So, here’s an excerpt I discuss concerning John Piper in Back to Faith.

What do you think?

FRL

Consider the words from a radio broadcast for Desiring God Ministries;

first is a sound bite of John Piper’s message, then an introduction by the
announcer, then finally Piper as he eases into his message,

[Piper] The foundational fact of this argument is
‘People who know Christ, obey Christ.’ There is a
necessary correlation between knowing Christ and
obeying Christ. [Announcer] ‘Can a person be on
the way to heaven and yet live like the devil? John
Piper reveals what God said about that next on
Desiring God radio. If a person goes forward
during a church service and seemingly accepts Jesus
Christ, but his life never changes or if it changes for
a time, but ultimately he goes back to living the
same way he was before he walked the aisle, can we
say that that person was saved? John Piper
examines that question today in part five of his
series taking us through the apostle John’s first
letter. And John, I’ve heard of people who fit that
story and they’re now dead. It’s hard lesson for
some to hear. Is there anyway to soften it?’ [Piper]
Yes, I think it is and whether we should soften it or
not is an open question…

AND
There is no doubt that Jesus saw a measure of real,
lived-out obedience to the will of God as necessary
for final salvation.

-Piper, What Jesus Demands from the World, p. 160

Well,

As my conversation with Jim (many thanks Jim) comes to a close for now, it strikes me that my question from my Open Letter of April 2009 is it’s own worthy conversation piece.  I guess I have thought we all agree on this question, but as I read through the comments I’m not so sure.

Here’s the question:

CAN ONE BE SAVED BY BELIEVING SOMETHING LESS THAN THE GOSPEL?

Now, I guess I need to ask another one:

IS IT NECESSARY TO PREACH MORE THAN THE GOSPEL?

This question is where this all goes (if you’ve been following the discussions).  I guess this is where the GES Gospel controversy lives and dies for me.  The clear nature of their view is that it is unnecessary to preach the cross, etc., because it is unnecessary to believe for eternal salvation.  For examples see the following,

My Open Letter get to this point: CLICK HERE

I think this is all done if we can answer these questions honestly.  They mean that everyone knows where they stand.  But, it would be great if the GES Gospel advocates would get it that we know they care about the cross…but, it would also be great if they get it that they don’t believe the cross is necessary to preach.

Then, aren’t we done?  And, can’t God sort it out?

What do you think?

FRL

Hi All,

Within this site there are discussions that have erupted about the character and actions of individuals.  Personally I have often been embarrassed and saddened for some of the folks who have said some of the things they’ve said.  Often it turns out to be a discussion of Ad Hominem assaults rather than staying on the point.  I posted an exhortation and got some divergent responses.  So, I though I’d try to be clearer and see what happens.  Tell me what you think!

Thanks,

Fred Lybrand

…………………………………………..

Thank you both for your comments…I totally understand them. As a pastor for 23 years your divergent responses work just about like a sermon does. A sermon is preached to a large group…and every time (virtually) people hear different things. Not long ago I gave a sermon about how I felt there was a spirit of conceit in our church (focusing on Gal 6:3 as the cure). Well, I don’t think I’ve ever had such a divergent set of responses. People were writing the elders and me / wanting meetings, etc….and saying two things:

1. You should be banned from the pulpit because you’re wrong, we aren’t conceited, we are wonderful.

2. You are awesome…the first pastor I’ve ever seen willing to actually tell the truth. It is a disease in our church and you helped set a cure in motion.

The point is I both (a) know of specific examples; and (b) have all of us in mind.

You two are a perfect illustration. I have one hopeful and one in tears (finally). Wow. My hope is that you would both be hopeful and in tears!

J, my post is not a ‘mediation’ or effort at mediating. If I wanted to do that I would get the parties together.

G, though you are encouraged by the message, I hope you weren’t excluding yourself from the point.

……………..

I’m somewhat new to this community chatting through blogs, but I can tell you all the cure for the frustration and vitriol. The cure is to get off of each other. Get on to the point. Think, debate, look at the text, use logic, use a helpful illustration, stay on the issue.

Maybe the ‘other guys ARE evil’ (I’m sure some of them are)…but why are we all busy putting ourselves in the place of God in judging (see Rom 14 and James 5)?

I say it this way sometimes— If a bum on the street comes up to you and tells you your tie doesn’t match (or your shoes), you can ignore him because he is a bum. However, just because he is a bum, why does that mean he’s wrong?

I sit in this strange spot of not only not knowing how evil the the “other side is”, but I’ve also been ground fine by the Lord. I still think people are in great error (and yes, my blood can boil). But God has said the issue is especially the doctrine, teaching, logic, opinions, theories, hypotheticals, and facts themselves.

So, what you have rather than a ‘mediation’ is an exhortation. PLEASE, how about giving OCTOBER over to be the NATIONAL AD VERITAS blogging month. We take one month and we blog about information and not about people. It’s a bit of an experiment—what might happen?

Frankly, maybe Jim is a heretic…frankly I don’t know yet :-0! But I know I’d really like to just understand where he is coming from…and then try to invited him to reconsider a few things if necessary.

I can always attack him as a heretic and smear him all over the known world later.

You know, I had the same thing happen with my Open Letter about Zane.

http://docyouments.googlepages.com/GESGospel.LybrandOpenLetter.04-14-09.pdf

I had people say I was mean and others say I bent over backwards to be gracious. What I was really trying to do is understand and analyze the facts adn the text. I came to conclusions and I offered them; and yet, to this day, I have had no one even attempt to help me reconsider my key arguments…I just saw a lot of ’sound and fury’.

I think we Christians are kind of copying the news media— like we wake up every day and we are on Crossfire or Nancy Grace. Of course, we could have gotten it from Martin Luther and his attacks on the Pope as the Anti-Christ. We spout a lot of opinion, and pardon me, a lot of vitriol.

If we need to call out individuals for their error then I get it (Paul certainly did on occasion); however, I’d plead that we stay on the argument and make use of reason and insight about the text…that is where things are won or lost.

So, there’s my exhortation. It is for me mostly…and if it splashes and you pick up the cause and give it a try…then I guess it might have been for you too!

Grace and Peace,

Fred Lybrand

UPDATES ARE IN THE COMMENTS OF THIS BLOG

Well, I’m in Dallas.

It seemed like a good idea to give a few updates every night just to let those who are interested to know of the value of our labors together.  I’ll through up a few points of interest each night.

Grace and peace,

Fred

P.S.  I saw John Hart (Moody) and George Meisinger (Chafer) a little while ago…just seeing them encourages my heart!

So, I want to invite Jim Reitman to reload this discussion.   Here were my last words:

I really want to take the blame here in not framing things properly.  Jim and I certainly have different views on some things, and different ways to express agreed upon things.  Rather than getting into the minutiae of different aspects of whether or not hermeneutics has been damaged by being too rationalistic (though Jim agree that being rational is important), etc., I really just want to give Jim the opportunity to state what he really believes.  Now, stating what he believes may take some explanation of his epistemology.  I want to be patient with this as well.  In other words, I’d like to give Jim a real opportunity to tell me / us what he believes it takes for one to be saved.  In this way I can interact with him on the actual goal: hearing what he believes is the content of the gospel.  Perhaps more accurately he will need to address what is the content-side of the gospel (Jim, I think, believes the gospel…here we mean what it takes to get saved from heaven to hell…involves more than faith in content).

So now, I’d rather Jim really lead the discussion.  We are trying to get to the Content of Saving Faith from Jim’s perspective and understanding.  I think Jim understands saving faith to have both propositional and nonpropositional components or aspects.

So, here we go:

Jim what do you really believe about the Content of Saving Faith?  What does God require (if anything?) from an individual to be received into His Eternity?

What do we need to know first to understand before we hear your conclusions on the matter?  Explain whatever you need to to get to the point of sharing what you believe is required to believe in (or do…or feel…etc.) order to be saved from hell to heaven.

Honestly, win me over!

God bless,

Fred Lybrand

P.S.  Again, don’t post to this dialogue…instead please post your comments to The Content of Saving Faith (The Companion Discussion) (REDUX)