A remote planet and a ponderous star conspired this morning to send my thoughts spiraling off into the nether regions of space - or, perhaps, the limited depths of my thoughts about God.
The distant planet was a post by Dan at TeamPyro in which he discussed what he calls “gutsy grace.”
(For Dan, “gutsy grace” stands in contrast to his pejorative “gutless grace.” I find it curious that, while admitting that he struggles to adequately define grace he nevertheless can label some manifestations as “gutsy” (his own, of course) and others as “gutless” (anyone who disagrees with him). But I digress.).
One of the things Dan endeavors to do is to define grace. This is no mean feat for, as he rightly notes, it is possible to offer definitions that are accurate but fail because they are not sufficiently comprehensive. I sympathize with him and any others who seek to define the term; that, however, will not stop me from trying.
My own attempt to define grace centers on the twin concepts of divine enabling and divine compelling, neither of which cease operation once salvation is initiated. The problem with my definition is the problem with all definitions: the terms I use have to be defined themselves.
Divine enabling should not be construed to mean that salvation or sanctification is a mutual or shared effort involving God and the elect sinner. Salvation is completely a work of God to which we are somehow responsible to yield. God’s enabling could be likened to that provided by an elevator that takes me to the top of a building: it is true that I must get on the elevator, but that is (a) made possible by God (cf. Jn 6.44) and (b) the sum total of my “contribution.”
Divine compelling makes change a passive imperative, i.e., a Christian will be changed. How much a believer changes is contingent on time, but all will be changed to some extent. I suspect, though, that the difference between the change of a stubborn, willful believer and that of a eager, compliant one is insignificant compared to the monumental change each will undergo when they behold Christ (1 Jn 3.2).
The giant star whose gravity altered my own journey this day was a chapter in Henry Cloud’s book Changes That Heal. Cloud speaks of the necessity of grace, truth, and time for believers to heal, change, and grow. He adds,
Change only takes place in ‘good time.’ Good time is time in which we and our experiences can be affected by grace and truth. If we have removed some aspect of ourselves from time, grace and truth cannot transform it . . . Grace and truth cannot affect the part of ourselves we won’t bring into experience.”
These words reminded me of a realization I had some years ago that people, including Christians, hide from others and God the very areas in which we most desperately need to be loved. It is only when we allow God, others, and God-through-others to love us in those most hideous areas that change can occur.
Love, it seems to me, is perhaps best defined as the marriage of grace and truth. Its perfect demonstration is found in Jesus Christ (Jn 1.17; cf. Ps 85.10) but it may also be gleaned on almost every page of Scripture. Love without grace is not love; love without truth is not love. It is only when grace is combined with truth and truth is joined with grace that the love of God is present. All else falls short.
It is precisely this manner of love to which believers are called and held accountable. It requires the enabling of God, certainly; the Spirit’s presence is relentlessly compelling. God takes us as He finds us - that is grace - but He does not leave us where we are - that is truth. But the grace present in God’s finding us is not separate from truth, and the truth of God’s changing us is not divorced from grace.
We may display one or the other - i.e., grace or truth - or one at the expense of the other, but God cannot. These two attributes of God - grace and truth - compose the essence of God, which is love. All that God does is characterized by love, the presence of grace and truth.
When we, enabled and compelled by God, embody such love then - and only then - do we abide in Him and He in us:
Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. We have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.” - 1 Jn 4.15-16
Jn 19.22
[Required Warning: This is a long post. (But I think it is a quick read.)]
Perhaps this requires repentance on my part - and, if it can been demonstrated to be the case, I’ll do it - but I’ve been in cognito on a couple of occasions the past week.
Assuming the nom de plume “Eriol,” I’ve commented on a couple of posts at TeamPyro, both written by Dan Phillips. I am usually in agreement with what Dan says but sometimes he says things that I choose to “push” him on - not because he’s necessarily wrong (I could be the one who is wrong) but because I want to see his thinking on a particular issue his post has raised, implied, or assumed.
I did it first on his post The Gospel in Spider-Man 3. I raised the issue of whether or not it was legitimate for Christians to criticize non-Christians and to evaluate their art by Christian standards. That was my question.
(I personally believe we can do this but avoid criticizing: I can, for example, examine Batman Begins and respectfully discuss how the worldview therein is reflected in the plot and subplots and how that worldview is contrary to a Christian worldview. But I don’t have to criticize a non-Christian for acting like a non-Christian.)
At any rate, I was at again Wednesday when I - posing once again as “Eriol” - commented on Dan’s post Dealing Biblically with Apostasy. This time my essential question was whether or not a believer joining the Catholic church (as in the case of Dr. Francis Beckwith) (a) constitutes apostasy (I think it does) and (b) evidences a lack of salvation now or previously (I think it does not). I’ll provide some of the comments germane to the discussion but it would be good to read Dan’s post first. I did, in fact, read it although I was accused of not having read or paid attention to it.
Here’s my first comment:
Eriol said…
I have a question and it is not meant to be some insidious, baiting criticism of what you’ve written. I truly appreciate your concern, passion, and heart for people.
My question is this: After his conversion, Paul placed himself under vows and went back to the temple to offer sacrifices upon the fulfillment or completion of the vows. He purified himself (and four others, I think) and then observed seven days following the rite. He was also careful not to allow any Greeks with him to cross into the Courtyard of the Jews, not wanting to offend the Jews.
This, to me, seems to be far more egregious than a believer joining the Catholic Church. I know you would never question Paul’s Damascus Road conversion based on his decades-later appearance in the Temple. But doesn’t his present-day behavior negate the past experience? What do you do with Paul’s behaviors since the embrace both the rituals, teachings, and behaviors of pre-Christ (in the sense of Him being the fulfillment of all the sacrifices) Judaism? Isn’t this apostasy as you have defined it? Or am I missing something obvious?
Is being a Calvinistic Protestant now an evidentiary work testifying to the validity of one’s salvation? How much correct doctrine does one have to know and (especially) live up to? If there is a certain “passing grade,” I hope it is low because I know boat-loads more than I am able to live out. Should I question my own salvation? How can I know for sure that I am obedient enough to the knowledge I have accumulated - but not fully assimilated - over 32+ years of “being” a Christian (I italicized “being” because maybe I was, maybe I wasn’t)?
Again, I do not mean this to be accusatory or (since this is TeamPyro) incendiary.
Thanks ahead of time.
Of course, I got responses. Such as:
Tom Chantry said…
“How much correct doctrine does one have to know and (especially) live up to?”
Sorry, but this comment is completely off topic. How many times must the distinction be drawn between accepting biblical doctrine and rejecting it?
Can a person be saved without understanding Sola Fide? Probably. Can a person understand Sola Fide, consciously reject it, choose to place his own works before God as the means, and, frankly, the grounds of his justification and be saved? That’s closer to the point. And Dan’s answer (in both the post and the comment thread, for those who didn’t bother to read the former) was essentially: I can’t see the heart, but to reject the true gospel for a false one is foolishly dangerous.
and
LeeC said…
Eriol,
If your comparison had weight, then the Law would have to be evil. Temple worship was instituted by God Himself for the people of Israel.
There are many other valid reasons why it was right for Paul to continue in Temple worship, but they are rooted in the unmentionable ‘”ispensationalism” *eek!*
Sandwiched between these two was a response from Frank Turk, a member of TeamPyro who blogs under the name Centuri0n. He replied,
centuri0n said…
eriol:
Let me be honest — I grapple with Paul’s circumcision of Timothy, and with his continuing practice of Jewish rites in his own day.
However, it seems to me to be explain by him in 1 Cor 8-9 when he explains how he becomes a servant to all men, not enslaved to their morals but observing them when he is engaging them. That’s what he means when he goes off on “all things to all people” — not that he enjoys the liberties of each group he encounters, but that he gives up something he may be entitled to when he encounters them in order to (eventually) share in the riches of the Gospel with them.
It’s one thing to obey temple ritual in order to be in the temple in order to proclaim the end of the Temple. It is another entirely to say that the Temple is the right practice, the true practice, and the way to get to God in spite of the death and resurrection of Christ.
This is what I was hoping for: honest dialog coupled with a smattering of humility. This could have been fun; unfortunately, Frank had other things to tend to and some people decided to defend Dan from my apparently vicious attack.
I replied,
Eriol said…
Maybe I’m just extremely obtuse - or not “reformed” enough - but other than Frank’s response I don’t see many answers to my question. Frank is on-target when he adduces Paul’s all-things-to-all philosophy of ministry but he also says (I think in the same passage) that all things are lawful (though not all are profitable and none should enslave us). Does this mean that joining the RCC is lawful? (I would certainly not argue that it is profitable, given its aberrant teachings on various doctrines.)
Sorry, Tom, but my question regarding obedience was not “entirely off-topic,” as you claim in order not to have to address the question. It is a natural and logical corollary to what Dan has written. It is not central but it is hardly “entirely off-topic.”
leec wrote: “If your comparison had weight, then the Law would have to be evil. Temple worship was instituted by God Himself for the people of Israel.”
If this is so, then explain the point Hebrews is trying to convey to the Jewish recipients of the letter. What is the point of ch. 10, and especially v. 18:
“Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin.”
All sacrifices at the Temple required a blood or sin offering, including those involved in rites of purification. But Hebrews argues otherwise and issues a severe warning in 10.26-29.
Remember, though, that all of this is intended to be preparatory for the comparison of Paul’s Temple behavior and that of a Christian who joins the Catholic church. It is an argument from the greater to the lesser, which, I believe, has biblical precedence.
Thanks, Frank, for your honesty. I’m glad I’m not the only one who hasn’t figured it all out.
Responses?
Tom Chantry said…
The reason I don’t have to address your question is that it has been answered over and over again. There is a distinction between one person knowingly rejecting a central biblical truth and another person being unclear on what that truth is. Thus the question “How much do you have to understand to be saved?” has nothing to do with what is being discussed here.
And that’s all I took issue with in your post. The question of Paul at the temple is an intriguing one. More than one line of thought about that has been subsequently developed in this thread.
But in all of that, I don’t want this to be missed: Dan specifically clarified that he was talking about the knowing rejection of gospel truth, and he clearly wrote that he cannot see into a persons heart, yet you in your response asked, “Is being a Calvinistic Protestant now an evidentiary work testifying to the validity of one’s salvation? How much correct doctrine does one have to know and (especially) live up to?”
What I see in those sentences is a pair of insinuations: first, that Dan endeavored to personally seize the keys of the kingdom and lock out everyone not in his denomination (which he clearly didn’t do), and secondly, that “Calvinistic Protestants” have devised a complex doctrinal litmus test which one can fail through mere ignorance of complex doctrines.
Neither is true, and their insinuation can only serve to muddy the waters so much that the point of the original post is missed - namely, that certain things are taught in Scripture as gospel truths, and that to knowingly reject these things is dangerous to the soul.
Rhology said…
Eriol,
Did I not ask you specifically how going to the Temple invalidates the Gospel as Rome has done?
Whoa!
On the positive side, I did get this response:
Daryl said…
eriol…
Is it possible that the primary difference there is that real Christianity is a fulfillment or completion of Judaism while the RCC is a completely new animal from Christianity.
Even in Judaism (real Old Testament Judaism the way God intended it) salvation was by grace through faith, so it seems to me at least possible that Pauls actions fall under that of a different style of worship, while joining the RCC clearly indicates not just a different style of worship but a different gospel altogether.
If Paul was entering into the temple to offer a sin offering, rather an offering related to his vow, that would be another thing.
Again, an encouraging sign. I replied,
Eriol said…
Tom wrote:
“The reason I don’t have to address your question is that it has been answered over and over again.”
Sorry, I must have missed it. Can you tell me where in the original post or comments that question was answered? If I have genuinely missed it, I apologize. But if there is an “entrance exam” (testing knowledge of all that has been written here in the past) that one must take and pass before posting here, then I confess I did not see, take, or (apparently) pass it.
Also,
“What I see in those sentences is a pair of insinuations: first, that Dan endeavored to personally seize the keys of the kingdom and lock out everyone not in his denomination (which he clearly didn’t do), and secondly, that “Calvinistic Protestants” have devised a complex doctrinal litmus test which one can fail through mere ignorance of complex doctrines.”
You apparently are able to judge the motives of my heart despite what I said in my first comment, i.e.,
“I have a question and it is not meant to be some insidious, baiting criticism of what you’ve written.”
and
“Again, I do not mean this to be accusatory or (since this is TeamPyro) incendiary.”
The latter was even an attempt at friendly humor.
I think you confuse mirrors and insinuations. I am an iconoclast and routinely examine my own and others’ most cherished dogmatisms in the mirror of the Bible. I am doing no more or less here. If I am charged with seeking truth, I plead guilty.
Further, I was not limiting my question to “Calvinistic Protestants,” a group of which I am a part. A lot of denominations have shibboleths (sp?) for what constitutes saving faith and what does not. We are no different and deceive ourselves if we don’t allow for that possibility.
Finally, the logical conclusion of this post is that Francis Beckwith is not and never was saved. Dan does not say so explicitly but is it not implied? Especially statements like,
“Suppose the revert were not Beckwith. Suppose it was some obscure nobody, or some disliked figure. Would we so hesitate to use the word [apostasy] in his or her case?”
So, Tom, thanks for your response. But I think you have misjudged me. I take no offense, though, since this medium is notorious for communicating vagueness and eisogetical readings of posts and comments alike. Which I have certainly done and, even now, may be doing.
Dan is strangely silent. Has he dismissed me because of a prior “altercation”? If so, I am one dead messenger. Which would be paradoxical since our theologies are so frightfully similar.
This earned two responses:
Tom Chantry said…
Well, I don’t know why Dan isn’t responding. Probably he’s busy with his real-world job. But if I were Dan, I wouldn’t want to talk with you either.
Dan: Alert readers will note that I’ve said nothing about things of which I know nothing. (I commend the same to you.)
I don’t read minds, hearts or souls. My own is oft-illegible mystery enough.
I am saying that if Institution A is apostate, and Person B — with full access to centuries of Biblical analysis — declares himself to be in full communion with Institution A, he has willingly identified himself with an apostate organization.
Eriol: Finally, the logical conclusion of this post is that Francis Beckwith is not and never was saved. Dan does not say so explicitly but is it not implied?
See, the thing is, when you go around accusing someone of implying something after they explicitly said, “Don’t pretend I said that,” you shouldn’t expect them to engage you in polite discussion. It really doesn’t matter how many pleasantries you include in your post. You’re still ignoring what he said and slaying the strawman of what he didn’t say.
And
DJP said…
Eriol: simple—
1. I think you’ve been answered, and answered well. I’ve nothing to add.
2. If you wanted answers, you’re done. If you just want to argue, I don’t want to feed it.
“DJP,” of course, is Dan. Let me hasten to add two important points: first, Dan was under no obligation to respond to me and I appreciate that he made the effort to do so. Second, he was also politely telling me to stop commenting (which I did after one more entry). He has every right to do so: it is his blog and his post and I, along with everyone else, blog there only because he allows it. He doesn’t have to; in fact, I was pleased and impressed that he “put up” with me as long as he did (though I was not trying to poke him in the eye).
Well, I finally lost patience and probably said some things that would have been better left unsaid. But . . .
Eriol said…
Well, there is no lack of intellectual rigidity here. (You know, the old saw: “some minds are like concrete - all mixed up and permanently set.” I, too, am “mixed up” about peripheral things of God but, fortunately, am not “set.” I expect to learn something when I get to heaven; perhaps others do not.)
It doesn’t seem possible to have a civil discourse about something, with the goal of learning or thinking outside our theological (not Scriptural - the former is errant, the latter is not) boxes. If iron sharpens iron, there are a lot of dull blades here. Or maybe some can only bring a knife to a sword fight.
If I am to be vilified or silenced, I can stamp the dogmatic dust off my feet and get on down the road where people want to know God more and understand Him more deeply. That doesn’t seem to be the case with some (but not all) of you here.
A system of theology that cannot withstand scrutiny is not worth having. But small minds (I was going to say “anal retentive,” but that has a negative connotation - even though it is accurate in this case) demand answers and cannot tolerate questions.
Again, thank you, Frank, for trying to interact rationally. You may toss me out with the rest of the “apostates” and “heretics” but at least you made a sincere effort to interact peacefully. I wish you well.
I’ll let the rest of you get back to talking to yourselves.
And, Dan, it would be nice to see you fight your own battles. But we all do what we can, eh?
Sorry for the intrusion.
Now, that was unnecessary and I apologize for it. I should have left graciously without comment. I didn’t and I was wrong. Sadly, I may have caused some of my retractors to sin in their responses (following) and for that, too, I apologize.
Tom Chantry said…
Boy, that’s right out of the playbook, isn’t it? Having ignored the important caveats in the post and the thread, and having implied things which were explicitly denied, and having broadly insinuated that any degree of doctrinal certitude is a sign of spiritual arrogance (”intellectual rigidity” anyone?), Eriol bows out with a complaint that Dan won’t take him seriously.
Self-inflicted martyrdom abounds in our day.
steve said…
Eriol wrote: It doesn’t seem possible to have a civil discourse about something, with the goal of learning or thinking outside our theological (not Scriptural - the former is errant, the latter is not) boxes.
Eriol, the fact you’ve completely ignored a couple key points Dan made in his post–and that Tom took the time to clarify what you overlooked–is what has made civil discourse impossible. You say we should be willing to learn or think outside our theological boxes. That’s fine, but such discourse becomes impossible when you insist on putthing Dan in a box he was never in to begin with.
Rhology said…
Eriol says:
You are incapable of civil discourse.
[Snort]
Show me one uncivil comment towards you.
Apparently, as I was writing my “angry letter” Frank was composing another response to me. He added,
centuri0n said…
eriol:
No, I don’t think joining the Catholic church is “lawful”. There’s no question that Paul, with no spoon full of sugar to help the medicine go down, rejected the idea that in order to accept Christ one ought to become a Jew by circumcision. We can’t really say (for the sake of the homeschool moms) what his full-throated response was to that except by the euphamism that he wished they’d just keep cutting until the job was done.
That’s pretty serious: you don’t join something which is corrupting the Gospel in order to spread the Gospel. period.
But in that, He was already himself a Jew. You know: the Reformers did not start the Reformation by writing the WCF or the Second Belgic confession: they wrote those things after Rome had tossed them out with the anathemas of Trent. When Rome did that, it sealed its own fate.
Think about this: even if we table the chatter over whether Rome has capitulated on sola Fide and sola Gratia, any decent Protestant is anathema if he advocates for 66 books in the Bible, denies that Mary was assumed into Heaven bodily, or rejects that the Pope has ever been or is now infallible.
Those anathemas have not been taken back. That means that the number of books in the Bible is, for the Catholic, as essential a matter as the resurrection of Christ. It means that, for the Catholic, belief in the infallibility of the Pope — as impossible as that doctrine is to either define or explain — is as essential as the resurrection of Christ. It means that anyone who thinks Mary is not bodily in Heaven today with Christ, interceding for the sake of the church, has rejected a truth as essential as the resurrection of Christ.
This is not a small thing. This is not a minor disagreement. I find it hard to fathom those who would make it so — or paint Paul as somehow wobbly on the matter of adding to the Gospel.
My Point (Finally!)
But all of the above merely sets the stage for this: my unanswered questions. They are:
1. “What do you do with Paul’s behaviors since the embrace both the rituals, teachings, and behaviors of pre-Christ (in the sense of Him being the fulfillment of all the sacrifices) Judaism? Isn’t this apostasy as you have defined it? Or am I missing something obvious?”
2. “Should I question my own salvation? How can I know for sure that I am obedient enough to the knowledge I have accumulated - but not fully assimilated - over 32+ years of “being” a Christian (I italicized “being” because maybe I was, maybe I wasn’t)?”
“leec wrote: ‘If your comparison had weight, then the Law would have to be evil. Temple worship was instituted by God Himself for the people of Israel.’“
3. “If this is so, then explain the point Hebrews is trying to convey to the Jewish recipients of the letter. What is the point of ch. 10, and especially v. 18:
‘Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin.’“
4. “Finally, the logical conclusion of this post is that Francis Beckwith is not and never was saved. Dan does not say so explicitly but is it not implied?”
The lesson for me, I suppose, is twofold: don’t assume everyone wants to discuss something, since some people may want to preach without anyone holding them accountable or asking for an explanation. Also, maybe I should move on down the road.
The curious thing is that I thought, of everyone at TeamPyro, Dan would have been the most likely to “spar” with me without being unduly defensive or angry. Instead, it was Frank/Centuri0n, the one I would have thought most likely to attack.
Perhaps there are two more lessons. One, I am a poor judge of character; two, I shouldn’t do this anymore.
Thanks for reading (assuming anyone has gotten this far). I welcome constructive criticisms and even rebukes if you feel them to be warranted.
Jn 19.22
This post, or one very much like it, has been asking to be written for some time now. It is an explanation, though not an excuse or apology, for my lack of substantive blogging for however long it has been. The problem has not been one of lack of time to write but more a lack of desire.
Life events, of the negative variety, conspired to make serious inroads on my desire. It has been the presence or burgeoning of good things, however, that seem to have finally decimated my need to blog. This is not something to be grieved and not something about which I feel any sense of loss.
A few months ago I began teaching systematic theology to a Thursday night men’s group of which I am a member. There are usually twelve or so of us on any given evening, although the number of men involved is closer to fifteen or sixteen. We’ve been at it, as I said, a few months and are still in the Prolegomena, i.e., introductory matters. We spent a month covering covenant theology and will spend a similar amount of time on dispensational theology. It will take years to finish. There is no need for haste: we would rather relish than rush.
The contrast between real ministry and real relationships is remarkable and nothing short of miraculous. There is an additional Person (or Two or Three) present when we gather and He facilitates not only meaningful teaching and learning but wonderful fellowship, too. I can sometimes feel the Holy Spirit carrying me along as I read Scripture and teach truth; at the same time, I feel the Spirit minister to me through the men who challenge, disagree, and join with me to deepen our relationships with God.
This is totally lacking in blogging. I don’t think there’s much biblical basis for genuine fellowship through the internet, though certainly normal, uninspired connections can be made. We can benefit spiritually from reading Scripture on one another’s sites but it is not feasible for the Spirit in me to minister to those who might read my words, nor is it possible for an intangible reader’s spirit to be a vehicle of blessing to me. Sharing theologies and favorite verses is not fellowship; living life together is biblical fellowship.
But, someone might say, what about Paul’s letters and the blessings his original readers and subsequent readers have had from them? The answer is obvious, of course: the Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit in its writing and continues to be inspired today as He gives life to it through His teaching and comforting ministries. Blogs are educational and entertaining but fall short of being inspired, illumined, and invigorated by the Spirit.
The contrast, as I mentioned earlier, is much like night and day. It is the presence of God in the men at Bible study versus the unanimated, lifeless words of a blog post. I still read and find some excellent thinking and points, but it is like getting a phone call from my wife when she is away versus kissing her when she is here. One quickens the imagination with longing, the other quickens it with desire. There is no comparison.
This is not to say that I will not continue to blog from time to time, but it is to say that it will likely be infrequent. Real life awaits and beckons and the detached pseudo-communion of blogging has, like the emperor’s new clothes, been exposed for what it is - and isn’t.
Perhaps this will fall on the deaf ears of some who stumble across this post or will cause a defensive reaction on the part of others. My hope is that anyone and everyone who spends too much time writing and reading blog posts will withdraw their energies from this artificial spirituality and find a real, loving, Spirit-indwelling fellowship of which they can be a contributing giver and a grateful receiver.
Again, the difference is that which exists between reading a menu of heavenly delights versus actually tasting a sample of what has been promised and will be provided. Don’t spend too much time merely reading the menu, collecting recipes, and studying ingredients. Enjoy a taste of heaven now: it will make you yearn for the full meal that awaits us one day.
Jn 19.22
