Many blessings,
Jimmy
---
Hey Eli,
Sorry for the delay in responding. I've been pretty busy and haven't had much chance to respond.
Indeed, in Jesse's theology, "grace and mercy" is merely talk. Indeed, without believing in imputed righteousness, that is all grace and mercy can ever be. Paul's understanding of grace is entirely built upon the framework of what Christ did for us on the cross and in His resurrection. The same goes with his understanding of "faith." In his theological system faith is really reduced to mere mental assent, "I believe the Bible." That's dead creedalism really, and that's all that a moral government theology can offer. But Scriptural faith is something beyond this mental assent, rather, it is grounded in a radical trust, that what "God said He is also able to perform," just as Abraham "believed God" in regard to the promise made to him concerning Isaac. Abraham truly had to "trust in God" to bring about what he himself could not: the issuing of life from a dead womb.
Abraham could obey God all he wanted, but no amount of obedience or repentance could bring this act about. Only God could, who calls "the things that are not" into being. Abraham's faith, which serves as a model of saving faith, is a faith that brings an end to self. It's a complete and wild abandonment to the God who created the heavens and the earth, and raised Jesus Christ from the dead. It's a taking of Him at His word, and trusting Him in His power to come through just as He said. It's a faith in the God who acts on our behalf, doing for us what we cannot in anyway do ourselves. Abraham tried to do for himself, but that simply resulted in the birth of Ishmael. Indeed, until the very end, even after Abraham obtained his Isaac by faith, was put in a place where Isaac could only be kept by faith: Abraham put Isaac on the altar believing even should he kill him, God would raise him up. This, I believe, is a precious type of how our salvation comes through faith, and is maintained by God through faith, and faith alone, and is not in anyway by works. Abraham had no plan B for Isaac, he only had God to trust.
In accordance with Deuteronomy and the teachings of Paul, I believe God raises up false prophets to test us, and ultimately expose our own condition and show us where we are missing it. False prophets can only allure those who already have ears that can be itched. Moral government proponents such as Jesse, I believe show us even how we as evangelicals have lacked. Even though Jesse is not teaching a "cheap grace" or "easy believism," his "gospel" message is plagued with the same problem you find in the church today. His gospel doesn't give you anything to actually believe in, or trust God for. His preaching, like the preaching of so many others, is merely an attempt to get you to buy into a soteriological plan for salvation. As important as that is, such is not gospel preaching, and such never gives anybody something tangible to actually have faith in. As the old saying goes, you are not justified by believing in justification by faith, but you are justified by faith.
Faith in what? As Paul says so clearly in Romans 10:9-10, "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." How many preachers out there, who lead sinners in a prayer, ever brought these sinners to this crucial point? How many out there have repented of their sins BECAUSE they were convinced that Jesus is the Lord, and that GOD RAISED HIM FROM THE DEAD? Rather, we have an evangelical Christianity where people have come to God without even believing and trusting in this great message, that God raised a dead man named Jesus from the dead. If you examine Jesse's moral government theology, or most evangelism programs out there, including such great ones as "Evangelism Explosion" or "The Way of the Master," you will find all these are all horribly lacking in this department. Most of these programs out there are mainly geared to convince people that they are hell deserving sinners who need to repent of their sins, because the Jesus who died for those sins is coming back soon. Really, that's no different than what Jesse does. Some simply offer a difference doctrine of assurance than Jesse does. But either way, neither truly brings one to "faith."
I'm convinced there will be a lot of people who wake up in hell one day who believed Jesus Christ died for their sins, and prayed the sinners prayer. I cannot ever speak on this topic enough, as it is near and dear to my heart. Maybe we can talk again by phone sometime so I might better convey to you my understanding and passion in this. I believe I have spoken to you about it before. But honestly, I believe we as evangelicals have made salvation into nothing more than what Jesse has made it into. It's a mingling of "faith" and works. Jesse teaches you have to mingle faith plus works to be saved. This is clear error. But when we as evangelicals say "believe and say this prayer..." it seems escape our notice that we have done nothing different. Jesse's assured he's probably going to heaven because he is going to obey God the rest of his life. Many evangelicals are convinced they are going to heaven because they prayed the sinners prayer one time, and meant it from the heart when they did. I fail how to see these gospels are different?
If the gospel message is not centered in convincing the sinner that they must believe and trust in the risen Lord Jesus Christ alone for their salvation, then it is not the gospel. The gospel message is that Jesus Christ, the son of God, who was crucified for our sins, was brought back to life after three days, and will come again soon. But this Jesus, who was risen, and will come again soon, can and will utterly save sinners who put their trust in Him for a salvation that He alone can give. And He can only do that, because He is alive in bodily form. If this is not our understanding, and if this isn't our message, then God is reduced to a mere abstract cosmic deity. But when we assert that God was incarnate in Jesus Christ, and raised Him from the dead, God is no longer something for philosophers to debate about. Rather, He is somebody tangible, who actually has intervened in history, and can intervene in our lives.
Regarding "the new perspective," I have to admit that I'm still coming up to date on it. I had started reading N.T. Wright's "Justification" that he just released that seeks to dialog with those who are critical of his system. I must say, there are indeed some very bad errors in that system, though, I can't say I've yet fully grasped what it is he's trying to say. He seems to be circling around what he wants to say, but never gets around to saying it. Though it is clear he doesn't truly believe in a foreign righteousness that comes through imputation. And though he says he believes in imputed righteousness, he definitely doesn't see righteousness as something that can actually be imparted to us. As a side note, I must say, some of what he says is absolutely excellent, and I would commend to further studying, especially since he seems to, interestingly enough, embrace a Ben Israel perspective in regard to his eschatology of the Jews, especially in regard to the messianic claims of Christ. But, he should be taken with a great grain of salt, as it is obvious not all is well in Kansas with him, and I clearly do not fully grasp his theology.
Concerning the issue that Jesse takes up, asserting the false (though common) dichotomy between the moral and ceremonial aspects of the law: Romans 7 very clearly teaches that we have died to the law-- ALL of it. The law is an all or nothing deal. Romans 7 also clearly links that the law we have died to, includes the moral law, not just the ceremonial regulations. For Paul says in that chapter, "the law says you shall not covet." It is this very law he says we died to, and had to die to, so that we could obtain the freedom and life that is in Christ, and be joined to Him. So long as we marry ourselves to the law, and seek to "obey" it, we will forever remain it's slave, and as a result, a slave to our sinful flesh, being unable to set our mind on God. Yes, we are to "obey" God, and we definitely should not be breaking any of His commandments. But, this issues out of participation in the divine life, as being led by the Spirit of God, not even the moral letter of the law.
We are "keepers" of the law, not because we seek to perfectly obey it, but rather, because of the changed nature in us naturally keeps it. We know very well only one man ever perfectly obeyed the law, and that was Christ. The law, Paul told Timothy, is made for sinful men. It is made for murderers, adulterers, and drunkards. Murderers, adulterers, and drunkards need a law that says "don't do that," because men by their fallen nature, they WANT to do those things, because they are sinners. But we who have received a new nature, as new creations, as saints of God, don't need a law that says "don't do those things," because, by our regenerative nature, we don't WANT to murder, commit adultery, or get drunk. Thus, unless we choose to give into the lusts of our flesh, we will not carry out the lusts of the flesh. Which is why we must give heed to the Spirit (not the law!), and set our mind on the things of the Spirit, so that we obey the Spirit. We thus, "keep" the law through the new nature that has been created in us, not out of a sense of moral obligation, let alone as a means of salvation.
Forgive me if this e-mail is a little choppy. I didn't get to sit down and write it in one sitting and make it as smooth as I could in response to your points.
Many blessings to you. I hope to hear from you soon.
Jimmy
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment