriptures and a perceived unfaithfulness on God’s part; watching high profile leaders engage in morally bankrupt lifestyles and allowing the worries of this world to take their toll… I lost my way. So it would depend when you took the snapshot as to weather I would have been deemed a Christian. Had it been taken during the first 23 years of committed service to Christ, the ensuing 10 years of spiritually ambiguity, or the past 5 years of renewed service to Christ…I don’t believe ANY of those Polaroids would been an adequate measure. I have met far too many Christians who, although they trusted Christ months or years earlier, are unsure of their eternal status? Why? In my view, because we have mystified faith. And without faith it is impossible to please God. At the age of 17 did I put my faith in Christ as the sacrificial Lamb of God? Yes! And that’s all the proof I need to have confidence in my eternal destination. To me, the rest is subterfuge.
Anonymous
Chuck,
Your thoughts concerning quantifying sin, judging salvation based upon nebulous quantification, and so forth, I completely agree with. I always have. I’ve always considered it a pernicious venom when I hear such talk. For people like me (people who tend to place themselves under a self-imposed law) that kind of talk does incredible damage.
I am thankful for your thoughts. They are honest and accurate.
By the way, wouldn’t we both agree that you were purchased on the cross rather than 38 years ago? :)
Dustin…
Anonymous
Thanks Dustin. You have put it far more eloquently than I.
I think the most accurate representation would be to say that we were purchased by Christ’s blood before the foundation of the world. :) I was simply speaking in personal terms for the sake of conversation. Otherwise there would be no way to share our earthly account. I just wanted to identify when, in our finite time line, God infused faith into my mind.
Thanks again, Dustin!
Have a super weekend.
Mograce2u
Chuck: At the age of 17 did I put my faith in Christ as the sacrificial Lamb of God? Yes! And that’s all the proof I need to have confidence in my eternal destination. To me, the rest is subterfuge.
Robin: But that is not all the proof you have that your trust in Christ is not in vain. If faith is not confirmed in us thru love, then what have we believed? I know my Saviour is real and my faith in Him is genuine because He hears my prayers and answers them. That gives me great confidence to exercise my faith more and more, regardless of any funk I might be in whether at my own hand or not. Because the Lord, HE is faithful!