Today's America reveals that Christians seldom share their faith in Jesus Christ outside of church circles. In fact, the truth is that often in the functions and activities of the church, little is shared by anyone except key figures. We hear of preaching to the nations but we hear little of sharing to the individuals we meet and interact with on a daily basis.
We have retreated as Christians into our safe cocoons. In ministry and life we only want the "Christian" brand and scene. We have Christian schools, sports teams, hangouts, etc.. I asked a question in our Bible Study group yesterday that gets to the heart of this - how many non believers do you know and interact with in your life? I remember growing up and attending public school that I was around many. In public school I had teachers who were Christians. They shared and cared and taught. Yes there were a few that were not believers. Yet there was a respect present. During pewee football, we would load the guys up after practice and go to our church Revival meetings. Most of the team was happy to go.
Today, we discover the shelter approach being implemented by parents. We talk about protecting. We emphasis fear from evil influences. We have withdrawn from the public and thus, rarely except within family do we find anyone that we have close relationships with that provide opportunity for sharing the Gospel. We talk about events at church that we hope will attract people. But we do not share Jesus with those we do not want to be involved in our lives. One could rightly say that we have adopted a "cult like" attitude towards our faith and lives. But not totally! For in our version, we are NOT as faithful to our beliefs and to God as the cults are to theirs. We miss worship and Bible Study for any reason. We put things before God that cult members would never put before their beliefs.
We have forgotten the role that God placed us in here on earth - we are missionaries. We have a calling to reach people! Yes, we have a calling to preach to the nations also. But our simple beginning starts with GO and share Jesus with all people! We can send money for special projects and do offerings to support missionaries serving around the world but we are to also BE missionaries. We are to care that people who die without Jesus go to Hell. it should disturb us that our lack of sharing has led to such an increase in people who have not seen a Bible nor have heard that Jesus died for them. Why is there no remorse and sadness?
We are quick to tell people how to live and yet we are selective in whom we desire to attend church with. It is easier for us to promote our soapboxes and feel good projects than it is to reach a world that needs Jesus. Lives all around are falling apart. People are experiencing things that many of us have never had to deal with. Children are growing up in homes where the normal roles of parents are corrupted and the lack of love and interest from parents to their children screams from every direction. And we as Christians just sit in our cocoons safe and feeling good. We point out the evil. We are good at that. We attack politicians as if they really could or would do anything that could fix our issues. But we keep Jesus to ourselves. As Christians we only seek to practice the parts of the Bible that we like. We are as selective with our faith as we are with sharing Jesus. We create man made systems of theology that excuse our sharing and we seek churches that only emphasis the certain things we like to attend.
Sharing our faith is simple! The only requirement needed is obedience to God. He promises that if we will be faithful, He will save! The Gospel is profound! The fact that someone loves us - period! The fact that someone died for us! The fact that we can avoid Hell! The fact that God has given us a guide book that fits our lives no matter where we come from and answers our most difficult questions! The fact that anyone can receive Jesus! Profound may be to small of a word! The Gospel goes beyond our understanding. The Gospel is freeing! The Gospel is life giving! The Gospel is AWESOME!
So can we answer why do we not share it and live it?
Blogging for the purpose of Spiritual Growth and Edification
Showing posts with label Reformed. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Reformed. Show all posts
Monday, June 24, 2013
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Missing from the Calvinism Advisory Team
This post is more about an observation than it is a gripe. Yes I am going to highlight something I think is missing in the formation of the Advisory Team but not as a fuss to or about Dr. Page. Rather the reality of what I see missing is due to the current climate in SBC life and Evangelical churches as a whole.
The team that will study the issue of how Traditionalists and Calvinists will move forward together in the SBC may be more challenging than the Name Change or even the GCR report. The list presented in Baptist Press shows some balance. There are people representing Educators, Entity Heads, Pastors, Ethnic groups, and Denominational people. There are mid size church Pastors and Large church Pastors. Southern Seminary is covered with the largest group (those with close ties to Southern) and representatives from New Orleans and Southwestern. We have Northern representation and even the East Coast (and Beltway at that).
But who do we NOT have?
As I looked at the list and discussed the breakdown on a call last night while driving, something jumped out at me and screamed loud and clear. In the whole of the debate/discussion/elephant one group has been missing all along. This group finds itself on the front lines of this issue right along with the turmoil in churches. For over ten plus years now this group has been being left out of the Convention conversation on most issues simply because they are being left out of most church life.
In Ephesians we find this group given a clear Biblical role and place in New Testament churches. Read the following verses:
The team that will study the issue of how Traditionalists and Calvinists will move forward together in the SBC may be more challenging than the Name Change or even the GCR report. The list presented in Baptist Press shows some balance. There are people representing Educators, Entity Heads, Pastors, Ethnic groups, and Denominational people. There are mid size church Pastors and Large church Pastors. Southern Seminary is covered with the largest group (those with close ties to Southern) and representatives from New Orleans and Southwestern. We have Northern representation and even the East Coast (and Beltway at that).
But who do we NOT have?
As I looked at the list and discussed the breakdown on a call last night while driving, something jumped out at me and screamed loud and clear. In the whole of the debate/discussion/elephant one group has been missing all along. This group finds itself on the front lines of this issue right along with the turmoil in churches. For over ten plus years now this group has been being left out of the Convention conversation on most issues simply because they are being left out of most church life.
In Ephesians we find this group given a clear Biblical role and place in New Testament churches. Read the following verses:
Eph 4:11-16
11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers,
12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ,
13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ;
14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting,
15 but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head-- Christ--
16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.
(NKJ)
11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers,
12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ,
13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ;
14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting,
15 but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head-- Christ--
16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.
(NKJ)
So who is missing?
Where is the voice of the Evangelists?
I think this missing voice speaks volumes to where we are today more than we may be willing to admit.
Monday, August 13, 2012
Is "to the Nations" really missions?
There I was last week on a lake and in a boat listening to my old (according to my two sons) music and driving the family crazy with it while doing some reflection of ministry and missions. You see, I have this problem of not being able to shut the mind off just because I am on vacation. I like to use that time to sfocus on key thoughts etc.. And this year it was missions and ministry.
In particular, what are we really doing and can we do more.
In this thought process the whole terminology thing came kept coming up. Having been in SBC churches all of my life, missions strategy is all too familiar. GO, REACH, and now The Nations are terms used to motivate and remind us that there is something BIG we are suppose to be doing. But lets really look at the current lingo.
Reach the nations!
What does that mean?
Do we know what it really means?
Is the meaning the same from one person to the next?
Tough questions that produce answers describing a major issue in our mission efforts. Is it possible that the term we are currently hearing over and over again is ushering in an actual opposite effect of little real missions?
Now grant it that I may be accused of being picky or crazy. But think with me for just a moment.
What does it mean? Are we to reach whole countries? Sure! But how? If we do a humanitarian effort in a country, have we taken the Gospel to the Nations? If we hold a few worship services in this country, does that fulfill the mandate?
What does it really mean? Have we been told by those who coined the phrase? Are we told by those who use it in sermons and lectures on missions?
When I hear the term, I think I know what it means but I am not sure. Where is this term defined?
A clear missions strategy must have a clear common understanding. Every Pastor and staff member must be in sync with every entity leader in knowing what the term means. But then it dawned on me, we live in a time when taking up an offering for xyz material need in some country is praised as reaching the nations. Is it?
But today, I will allow for contemplation on this initial post about this subject while praising the members of our church for raising over $3,500 with just two weeks notice to send my traditional worship leader to India for two weeks to train Pastors in evangelism and the teaching of the Word of God so they can reach their home country residents.
We will continue this thought later this week...
In particular, what are we really doing and can we do more.
In this thought process the whole terminology thing came kept coming up. Having been in SBC churches all of my life, missions strategy is all too familiar. GO, REACH, and now The Nations are terms used to motivate and remind us that there is something BIG we are suppose to be doing. But lets really look at the current lingo.
Reach the nations!
What does that mean?
Do we know what it really means?
Is the meaning the same from one person to the next?
Tough questions that produce answers describing a major issue in our mission efforts. Is it possible that the term we are currently hearing over and over again is ushering in an actual opposite effect of little real missions?
Now grant it that I may be accused of being picky or crazy. But think with me for just a moment.
What does it mean? Are we to reach whole countries? Sure! But how? If we do a humanitarian effort in a country, have we taken the Gospel to the Nations? If we hold a few worship services in this country, does that fulfill the mandate?
What does it really mean? Have we been told by those who coined the phrase? Are we told by those who use it in sermons and lectures on missions?
When I hear the term, I think I know what it means but I am not sure. Where is this term defined?
A clear missions strategy must have a clear common understanding. Every Pastor and staff member must be in sync with every entity leader in knowing what the term means. But then it dawned on me, we live in a time when taking up an offering for xyz material need in some country is praised as reaching the nations. Is it?
But today, I will allow for contemplation on this initial post about this subject while praising the members of our church for raising over $3,500 with just two weeks notice to send my traditional worship leader to India for two weeks to train Pastors in evangelism and the teaching of the Word of God so they can reach their home country residents.
We will continue this thought later this week...
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Ask, Don't Ask, Accept, Don't Accept, Repent or ?
If the title caught your attention then it will definitely confuse you as it is applied to varying ideas of how one enters into salvation with Jesus. The increase in articles, books, and sermons covering the whole idea (good and bad) about how a person actually enters into a relationship with Jesus Christ can give one a migraine headache of epic size.
Does a person need to ask Jesus into their life and accept Him as Lord?
There is a big difference between the yes answer and the no answer. Those who hold to the traditional view of salvation would answer yes. They would acknowledge that a person must make the decision to turn from their sin (repent) and accept Jesus through faith. The traditionalist people have believed this for years. You will find this belief in most Evangelical churches and denominations/Associations/Conventions.
I agree with this understanding of the Biblical teaching about salvation and hold that this is the Gospel. I believe that God gives every person the opportunity to make the above choice/decision. He knows that many will not. He knows that many will. My key reason for being convinced in my spirit and mind comes straight from the Word of God.
Does a person need to ask Jesus into their life and accept Him as Lord?
There is a big difference between the yes answer and the no answer. Those who hold to the traditional view of salvation would answer yes. They would acknowledge that a person must make the decision to turn from their sin (repent) and accept Jesus through faith. The traditionalist people have believed this for years. You will find this belief in most Evangelical churches and denominations/Associations/Conventions.
I agree with this understanding of the Biblical teaching about salvation and hold that this is the Gospel. I believe that God gives every person the opportunity to make the above choice/decision. He knows that many will not. He knows that many will. My key reason for being convinced in my spirit and mind comes straight from the Word of God.
Notice how clearly salvation is explained in the "how" with the words of Paul in writing to Corinth:
2 Cor 7:10
10 For godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation, not to be regretted; but the sorrow of the world produces death.
(NKJ)
Phil 2:12-13
12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;
13 for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.
(NKJ)
2 Cor 7:10
10 For godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation, not to be regretted; but the sorrow of the world produces death.
(NKJ)
In this passage, Paul is discussing his letter written to them and how it affected them. He chooses to use the analogy of their sorrow to highlight with the gift of salvation just how a person realizes they are a sinner against God, sees they cannot fix the effect of their sin, and through this Godly sorrow are brought into salvation via the act of repentance. God's Holy Spirit calls, teaches, and convicts. Each person must make a choice as to what they will do in response to God and His work offered as a gift.
This process should be taken very seriously. In fact, the Bible is clear on this when when Paul writes to the people at Philipi and says:
Phil 2:12-13
12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;
13 for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.
(NKJ)
Clearly Paul acknowledges in this verse that salvation is God's gift. It is God who works in the calling, conviction, and giving the ability to respond. Yet Paul also acknowledges that each person must "work out" or make sure they have made the choice and live out the reality of that choice. One does not realize that they are saved. One is not born as a chosen one while others are born damned for Hell. One must respond to the work of God and then allow God to work. Salvation is all of and about the work of God in and through Jesus. Yet God does not force Himself on anyone. It is beyond religion and systems of thoughts. It requires faith in the Grace of God. It requires one to repent. It is more than just a simple mental decision.
I am the first to admit that too many people in all walks of Christianity make salvation more about saying yes to heaven and no to hell. They want to see their children and grandchildren baptized. I have seen in over 23 years of ministry that repentance can be somewhat downplayed - which I think is totally wrong. Without repentance, one cannot be saved. Salvation is serious. Salvation is the most important thing in life! We cannot get this wrong! Salvation does not precede repentance. It is impossible with the above verse out of 2 Corinthians.
And I do not think it is lowering or weakening the sovereignty of God to say and believe what I have written for the process is clearly described in God's Word.
Have you accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior of your life? Did you repent and acknowledge that you needed the death of Christ as payment for your sins?
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Learned from my perspective and concerns w/New Calvinism!
Yesterday I wrote a post that was an attempt to get dialogue started on what it is that Calvinists and New Calvinists believe. The result was much to my surprise. The folks over at sbctoday.com carried the post and the comments can be viewed their also. Add to the comments the phone calls of yesterday and today and boy did I learn a great deal. I just finished a phone call with someone who, along with family, have come out of a Calvinist takeover church. The story is the same and the 9Marks path of reforming a church is being followed to the letter (as with many, it hit major resistance and left a church totally splintered). Here is more of what I learned from this part of the journey:
1. The old form of Calvinism is still alive and well and as friendly and cooperative as ever. I knew it was but was not seeing it much on the internet. The Soteriology of the old form balances with the Traditional Statement where it counts the most.
2. The Founders version grouped with younger learning theologs are not the mainstream but they sure think they are! I pray these guys learn quickly that God has not taught them so that can call out other Pastors based on their knowledge to enlighten them and clean up other churches. They will one day soon learn that ministry; real ministry, is more than arguing some point and claiming superiority.
3. The limit of blogging and the influence there of is growing weaker by the day. I think I am thankful for this. Social media may not be as strong as we think in ministry matters other than informing our people of events and ministry needs etc. We need to acknowledge this and NOT over react.
4. You can burn an afternoon quickly if one is not careful. And when the burn is complete, thre is not much to show for it.
5. I believe there is a way for cooperation in the SBC with the mainstream older Calvinists as there has been for years. They are not fully aware of the New Calvinists and refute their assertions at every turn. This is encouraging. I am not sure how to cooperate with the New Calvinists. I keep thinking that the way is out there, but I have yet to see it.
6. New Calvinism would make a great study of pollsters and PhD students.
7. How quickly we forget or neglect some of the simple admonitions in scripture when we want to prove our point or set the world straight!
8. Bearing False Witness is still a sin. New Calvinists might need remedial training.
9. I am more convinced than ever that the Calvinists need a mega meeting of their own to figure out how they will deal with this new breed. Maybe we have approached this wrong. The old Calvinists need to listen the New Calvinists and seek to learn what makes them tick. From that learning it may be possible for them to lead them in today's ministry and churches.
10. If you do not live within the influence of certain geographic areas, you might not be aware of New Calvinism at all.
11. I sure do miss Dr. Adrian Rogers. I wonder if he would have blogged and tweeted?
12. Leaders in the SBC have their hands full! Dr. Page and his task force/committee will need our prayers.
13. We need statesmen in a bad way these days!
14. There sure seems to be a problem with taking people at their word!
15. The elephant in the room is whether or not Founders and New Calvinists will back off their goal of transforming the SBC? This is the biggie! I cannot get an answer from anyone on this one. Why is that?
And there is much more!
1. The old form of Calvinism is still alive and well and as friendly and cooperative as ever. I knew it was but was not seeing it much on the internet. The Soteriology of the old form balances with the Traditional Statement where it counts the most.
2. The Founders version grouped with younger learning theologs are not the mainstream but they sure think they are! I pray these guys learn quickly that God has not taught them so that can call out other Pastors based on their knowledge to enlighten them and clean up other churches. They will one day soon learn that ministry; real ministry, is more than arguing some point and claiming superiority.
3. The limit of blogging and the influence there of is growing weaker by the day. I think I am thankful for this. Social media may not be as strong as we think in ministry matters other than informing our people of events and ministry needs etc. We need to acknowledge this and NOT over react.
4. You can burn an afternoon quickly if one is not careful. And when the burn is complete, thre is not much to show for it.
5. I believe there is a way for cooperation in the SBC with the mainstream older Calvinists as there has been for years. They are not fully aware of the New Calvinists and refute their assertions at every turn. This is encouraging. I am not sure how to cooperate with the New Calvinists. I keep thinking that the way is out there, but I have yet to see it.
6. New Calvinism would make a great study of pollsters and PhD students.
7. How quickly we forget or neglect some of the simple admonitions in scripture when we want to prove our point or set the world straight!
8. Bearing False Witness is still a sin. New Calvinists might need remedial training.
9. I am more convinced than ever that the Calvinists need a mega meeting of their own to figure out how they will deal with this new breed. Maybe we have approached this wrong. The old Calvinists need to listen the New Calvinists and seek to learn what makes them tick. From that learning it may be possible for them to lead them in today's ministry and churches.
10. If you do not live within the influence of certain geographic areas, you might not be aware of New Calvinism at all.
11. I sure do miss Dr. Adrian Rogers. I wonder if he would have blogged and tweeted?
12. Leaders in the SBC have their hands full! Dr. Page and his task force/committee will need our prayers.
13. We need statesmen in a bad way these days!
14. There sure seems to be a problem with taking people at their word!
15. The elephant in the room is whether or not Founders and New Calvinists will back off their goal of transforming the SBC? This is the biggie! I cannot get an answer from anyone on this one. Why is that?
And there is much more!
Sunday, July 8, 2012
Entering into a relationship with Jesus - Part 3
And so we continue:
The author states:
Point 6 - The phrase "ask Jesus into your heart" is neither commanded in scripture nor found as a description of conversion.
Question: Is the author desiring/communicating that only an acknowledgement of the work is needed?
My thoughts: This point gets to the core of a major issue with this line of reasoning. I find it odd that no mention is made of the "what" that is to take place? As with many today, it appears that the author is leading parents down a path that would have them lead their children to REALIZE they are in the elect. And thus if no realization occurs, they were then NOT part of the elect.
Point 7 - God only saves those who repent of their sin and delight in His Son.
Question: Does God save others who are NOT repentant and DO NOT delight in Jesus?
My thoughts: This is were we see the breakdown in this theology. The author opens the door for people being in God's family without repenting. No where in the Bible is this allowed nor shown. The author uses a verse out of Revelation and the Laodicia church to highlight this. I honestly do NOT see the connection with the point and the reference. He also makes a distinction between the church and people. Yet we know that individuals make up the local churches and all saved are in the body of Christ.
Point 8 - Leading a child in a "sinners prayer" may give the child false assurance.
Question: Has anyone, anywhere, even hinted at this idea?
My thoughts: Assurance only comes via the Spirit of God. As the Spirit of God relates to the truth of God's Word lived out in our life, assurance flows. Without the Truth of God's Word lived out in our life, the Spirit has nothing to assure us of. The real need is for repentance which comes from Godly sorrow over our sin. And in that sorrow, we call out to God accepting His gift of Jesus in payment for our sins and acknowledging Him as Lord of our life. This may be the first time I have heard of "false assurance" from praying.
Point 9 - This presentation robs God of His sovereignty.
Question: How?
My thoughts: In this final point we see the real goal motivating the article. The author is convinced that some are born elect while others are born with NO hope of salvation. Read that again. This is what this article is all about. And the article has as it's goal a two fold outcome: teach this thought to parents and teach this thought to children.
One is left with a simple understanding from this article. All we need to do is just realize that we are elect. In this realization, repentance will come, and faith will be exercised. But I will leave you with this thought and why this is an issue with me:
2 Cor 7:10
10 For godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation, not to be regretted; but the sorrow of the world produces death.
(NKJ)
The author states:
Point 6 - The phrase "ask Jesus into your heart" is neither commanded in scripture nor found as a description of conversion.
Question: Is the author desiring/communicating that only an acknowledgement of the work is needed?
My thoughts: This point gets to the core of a major issue with this line of reasoning. I find it odd that no mention is made of the "what" that is to take place? As with many today, it appears that the author is leading parents down a path that would have them lead their children to REALIZE they are in the elect. And thus if no realization occurs, they were then NOT part of the elect.
Point 7 - God only saves those who repent of their sin and delight in His Son.
Question: Does God save others who are NOT repentant and DO NOT delight in Jesus?
My thoughts: This is were we see the breakdown in this theology. The author opens the door for people being in God's family without repenting. No where in the Bible is this allowed nor shown. The author uses a verse out of Revelation and the Laodicia church to highlight this. I honestly do NOT see the connection with the point and the reference. He also makes a distinction between the church and people. Yet we know that individuals make up the local churches and all saved are in the body of Christ.
Point 8 - Leading a child in a "sinners prayer" may give the child false assurance.
Question: Has anyone, anywhere, even hinted at this idea?
My thoughts: Assurance only comes via the Spirit of God. As the Spirit of God relates to the truth of God's Word lived out in our life, assurance flows. Without the Truth of God's Word lived out in our life, the Spirit has nothing to assure us of. The real need is for repentance which comes from Godly sorrow over our sin. And in that sorrow, we call out to God accepting His gift of Jesus in payment for our sins and acknowledging Him as Lord of our life. This may be the first time I have heard of "false assurance" from praying.
Point 9 - This presentation robs God of His sovereignty.
Question: How?
My thoughts: In this final point we see the real goal motivating the article. The author is convinced that some are born elect while others are born with NO hope of salvation. Read that again. This is what this article is all about. And the article has as it's goal a two fold outcome: teach this thought to parents and teach this thought to children.
One is left with a simple understanding from this article. All we need to do is just realize that we are elect. In this realization, repentance will come, and faith will be exercised. But I will leave you with this thought and why this is an issue with me:
2 Cor 7:10
10 For godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation, not to be regretted; but the sorrow of the world produces death.
(NKJ)
Thursday, July 5, 2012
Entering into a relationship with Jesus - Part 2
As we continue this series on the "how" a person enters into a relationship with Jesus, we will pick up with the real reason this article was written and the 9 points the author of the article makes pertaining to sharing the Gospel with children and why another way is bad/wrong.
The author states:
Point 1 - This type of figurative language is NOT appropriate for children.
Question: Since when? The Bible uses this same type of language. Are we really at a point where we are going to question the very Words of Jesus?
My thoughts: This is a straw man if ever there was one. David Platt has made the same statement. The real motivation of this statement is to attack the idea that the Gospel/Salvation is available for all/who so ever. If a person is born elect and has no choice, then their will not be a decision nor a asking into the heart moment in their life. There will be a moment of "realization".
Point 2 - Salvation does not come from our asking, but from what Jesus has done.
Question: Do we have to accept it or is it automatic?
My thoughts: I will add to what I stated above in Point 1 this: The Reformed/Calvinist thought actually believes that the Gospel is limited and thus some people are born with NO hope of salvation. People do not need to ask Jesus into their hearts for they were elect from the beginning. They just need to realize it. Those who do NOT realize, were not elect, and thus destined for hell with NO hope ever.
Point 3 - The gospel is NOT primarily about Jesus’ work in our hearts, but about Jesus’ work in history.
Question: Does our heart matter?
My thoughts: I fully grasp the statement if it were to stand alone, absent an agenda. However, this statement is another way of restating Point 2.
Point 4 - The Gospel Appeals to more than emotion.
Question: Who said that emotion is all that the Gospel appeals to?
My thoughts: The attack here is on Revivalism. Simply put, Reformed/Calvinist actually think that people over the years who accepted Christ during revival meetings or during an invitation call made a preacher to accept Christ, really did not have it right. Again, the assumptions made are startling. Yes there were those who used emotion to get people to walk the isles. Yes it was wrong. But the majority did not rely on emotions and to make such an implication is absurd. The author then states in this point that accepting Christ is "finally resting in Christ". Again, accept that it is a reality of the elect and NOT a decision that needs to be made.
Point 5 - Over emphasizing a change of heart can actually discourage a child.
Question: Do you realize that this appears to negate the role of brokenness?
My thoughts: A heart change is what is needed! Brokenness allows one to see this need and leads to confession and repentance. The thought expressed by the author is one derived from the secular counseling side of theological thought. It is bad theology and the fear does not exist. It preys on the parents sensitivity which when applied, would lead parents down a path of NOT calling their own children to repent. This is SAD!
The author states:
I have come to believe that the phrase “ask Jesus into your heart” can be a dangerous way of calling someone to faith.
Point 1 - This type of figurative language is NOT appropriate for children.
Question: Since when? The Bible uses this same type of language. Are we really at a point where we are going to question the very Words of Jesus?
My thoughts: This is a straw man if ever there was one. David Platt has made the same statement. The real motivation of this statement is to attack the idea that the Gospel/Salvation is available for all/who so ever. If a person is born elect and has no choice, then their will not be a decision nor a asking into the heart moment in their life. There will be a moment of "realization".
Point 2 - Salvation does not come from our asking, but from what Jesus has done.
Question: Do we have to accept it or is it automatic?
My thoughts: I will add to what I stated above in Point 1 this: The Reformed/Calvinist thought actually believes that the Gospel is limited and thus some people are born with NO hope of salvation. People do not need to ask Jesus into their hearts for they were elect from the beginning. They just need to realize it. Those who do NOT realize, were not elect, and thus destined for hell with NO hope ever.
Point 3 - The gospel is NOT primarily about Jesus’ work in our hearts, but about Jesus’ work in history.
Question: Does our heart matter?
My thoughts: I fully grasp the statement if it were to stand alone, absent an agenda. However, this statement is another way of restating Point 2.
Point 4 - The Gospel Appeals to more than emotion.
Question: Who said that emotion is all that the Gospel appeals to?
My thoughts: The attack here is on Revivalism. Simply put, Reformed/Calvinist actually think that people over the years who accepted Christ during revival meetings or during an invitation call made a preacher to accept Christ, really did not have it right. Again, the assumptions made are startling. Yes there were those who used emotion to get people to walk the isles. Yes it was wrong. But the majority did not rely on emotions and to make such an implication is absurd. The author then states in this point that accepting Christ is "finally resting in Christ". Again, accept that it is a reality of the elect and NOT a decision that needs to be made.
Point 5 - Over emphasizing a change of heart can actually discourage a child.
Question: Do you realize that this appears to negate the role of brokenness?
My thoughts: A heart change is what is needed! Brokenness allows one to see this need and leads to confession and repentance. The thought expressed by the author is one derived from the secular counseling side of theological thought. It is bad theology and the fear does not exist. It preys on the parents sensitivity which when applied, would lead parents down a path of NOT calling their own children to repent. This is SAD!
The next post will continue with points 6 - 9.
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Entering into a relationship with Jesus - Part 1
While reading articles on ministry and practice in our current day, my Children's Pastor walked into my office and referred me to an article that dealt specifically with the subject of what NOT to do when sharing the Gospel with a child. The article is written by a Family Pastor at a church that is quite large in attendance. I was curious to see what his take was on just how a person "gets saved", or accepts Christ, or...? The article had my blood boiling quickly. The article highlighted the confusion being created by those of the Reformed ideas of Soteriology and the deep depths of their intentions to take this poor theological system to the world.
In the beginning, The Editors of the site that published the article had the following disclaimer/embrace:
Sharing the gospel with our children is an
extremely critical task and the language we us to communicate the good
news to them is also vitally important. This article offers an
alternative view to a very traditional method of evangelism.
From this beginning, it is clear that the information to be shared is against what the author and editors know to be "traditional" in relation to how one accepts Christ or becomes a Christian. I admit that this statement alone had me boiling. But the reality that someone has now figured out that we have been doing the command of disciple making wrong and that millions who have accepted Christ over the years have also done it wrong leaves one with no other alternative than to boil - a lot! The arrogance of the mere thought is typical in the modern day Reformed movement known as New Calvinist. It is this arrogance that is leading to charges of arrogance, and rightly so.
The author seems to somewhat flip/flop on the subject in his opening by stating:
The author seems to somewhat flip/flop on the subject in his opening by stating:
Your child lies in her snugly, warm bed and says, “Yes, Daddy. I want
to ask Jesus into my heart.” You lead her in “the prayer” and hope
that it sticks. You spend the next ten years questioning if she
really, really meant it. Puberty hits, and you only have more
questions. She turns away from faith. You spend the next ten years
praying that she will come to her senses. What went wrong?
Is the author saying that the child accepted Christ, became a child of God, and then lost Jesus or left Him? True there is NO way as a human being to know for certain that anyone other than self has entered into a relationship with Jesus. I do not question this at all. What I do raise as a point of theological fact is that the Gospel is NOT a thing that sticks or does not. Either a person accepts Christ and becomes a Christian, secured by Jesus for all eternity, or they do not, and remain lost needing to accept Christ.
As a parent of two teenage boys, I never once questioned my sons salvation. I heard from them of their decision to accept Christ and witnessed the brokenness over sin and the effects of it, in their lives. Maybe some parents do question this, but to present an article on a subject that is as important as salvation, presuming to know something that is NOT general in terms by any means, presents more of the arrogance of this movement and highlights a great problem - what is the Gospel and how does one enter into a relationship with Jesus and know that it is sealed for all eternity?
And then the author says the following:
Of course, there is no way to guarantee that an early acceptance of the
gospel will stick, and parents should not feel defeated when their
adolescents question or even rebel against what they have been taught
from a young age.
Is the author saying that the child accepted Christ, became a child of God, and then lost Jesus or left Him? True there is NO way as a human being to know for certain that anyone other than self has entered into a relationship with Jesus. I do not question this at all. What I do raise as a point of theological fact is that the Gospel is NOT a thing that sticks or does not. Either a person accepts Christ and becomes a Christian, secured by Jesus for all eternity, or they do not, and remain lost needing to accept Christ.
As a parent of two teenage boys, I never once questioned my sons salvation. I heard from them of their decision to accept Christ and witnessed the brokenness over sin and the effects of it, in their lives. Maybe some parents do question this, but to present an article on a subject that is as important as salvation, presuming to know something that is NOT general in terms by any means, presents more of the arrogance of this movement and highlights a great problem - what is the Gospel and how does one enter into a relationship with Jesus and know that it is sealed for all eternity?
My next post will deal with the specifics of this article. At the end of the review, I will share the article and author information.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)