All posts by 0215ag3sxa

Biblically Speaking

FAITH ALONE OR NOT…are you one of those awful Antinomians?

7 Comments

What a big issue!

The Gospel, is it (?) —

Faith + Nothing

Faith + Works

Faith (that Works) + Nothing

The reason this is a big deal is that it (a) Will affect how we explain / offer the gospel to others; and, (b) Undermine our assurance as believers in Jesus Christ.

If you tell folks they must add works to their faith, then please know you do not believe in faith alone.  This has been the mainstay and understanding of Bible believing Christians since the Reformation, however, the debate has has raged since then about what to do with works.  Normally there is an incongruence in operation where it sounds like ‘faith alone’ at time, and like ‘faith + works’ at other times.

I think it is simple, but largely unrecognized:

Works have nothing to do with our salvation, but much to do with our sanctification (spiritual growth). Normally in the discussions those who disagree start throwing out labels such as “antinomianism”.  Antinomianism has been used as throughout history as an inflammatory charge.  The funny thing is that it has been used by Roman Catholics against the Reformers, by the Reformers against Evangelicals, and even Arminians against Evangelicals.

If you don’t know all these groups and terms don’t worry about it.  Antinomianism simply means ‘against law’ and nothing more.  So, any group which is against your group’s ‘law’ is antinomian to you.  I really am fond of A.W. Tozer (who did not believe in the eternal security of Christians), but he misses it here:

“Fundamental Christianity in our times is deeply influenced by that ancient enemy of righteousness, Antinomianism. The creed of the Antinomian is easily stated: We are saved by faith alone; works have no place in salvation; conduct is works, and is therefore of no importance. What we do cannot matter as long as we believe rightly. The divorce between creed and conduct is absolute and final. The question of sin is settled by the Cross; conduct is outside the circle of faith and cannot come between the believer and God. Such in brief, is the teaching of the Antinomian. And so fully has it permeated the Fundamental element in modern Christianity that it is accepted by the religious masses as the very truth of God. Antinomianism is the doctrine of grace carried by uncorrected logic to the point of absurdity. It takes the teaching of justification by faith and twists it into deformity.” (from Paths to Power)

In other words, Tozer offers that it is WRONG to say, ‘We are saved by faith alone; works have no place.”  but that is exactly what Romans 4, Romans 11:6,29,  and Ephesians 2:8&9) says (please read them yourself).  Yet, simply put, if you look at your works rather than Christ, then you will doubt because your works will always be flawed.  Looking at Christ alone (l00k = believe here), will always lead to assurance because of His promise (see John 3:16, 5:24).

So what do we do with being called ‘antinomian’ in the debate?  Well I’ve suggested one solution as promoting our belief in Lordship Sanctification; however, there is another option.  We can simply be against antinomianism, and pass it along as belonging to the the universalists (the ones who believe everyone is accepted by God with out regard to faith or works) where it belongs!

Another option is to explain what we really believe.  I offer a fresh term called Necranomian.  Necranomian means one is ‘dead to the law’ (see Romans 7 and 2 Corinthians 3) not ‘aganst’ the law.

I’ve explained this more completely in an appendix of Back to Faith (go get a copy).

In the meantime, it really is Faith Alone in Christ Alone.  Please don’t drift.  The truth is that our growth relates to works, but our acceptence and forgivenss comes through simple faith in Jesus Christ.

Grace,

Fred Lybrand

P.S.  Here’s the Appendix on Antinomianism from Back To Faith (c) Fred R. Lybrand :  Is This Antinomianism?

Biblically Speaking

The Bible:Two Men Saved from Hell By Their Money?

Leave a comment

I had a recent discussion with someone who is apparently deeply dedicated to the idea that we must be perfect on earth in order to get into heaven (at least that’s what it all sounded like to me over a series of correspondences).  So, I threw something I find interesting his way.

Notice these two lines are 29 verses apart in the same book of Luke:

Concerning the Rich Young Ruler: “When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “One thing you still lack. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”” (Luke 18:22, ESV)

Concerning Zacchaeus: “And Zacchaeus stood and said to the Lord, “Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor. And if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I restore it fourfold.” And Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, since he also is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”” (Luke 19:8-10, ESV)

Then I said:

So here one person is told that he must give away ALL while the other is saved by giving HALF (etc.)….If your view is right, that people must become perfect in this life to get into heaven, then Christ must also have different standards for what this means for each person (Rich Young Ruler vs. Zacchaeus)…

Now, Luke knew good and well he was putting these events right next to each other.  So, why would Christ require all of one person’s wealth, but only half of another person’s wealth, to get into heaven?

Frankly, I’m surprised someone in the political arena hasn’t misused this interesting situation to explain why we should all have the same amount of money (socialism?) or the same amount of ‘no money’ (communism?).  Really, the point is evident.  Jesus is not concerned about our money, but about our neediness.  None of us ever takes nasty medicine or painful surgery until we need it.  Even the folks who obsess on cosmetic surgery have become convinced it is necessary for some result (beauty / youth / job).

The Rich Young Ruler was quite clear that he had done all the law required, so Christ upped the ante.  He offered the man an opportunity to see where his faith rested.  With Zacchaeus, the kindness of Christ entering his home opened up his need for Christ, and shortly, his own need to be generous.

The lesson here is that we Christian-types often miss the point because of our obsession with works in other people’s lives (if you want to get free from this, please read Back To Faith, its truths cured me!).  Lewis Sperry Chafer, the founder of Dallas Theological Seminary, said something really fascinating on an old cassette I found in a church closet one time.  In this message (from 1946-ish) he said something like the following to a group of would-be preachers,

Gentlemen, don’t preach against the world.  Don’t preach against the things in the world.  To the spiritually dying, everything in the world is the anesthetic for their pain.  To preach against is to preach more pain for those who don’t know the Savior.  Instead, preach grace.  Preach about the kindness of God and His love for them…this will be a better offer that will allow them to let go  of their pain-killer as they embrace God’s answer in Jesus Christ by faith.”

Well, he said it better than that, but Paul said it even better—

“That is the way we should live, because God’s grace that can save everyone has come. It teaches us not to live against God nor to do the evil things the world wants to do. Instead, that grace teaches us to live in the present age in a wise and right way and in a way that shows we serve God. We should live like that while we wait for our great hope and the coming of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ. He gave himself for us so he might pay the price to free us from all evil and to make us pure people who belong only to him—people who are always wanting to do good deeds.” (Titus 2:11-14, NCV)

The point is that grace teaches us…and the result is that we seek to do ‘good’.  How often do we get cause-and-effect twisted around to miss (completely) the power of God’s kindness…leading to change…leading to good deeds.  When Christians walk well and do it right, they are taught by grace to do good…not to do good to see if God might be gracious.

Believe.

God bless,

Fred Lybrand

Biblically Speaking

How Do You Gain Peace with Your Enemies?

2 Comments

One of Murphy’s famous axioms says, “Friends come and go, but enemies accumulate.”

Isn’t it curious how true this quip is?  Of course, some of us never acquire enemies, but we never acquire much in the way of friends either.  You know, “If you stand for nothing you’ll fall for anything.”  If you never stand up (or stand out), then no one will every dislike you…well, except for those who dislike people who don’t take stands.  But, no one will really like you either because they don’t notice you. You get the point.

Today my 3-at-home-sons were looking at the Bible on this topic.  “How do we get peace with our enemies?”  Naturally, we first concluded that we do see enemies in our lives from time to time, and that the Bible seems to have this assumption as well.  Remember Romans:

“If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” (Romans 12:18-21, ESV)

Notice it doesn’t say, “If you have enemies…”  Frankly, I hate having enemies and I hate being one.  I deeply appreciate the kind words John Piper’s assistant pastor wrote me concerning my recent book Back to Faith (where I challenge some of Piper’s assumptions on faith and works).  He acknowledge my efforts to be gracious and supportive…even though I disagree with Piper.  That’s always my hope.

Now, with the boys, we pondered things like the Golden Rule and the value of following Matthew 18 in seeking to actually talk to others in order to be reconciled.  We talked of kindness and pursuing peace.  We talked of not speaking ill of others to others (a sure way to grow your enemies).  We even talked about how beating them or yielding to them so as to end the conflict.  Yet, here is where we landed:

“When a man’s ways please the Lord, he makes even his enemies to be at peace with him.” (Proverbs 16:7, ESV)

At that moment, it became clear that one great way is to let the Lord make the peace (we concluded it isn’t the person making his own peace, but the gracious act of God causing peace to happen).  So, please the Lord.  Walk with Him.  Stay tight with the Lord and He can sort out things with enemies.  We know a proverb is a principle and not a promise—but it is a nice principle to have on your side!

So, how do you please the Lord?

I think it is simply to do what He’s asking…next.  I believe Oswald Chambers suggested, “Trust God and do the next thing.”  Really sound advice.  We often try our best to tell God what should please Him (we do this with our enemies too), but He isn’t interested.  God isn’t concerned about EVERY issue in your life at EVERY moment.  He gets it, but He is at work on something.

It seems clear that if you’ll just ask Him what He wants next…He’ll tell you and give you the power to pull it off.  It couldn’t be clearer.  Of course, if you don’t know of anything, maybe there isn’t anything.  But just in case, pray with David:

“Search me, O God, and know my heart! Try me and know my thoughts! And see if there be any grievous way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting!” (Psalm 139:23-24, ESV)

If you want peace with your enemies…I don’t know a faster way.  My experience bears this out as well.

God bless,

Fred Lybrand

Biblically Speaking

Success, Wisdom, Tiger, and the Bible

2 Comments

Tiger is fresh on my mind because we talked about him as we looked at the Bible.  When I say ‘we’ I mean my wife and my three at-home sons.  As we talked I described to them that  success can get us to a place of ‘believing’ our own press reports; specifically, that the rules don’t apply to us.  I was encouraged to later see that Tiger had used these same words about himself.  He knows he did wrong and we know he did wrong—but standards these days (amorality) really doesn’t have much of a reason as to why.  The wrongness is ethical…but the stupidity is practical.  It can be avoided.

So, what happens and how do we avoid falling into such a pit ourselves.  Three verses come to mind (the two in proverbs we all discussed around the kitchen table).

“Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths.” (Proverbs 3:5-6, ESV)


“Be not wise in your own eyes; fear the Lord, and turn away from evil. It will be healing to your flesh and refreshment to your bones.” (Proverbs 3:7-8, ESV)


“Not that we dare to classify or compare ourselves with some of those who are commending themselves. But when they measure themselves by one another and compare themselves with one another, they are without understanding.” (2 Corinthians 10:12, ESV)


All of these verses hit at the same thing…I kind of arrogance that contains its own death-wish, so to speak.  Leaning on your own understanding, being wise in your own eyes, and using yourself as the standard of measurement…all of these are deadly.

The verses surely aren’t saying that thinking of someone as wise is a problem, rather it is when we stand back and look at our own selves with awe and wonder at our greatness (wisdom, smarts, looks, money, success, etc.).  I remember a speaker one time saying that he would get up in the morning, look himself in the mirror, and declare to his own reflection, “You good lookin’ thing—don’t you ever die.”  I can’t recall if it was a tip or a joke, but we all laughed.

The problem with us humans is that we lose perspective, especially when we don’t have a ‘god’ to whom we are accountable.  All that is left is oneself, so we measure us by us.  Soon phrases like, “I could be wrong” disappear altogether and we drift in to rank subjectivity; if we think it, it must be true.

There is a better way, including a turning away from evil.  But, according to the passage above, the turn from evil is preceded by not looking at ourselves with awe.  Tiger is a helpful example here, which is already redemptive if we take it to heart.

The final promise is that there is HEALTH in the future…if humility and a flight from evil are taken to heart.  Acknowledging God surely begins with admitting “I am not God”— but there’s the rub.  We succeed, we believe our press reports, we decided the rules don’t apply—then all that is left is collapse.  This is how it goes with wisdom, this world, and a very interested God who is listening for our humble acknowledgment of Him over us.

God bless Tiger and all of us who would learn from his stumble and recovery.

Grace,

Fred Lybrand

Biblically Speaking

What makes someone an Agnostic and not an Atheist?

4 Comments

All,

I received this comment in a previous post, and thought it might lead to clarifying a distinction about atheists and agnostics.

Here’s the note:

If you want to talk to atheists in Texas, go to Austin. Specifically the Atheist Community of Austin, and their cable access show “The Atheist Experience” or their podcast “The Non-Prophets”. (And no, they aren’t paying me to advertise.)

All I can say, and someone may already have said it, is that your definition of ‘atheist’ is wrong. All an atheist is is someone who doesn’t believe in a god or gods.

Certainly someone who asserted that there absolutely was no god would fit the definition of an atheist. But the definition of atheist isn’t so specific as to apply only to those people.

Here’s my response:

morsecOde,

You are sort of making my point – it is about ‘belief’.

I think I’ve been fair in my postings [see My Favorite Conversation (ever) With an Atheist] about the distinctions in language on the term, but I’ll ponder the following critique:

There is, unfortunately, some disagreement about the definition of atheism. It is interesting to note that most of that disagreement comes from theists — atheists themselves tend to agree on what atheism means. Christians in particular dispute the definition used by atheists and insist that atheism means something very different.

The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism among atheists is quite simply “not believing in any gods.” No claims or denials are made — an atheist is just a person who does not happen to be a theist. Sometimes this broader understanding is called “weak” or “implicit” atheism. Most good, complete dictionaries readily support this.

There also exists a narrower sort of atheism, sometimes called “strong” or “explicit” atheism. With this type, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods — making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point. Some atheists do this and others may do this with regards to certain specific gods but not with others. Thus, a person may lack belief in one god, but deny the existence of another god.

Below are links to a variety of references pages to help understand how atheism is defined and why atheists define it the way they do.

Now, with all that in mind, I suppose the question is what is the difference between an atheist and an agnostic? [http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/definition.htm]

I’m thinking:

atheist = I don’t believe there is a god or gods [i.e. there is no God.]

agnostic = I don’t know if there is a god or gods [i.e. is there a God?]

My point is that, though many atheists believe they are atheists (which is fine, believe you are whatever you think you are), they are in fact agnostics.

So, what makes someone an agnostic and not an atheist?

Thanks,


Fred Lybrand