God bring me to you.
You are unlimited love for the whole world.
No one can take that away.
Amen

and amen.

One of the comments, by ‘Don Sands’ in the thread now yearning for 400 posts was this:

“we need to walk a fine line” -Phil

“we are sinners and saints all at once! That is the paradox of evangelicalism. The Antinomian and the Perfectionist would abolish the paradox– the one drowning the saint in the sinner, and the other concealing the sinner in the saint.” B. B. Warfield

Which captures the question succinctly.

One of those arguing for a non-Lordship, or at least contra-Phil, Lou Martuneac suggests:

This position means man cannot believe or express faith and repentance unless he has first been regenerated, been born again.

The Bible has a different view. Jesus said, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

Which is fairly cherty-picking scripture, since if you back up in the context of the verse Jesus answers the question:

Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” (John 3:4ff)

It is an arguable point, I suppose that the 3:16 verse is answering a different question. Nicodemus marveled at how on could be born again, and Jesus is saying it is a doing of the Spirit, not of man. Isn’t that what regeneration is, a work of the Spirit?

This series I’ve continued to read as I continued to prepare for my class and other limited teaching duties, and it provided a good anchor point to many of the themes in the lighter topics of TLYAW. The class I taught had a few ‘new’ Christians, and the perspective of Lordship, I believe, is an important tact to cover with newer converts, and always a good anchor to hit with more mature believers as well. I don’t consider it a coincidence in the timing of how things were written.
Anyhoo, this is a two-purpose post, one to get a Blogspotting link from Team Pyro, and the other fulfills my NaBloPoMo responsibilities for today.

While I think trying to use statistics to prove a faithful life is somewhat of a folly, the point I’d like to ponder is a long those same lines.  The power of attending church as a factor in persevering in a life in Christ.  My class this last Sunday we talked about Christ as being the light of the world, the light that casts our darkness.  In my Thursday class we talked about science and the shakiness of special and general revelation as we see through the glass darkly.  In all the exposure of regular attendance in church seems to have a mystical effect on those that express a faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.  It isn’t something that we can test for, or monitor, it is something we can see if we look close enough.

The darkness will try to hide it in the shadows, but faith in Christ isn’t a faith that occurs in solitude.  It is  faith that grows in community, with a body of other believers.  It is a faith that grows with the study of the Word of God, and that requires the body of Christ to and the Holy Spirit as guides along our course.  The statistic regarding lower divorce rates of evangelical, church attending Christians is lower, because their marriage includes Christ in that union.  The wheels come off when one starts to think that the marriage can be whole apart from Christ.  The relationship is held together by the working of Christ.

I don’t want to discount faithful people that are devoted to Christ yet still see their marriages fall into divorce.  There is healing for people hurt in that tragedy.  I have faith that Christ even works towards the good in that situation as he does with a couple that struggles in a marriage that includes weekly worship in a church.  The magic isn’t in the building, it isn’t in the work, it is in the understanding that where two or more are together, Christ is present.  The faithful obedience of people that fall almost daily, but are willing to walk inside the door and confess those failings, are more able to accept the failings of themselves, and also of their spouse.  The humilty that comes with a life in servanthood to Christ is required in a covenant of holy matrimony, because it can freely accept the fallenness of a partner, because we acknowledge our own fallen state, and the light that brings us out of the darkness.

Marantha.

There was a friend at our church that had a really bad bicycle accident, fell 15 feet from the top of a jump.  Landed on his face, and was really torn up.  He will be going through several oral surgeries.  But he will be okay, bruised and banged up, but okay.

The cynic might say, ‘Where was God when that happened?’  Or, ‘Why didn’t God do something to prevent that?’  Maybe even, ‘If an angel were physically present that would never have happened, because it never would have been attempted.’

I’m not equating x-cross biking with sin, but using it as an example.   Would things be better if God physically, manifestly intervened to prevent us from sinning?

Short answer, been there done that, didn’t make a difference.  Longer answer and mindless prattle and preaching after the break.
The big example from Scripture is the latter four books of the Pentateuch.  The presence of God was manifest always within sight of the masses of Hebrews, and yet they sinned, over and over again.

Adam in the garden was probably more aware of the presence of God that we will ever be while we suck in air, and he still fell.

Balaam, a person that was aware of God, even if he didn’t confess God as Lord and Savior, refused to heed God’s warning, before and after the donkey spoke.

The disciples in the New Testament, confessed one minute that Jesus was Lord, and the next minute worry about the rising waves of a storm.  When asked to pray with Jesus in the garden, they fell asleep.

The fact of the matter is, we are double-minded.  Our flesh, our heart, is the well from which evil springs.  Paul wrote about this problem in Romans 7:

v.21ff – So, I find the law that when I want to do good, evil is present with me.  For I delight in the law of God in my inner being.  But I see a different law in my members waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that is in my members.  Wretched man that I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?  Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.  (NET)

That is the daily battle waged within each one of us.  In Romans 12, Paul tells us to no longer conform to the world, but be transformed by the renewing of our minds.  The battle isn’t a phyiscal battle, the battle is a spiritual, even mental battle.  God’s physical presence, or the manifest presence of a guardian angel won’t help.

The cure for this double-mindedness is in the cleansing power of God’s word.  We are in an extremely good situation in this present day.  We have copies of God’s written revelation available to us.  How many copies of God’s word do you have lying around the house?  I have several.  Sadly, I don’t open up that book, that love letter from God, and read and meditate on his life changing revelation as often as I should.  The power in reading the bible, isn’t the physical exercise of opening the book.  It is in the spirtual washing of our mind, as we meditate on his word.  Submitting our mind to be shaped and guided along his will by the Holy Spirit.

I find the times where I’m most subseptible to sinning, is when I’m not reading God’s word daily.  It isn’t an innoculation, I’m still as tempted as ever.  But my mind has better armor available to it, when I’ve subjected it to the workings of God’s Spirit.  The discipline of daily reading or daily meditation is one way to submit to God’s will.  There is no quick fix, just the daily grind.

We, as fallen creatures, have a wonderful ability to completely ignore our surroundings.  Romans 1 says that the Heavens declare the glory of the Lord.  Staring at the stars fills us with wonder about God’s creation.  But we are often able to totally ignore it.  We can tune it out, and forget that its there.  It is said that Great Britian has the most survaillance cameras, but crime still gets committed.

Have you ever watched MTV’s Real World, or other ‘reality games’.  Ever notice how the beginning of the season everyone knows where the camera is and is totally changing their behavior to perform?  That seems to suggest that the act of simply watching will effect behavior.  Watch longer, and you’ll notice that after a while the ‘cast’ seems to forget it is constantly being watched.  In fact some of the most revealing scenes about ‘the cast’ don’t come in the first few weeks, but in the middle section, when the daily grind has made it so that the cast has almost forgotten about the fishtank of cameras that surround them.

Paul appeals to this in Hebrews 12, exhorting us belivers to remember the ‘cloud of witnesses’ that surround us, and encourage us to run the race we run.  But we have trouble, at times, recalling that we are watched, we are exhorted, we are encouraged.  The buzy-ness of life camoflages what is important, and critical in our daily walk.  We sometimes only recall that God is with us, and for us, at the beginning and the end of each day.  Would our behavior change if we changed the way our day was?  Slowed down the pace of life a bit, and have mini-retreats that remind us of our heavenly host?  I think it might.

The Lord is my Shepherd, I shall not want.

Do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself, each day has enough trouble.

Keep your mind on heavenly things, not things of this earth.

Peace.

The Truth Project

Produced by Focus on the Family, it is a fairly good worldview study, looking at the ‘big’ questions.  Last night we watched the third segment, that talks about ‘Anthropology’ and tries to answer the question of ‘who is man?’.  The segment, taught primarily by Dr. Del Tackett was mostly over the question of evil, if it exists, where is comes from, and how the secular world view has some unsatisfying answers to the question of evil.  Pointing out that secular thought (from Rosseau and Maslow) has a basis that man is essentially good (aside: what you say, isn’t that what the Bible says, that we are good?  Um well, yes, in our original state, in the natural state, we are fallen, which is different than good… ).  Tackett does a good job of tying knots in the secular response of the question of evil, because if man is essentially good, and the source of evil, as some philosophers say, is the cultural institutions, where do institutions become evil, if their sum is made up of ‘essentially good’ parts.

Tackett never really answers the where does evil come from, and more points out that the secular response to the question is unsatisfying.  Good, well produced video, that brings up some good worldview discussions in our group.  We’re left realizing that man’s default state (currently, not pre-fall) is a corrupt state, that although we still bear the ‘image of God’, we lack the Spirit of God and lack the control over our ‘inherent’ ‘natural’ instincts and in a way the problem of evil, is the problem of being fallen.  Or as the Calvinists say, Totally Depraved.

I’m looking forward to next week’s session.

Today’s controversy is Ted Turner’s comments on President Bush use of the phrase ‘if you aren’t with us, you are against us’, quoting AP, quoting CSPAN:

There are a lot of things about this war that disturb me and one of them is the attitude, that you know, that was well expressed by our President. He said it very clearly, he said either you’re with us or you’re against us. And I had a problem with that because I really hadn’t made my mind up yet.

Typical of Ted, who’s news agency cozied up to Saddam in prelude to Iraq, becuase they were neither hot nor cold… But anyways, my point is that that religious zealot Bush was using the words of Jesus in that speech. The lede:

“He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me, scatters. ( Luke 11:23)

I like Eugene Peterson’s ‘The Message’ paraphrase that renders the text as:

This is war, and there is no neutral ground. If you’re not on my side, you’re the enemy; if you’re not helping, you’re making things worse.

I think Ted’s comments fall into the ‘making things worse category. But that is plainly up to interpretation.

Also interesting to grab the crossrefrences in that Luke passage (one is Matthew 12:30 which is a synoptic, same thing, different verse…)

Luke 9:50 – But Jesus said to him, “Do not stop him, for whoever is not against you is for you.” (paradox? looking at context, the person in question is casting out demons in Jesus’ name, so while not technically a disciple, clearly on the same side…)

Revelations 3:15-16 “I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either cold or hot!. So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I am going to vomit you out of my mouth!”

Whoa, that Jesus dude, knew how to slice to the point. Get with the program, take a side, stop hemming and hawing… Seems Jesus was a bit more complex than the ‘turn the other cheek’ angle. But we’re now talking spiritual warfare here, not Iraq and not the war on terror. Still good apocalyptic thoughts … even from Ted Turner… who is as lukewarm as they come.

If you have ever been frustrated with the state of your spiritual life. If you’ve ever wondered why spiritual growth goes so slowly. If you’ve ever wondered if real change is possible. If you’ve ever felt confused or stuck in your spiritual life — you’re my kind of person.

…

Throughout the centuries, wise people have devoted themselves to following Jesus in this way. This series is an attempt to make some of that wisdom accessible to people who line in a world of freeways, corporate ladders and Xboxes. When you are through, my hope is that you will accept Christ’s invitation to live life his way because it truly is the live you’ve always wanted.

A facinating topic, to be sure. One that I’ve struggled with for much of my life. Spiritual maturity or growth is a weird thing. If anyone has a litany of things you must do to mature spiritually, run away, seriously. Not because a list of things to do is inherently bad, it just might be misdirected. These past few weeks in my daily reading of blogs, or studying for Sunday School, or just leafing through the book that goes along with the study, I’ve realized I’ve playing a bit on the fringes of my spirituality.

Its gonna get wordy, so if you’re interested click to continue reading.

One of the things I’ve read that brings the focus on the correct things is reading Phil Johnson‘s latest series of posts on the ‘Lordship Salvation’ debate. At his group blog Pyromaniacs, he is currently on part five of a series that explains his role in this evangelical imbroglio, and how he has embraced the idea of ‘lordship’ as opposed to ‘non-lordship’ salvation. An interesting read, and an engaging topic.

About five years ago, I was browsing the shelves at one of the local Christian book stores, trying to find my next book to read. It was one of those times in my life, that I chose (lead) to read almost exclusively Christian books, instead of popular novels, or distracting things. I was back in the fold, but didn’t know a lot about good Christian authors, with the exception of Max Lucado, or Phillip Yancey. So scanning the titles, I found quite a number of books written by John MacArthur. The kids were getting a bit rambuctious and I wanted to grab a book to read before I left on a mission trip to Alaska, so I pulled the one book title that grabbed me, The Gospel According to the Apostles, bought it and packed it away for my trip.

When I started reading it, I suddenly realized it was part two of a series that started with The Gospel According to Jesus, and I had plopped myself into a polemic series on this ‘Lordship Salvation’ doctrine. Which to John MacArthur and Phil Johnson, it isn’t a doctrine, it IS the gospel. Reading through this book, which I felt had holes I had to read through, because of references back and forth to advocates and opponents on this debate, I kept running into references to Charles Ryrie. The one bible I had at the time was a Charley Ryrie study bible, so there was some name recognition, but Ryrie was on the wrong side of this debate, as MacArthur genuinely crushed many of the things Ryrie had written about on the topic of spiritual transformation.

The jist of the debate, in my opinion, is what is the core of your salvation. If you focus on the time you said a prayer, or the time that you were baptised, or even the time you decided to turn your life around, then you may be focusing on the wrong thing. If you focus on Jesus as changing your life, Jesus as active in your life, Jesus as the author and finisher of your faith, then you are leaning in the right direction. Advocates of a ‘non-lordship’ (using Phil’s term) salvation have made an assertion that acceptance of salvation isn’t necessarily followed by spiritual transformation. That salvation may not have any effect on the person that you are, the habits that you keep, the outer behavior of your personality.

The ‘Lordship’ position is that salvation is grounded in transformation, that a true salvation becomes the stepping off point in a saved person, and from that moment on they are ‘being saved’, ‘being transformed’. That your person, countenance, behaviors will become subject to the will of Christ. This is grounded on the ‘P’ in the Calvinst TULIP that stands for ther Perservence of the Saints.

Phew… that was a long, but needed prelude to the things swimming through my mind. Because it really all comes down to the LORDship of Christ. If you haven’t submitted to his Lordship, you are blocking any chance at truely metamorphising spiritual change. I don’t want to get out on a limb and start questioning decisions, or salvation, because I believe that you can’t chart, or measure spiritual growth on a graph and make determinations of another person’s spiritual transformation. That becomes as erroroneous as using ‘tongues’ as a marker of the indwelling of the Spirit.

We should recognize that we should be growing spiritually. We should engage in friendships and relationships that encourage spiritual growth, and restrict or hinder spiritual apathy. In Messy Spirituality, the late Mike Yaconelli paints a wonderful picture about spiritual growth. That it doesn’t always appear as a straight line that trends upwards, that more often it is jagged and volitile, and we err a bit by attaching normal value labels to growth like good and bad, instead of nuetral labels like leading and resting.

John Ortberg (I have no idea which side he falls on the Lordship debate) illustrates this well in his defining the emptiness of what he calls spiritual markers. Using outward physical signs to determine how well people ‘fit’ into a culture. He uses the importance placed in first century times by the religous leaders on tithing, cleanliness and the sabbath. Illustrating this was how they exerted the dominance, by upholding these traits as sacred. He also illustrates Jesus outright condemnation of the practice, and how he didn’t focus on the outward appearance, but the inner heart problems of the people around him.

I think that is the essence of spiritual growth. If we are really wanting to see the life we’ve always wanted, we’d look at it through the lens of loving God and loving our neighbors. Not adherence to these outer spiritual markers that more often trip us up, or bind us tight. Do you love Jesus? Do you follow his commands (1 John 2)? Do you love your neighbors (1 J ohn 3)? Do you question who your neighbors are (Luke 10:29)?

I’m excited to be teaching this class. I’m excited to have my heart and mind quickened in reviewing this topic. I want to submit to Jesus’ will in the execution of this class, and hope any students can feel the same quickening in their spirit, as they begin or resume this wonderful metamorphis in Christ.

Serious question: if it’s okay to turn the other cheek when it comes to child killers, why isn’t it okay when it comes to, say, Al Qaeda or Saddam Hussein? That inconsistency among hawkish Christians has always troubled me.

Or is it perfectly consistent, and I’m just missing something?

Which is a wonderful question, and the level at which that is posed comes down to Individuals versus Governments. Individuals can choose foregiveness, or go the extra mile and head towards Grace, when faced with harsh actions towards them by individuals. It seems that is the case with these small precious children that chose personal sacrifice over retaliation. The coments follows my thoughts, and Allah’s pushes back admirably. But I think he is overstressing a well missed aspect of what a Christian is, and how one bases their theology. He is stressing Jesus’ point of ‘turning the other cheek’ and basically boils Christianity into ‘following the words of Jesus,’ which might be a popular belief about Christianity, but in practice is hardly ever followed to that letter. In fact, Scriptures became codifed to ‘include’ the gospels (or Jesus’ sayings) because some hair-brained fellow decided to strip the scriptures down to ‘what Paul said, and a bit of Luke for context’.

But Christianity, is based on much of Pauline theology (and I’d argue, as I think Paul would, that is also Jesus’ theology) and so we can come to Romans 13 and here what Paul had to say as the purpose of governments. Their role in dealing out God’s justice upon those that are misbehaving. That point is brought up tagentially in the comments, as is Aquinas’ Just War thoughts, but Allah keeps pressing on with the, that doesn’t mesh with the Sermon on the Mount stuff. Which I gather is the point. Not all things can be boiled down to the key phrases of the SotM. If anything the sermon on the mount is a commentary on Moses’ law, and pointing out that for every fence built by the ‘teachers of the law’ the law can be extended to fence those people right back into the ‘sinner’ category. The Sermon on the Mount is an exercise in telling us that we ALL fall short, we ALL need foregiveness, and most importantly, we all NEED grace. For the key to the kingdom of heaven isn’t some moral olympics, but the acceptance of a confessed and penitent sinner, that realizes they’ll never jump high enough to reach God.

So while the ‘consistency’ of ‘turn-the-other-cheek’ vs. ‘just-war’ is lacking, that is the point. We are lacking. That is why Christ paid our price, hung on a tree, and died, so God could redeem us all to himself.

Peace.

ADDED: And if AP reads this: How does a brother get the right to post to comments at HotAir?

Read Dan Phillips‘ insightful (at least I think) post on the topic of “Doomed” Evangelism

Money quote:

Our focus in evangelism (I preach to myself, nice of you to listen in) must be the glory of God. Lift up the Lord Jesus, lift up His gospel, lift up the Cross, and God will be glorified. He may be glorified by converting our hearer; or He may be glorified in judgment. But either way, He will be glorified.