Category Archives: Biblically Speaking

This category is for topics and issues which come back to specific biblical answers and debates. It is especially concerned with God’s grace and the Christian life…and, with keeping the Gospel of faith alone in Christ alone crystal clear.

Biblically Speaking

The Great Mistake: Thinking Christ’s Kingdom is Here Now (A Dialogue)…part 2

Leave a comment 

The following is from a friend of mine, we'll call him BP.
He was responding to my previous post on The Great Mistake
I thought this would be of interest because he does well articulate the view I don't hold to!
What you see is his letter (Italics) to me punctuated with my responses / thoughts (Bold).  I'm publishing this with his permission.

…………………………………………………………………

Hey BP…as always good to hear from you!

On 3/22/2010 7:25 PM, BP wrote:   >  Read your blog on kingdom. Those 3 uses of kingdom in John are a >  problem, aren’t they?

I DON’T SEE WHY THEY’D BE A ‘PROBLEM’…ENTERING THE KINGDOM, SEEING THE KINGDOM, AND MY KINGDOM IS NOT OF THIS WORLD— THEY ALL FIT A FUTURE COMING KINGDOM IN WHICH THE LORD REIGNS ON EARTH.  WHY DO YOU THINK THEY ARE A PROBLEM? WHEN ONE IS BORN AGAIN IT DOESN’T HAVE TO MEAN THEY THEN SEE AND ENTER THE KINGDOM RIGHT THEN DOES IT?  AND, HIS KINGDOM (FUTURE ESPECIALLY) IS DEFINITELY NOT OF THIS WORLD.

What do you think the meaning of the kingdom >  of god is at hand means?  I like Willard’s definition of rural America >  when electricity became available.  He says, “Electricity is at >  hand!”. It is here. It is available.

YOU AND I BOTH KNOW THAT RURAL ENGLISH AND THE GREEK ARE NOT QUITE THE SAME.  IN THE NEW TESTAMENT ‘AT HAND’ CLEARLY MEANS ‘NEAR’ OR ‘CLOSE’. IF DALLAS IS SAYING THAT IT MEANS IT IS ‘HERE’, THEN (WITH ALL DUE RESPECT) HE MIGHT NEED TO GO BACK AND RECONSIDER THE LEXICONS AND THE CONTEXTS OF THE PASSAGES. HERE ARE SOME EXAMPLES:

He said, “Go into the city to a certain man and say to him, ‘The Teacher says, My time is at hand. I will keep the Passover at your house with my disciples.’ ” 19 And the disciples did as Jesus had directed them, and they prepared the Passover.(Mt 26:18–19).

You also, be patient. Establish your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is at hand.(Jas 5:8). The end of all things is at hand; therefore be self-controlled and sober-minded for the sake of your prayers. ESV (1 Pe 4:7).

HIS TIME WASN’T ‘HERE’ NOR IS HIS COMING ‘HERE’ NOR IS THE END OF ALL THINGS ‘HERE’—THEY ARE NEAR, BUT NOT HERE.  WHEN CHRIST SHOWED UP AS THE KING-TO-BE…HE OFFERED THE KINGDOM (LEGITIMATELY).  IT WAS NEAR, IT WAS OFFERED…BUT IT DIDN’T MAKE IT (HENCE ACTS 1…IS IT AT THIS TIME THAT YOU WILL RESTORE THE KINGDOM TO ISRAEL?)  DEFINITELY OLD TESTAMENT INFORMATION.

Check out what Paul was >  preaching in Acts 28:31. Kingdom is not heaven.

I SURE AGREE, NEVER HAVE THOUGHT IT WAS HEAVEN…BUT EARTHLY MILLENNIAL…AND FUTURE.  LUKE’S VIEW OF THE KINGDOM IS CLEARLY FUTURE AND EARTHLY (FOR ISRAEL) IN ACTS…SEE ACTS 1 AND 14 AS I MENTION IN THE BLOG.

Kingdom is rooted in >  Old Testament theology. AMEN…ROOTED IN OT THEOLOGY AS IT CONCERNS ISRAEL PRIMARILY AND CENTRALLY. You should read McClaren’s Secret Message of >  Jesus. Fred, partial fulfillment is all throughout the Bible. Even new >  covenant promise found in Jeremiah 31:31-33 is not completely >  fulfilled. Joel prophecy of Holy Spirit not completely, fully >  fulfilled.

ABSOLUTELY THERE CAN BE PARTIAL FULFILLMENTS OF THINGS…AND IF IT APPLIES TO THE KINGDOM, THEN THAT IS FINE (A DIFFERENT DEBATE).  MY POINT IS THAT FOLKS ARE NOT ACTUALLY TALKING IN THESE TERMS…THEY ARE TALKING IN THE INCONGRUENT ALREADY/NOT YET LINGO.  IF YOU THINK THE KINGDOM IS PARTLY HERE THEN SAY THAT…BUT DON’T SAY THE KINGDOM IS HERE (IT IS MISLEADING).  WHY NOT SAY THE KINGDOM IS PARTIALLY/FULLY (EXCEPT IT WON’T MAKE SENSE)?  I GUESS IT COULD BE PARTIALLY / NOT PARTIALLY…NO, STILL DOESN’T MAKE SENSE.  OH, HOW ABOUT ALREADY / NOT YET?  🙂 JUST STAY THE KINGDOM IS PARTIALLY HERE, BUT NOT FULLY HERE…THEN I’LL BE HAPPIER 🙂 🙂 🙂 IT IS LIKE SAYING CHRIST HAS RETURNED BUT HE HASN’T RETURNED…WELL, ‘YES’…BUT BE CLEAR ABOUT WHAT KIND OF RETURN YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT.  I ESPECIALLY MEAN THIS AS IT CONCERNS THE THE PASSAGE ONE IS EXPOSITING IN THE MOMENT.  TAKING A THEOLOGICAL IDEA AN IMPOSING IT ON THE PASSAGE IS A BIG NO NO THAT IS HAPPENING ALL THE TIME. IF A VERSE TALKS ABOUT HIS RETURN, BE CLEAR ON WHICH ONE IS IN VIEW.  IF A VERSE TALKS ABOUT THE KINGDOM, BE SURE WHICH ASPECT (IN YOUR OWN VIEW) THE TEXT ITSELF IS REFERENCING.

I think it is possible to have aspects of the kingdom in >  play but the completion to take place in full in the future. OK, MAYBE…WHERE IS THE VERSE WHERE THIS IS HAPPENING? Just some >  food for thought. I believe Jesus’ message was the gospel of the kingdom >   which includes forgiveness of sins but is much broader including >  political and social change.  check out Luke 1:52-53 >  Check out Luke 4:18-19. We often skip over these very important >  verses.

YOUR GOING TO HAVE TO HELP ME ON THESE VERSES (I DON’T SEE POLITICAL AND SOCIAL CHANGE IN THEM).  ALSO, WHY CAN THE POLITICAL PARTS BE FULFILLED IN THE EARTHLY KINGDOM (FUTURE)? LUKE 13:1-5 SEEMS TO ARGUE THAT JESUS WASN’T CONCERNED ABOUT SOCIAL INJUSTICE COMPARED TO THE SPIRITUAL FUTURE OF INDIVIDUALS.

Seems like your argument about Kingdom is all or nothing. It >  is either fully present or not present at all.

YOU ARE RIGHT…EXCEPT I SEE IT AS AN ISSUE THAT MUST BE DISCUSSED ONE VERSE AT A TIME.  OF COURSE, I DO THINK MATTHEW IS REFERRING TO THE FUTURE KINGDOM THE WHOLE WAY THROUGH (I’M NOT COMMENTING ON OTHER AUTHORS HERE). I AM SAYING THE KINGDOM IS EITHER HERE OR IT IS NOT…OR…I’M SAYING YOU SHOULD SAY SOME ASPECT IS PRESENT OR NOT.  TO SAY AN ASPECT OF THE KINGDOM BEING PRESENT IS THE SAME AS THE KINGDOM BEING PRESENT FOULS UP OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE WORD (ESPECIALLY SPECIFIC PASSAGES). FURTHER, I’D SAY I LOSE NOTHING IF THE KINGDOM IS ENTIRELY FUTURE…MY LIFE, WALK, AND INTERPRETATIONS MAKE PLENTY OF SENSE.  BUT IF I THINK THE KINGDOM IS HERE NOW, I’M GOING TO WIND UP A BIT GOOFY ON SOME PASSAGES (WHY PRAY FOR THE KINGDOM TO COME IF IT IS HERE?), AND I’M GOING TO NEED TO BECOME POST-MIL AND BRING THE KINGDOM IN. I DO NOT BELIEVE THE EARTHLY KINGDOM IS HERE.  IF WE SAY THE KINGDOM (SPIRITUAL) IS HERE BUT THE KINGDOM (EARTHLY) IS COMING, THEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. THAT IS MY CONCERN…IT IS AN EXERCISE IN EQUIVOCATION (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation).  THE EARTHLY KINGDOM IS NOT ALREADY.  I’M GUESSING YOU’D SAY THE SPIRITUAL KINGDOM IS NOT ‘NOT YET’ TOO.

I think Matthew 6 has it >  in the right order kingdom comes and God’s will gets done, but it is >  not complete like new covenant, outpouring of Holy Spirit.

SO, WHY DID JESUS INSTRUCT THE PEOPLE TO PRAY FOR THE KINGDOM TO COME IF IT WAS ALREADY THERE? IF IT HADN’T COME YET (BUT IS HERE NOW), THEN WHEN EXACTLY DID THE KINGDOM THAT IS HERE NOW COME? THANKS (I’M STARTING TO GET CONVINCED about my view! 😉

FRED —

………………………………………………………………….

BP’s Response:

Feel free to post it.  I think your understanding of the kingdom leads exactly to the kind of separation of social and political from the spiritual.   Both Mary and Zechariah saw the gospel in terms of rich/poor, social upheaval and change.   Luke 4:18-19 is about Jesus and his fulfillment of this Isaiah passage which involves poor, oppression etc.   What I mean by rooted in Old Testament is that Kingdom involved social, political and not just spiritual.   If you make kingdom all about the future, then I think you miss the gospel that Paul was preaching in Acts 28:31.  I don’t think he is preaching a future gospel.  He is preaching a now gospel.   I believe the kingdom exists whenever and where ever the reign and rule of God exists.    Jesus had us to pray for the kingdom to come because the gospel is about the reign and rule of God right now, not just in the future.   Don’t see how your argument about the order of Matthew 6 affects meaning at all.   Kingdom comes and the will of God gets done.  That’s what God wants to happen right now.   Will it happen completely –no.   The completion of this prayer will take place in the future in Israel.   You didn’t respond to the paritial nature of new covenant, Holy Spirit.    Love that you are wrestling with key issues and sourcing your arguments from the Word.

Sincerely,

BP

…………………………………………………………….

Fred Lybrand Response:

BP,

I agree…thanks for the wrestling!

First, I did respond to the partial nature of the new covenant, etc.  Here’s what I said,

ABSOLUTELY THERE CAN BE PARTIAL FULFILLMENTS OF THINGS...AND IF IT APPLIES TO THE KINGDOM, THEN THAT IS FINE (A DIFFERENT DEBATE).  MY POINT IS THAT
FOLKS ARE NOT ACTUALLY TALKING IN THESE TERMS...THEY ARE TALKING IN THE INCONGRUENT ALREADY/NOT YET LINGO.  IF YOU THINK THE KINGDOM IS PARTLY HERE
THEN SAY THAT...BUT DON'T SAY THE KINGDOM IS HERE (IT IS MISLEADING).  WHY NOT SAY THE KINGDOM IS PARTIALLY/FULLY (EXCEPT IT WON'T MAKE SENSE)?  I GUESS IT COULD BE
PARTIALLY / NOT PARTIALLY...NO, STILL DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.  OH, HOW ABOUT ALREADY / NOT YET?  :-

Second, I really don’t understand what you think Acts 28:31 definitively says about the gospel Paul preached.  Here’s the Bible Knowledge Commentary…which fits my point nicely, I think.  There is nothing in the verse that tells us what God’s Kingdom is according to Paul…but Acts 1 sure tells us (it is a Kingdom for Israel).  I honestly see that you believe these things, but I don’t see scripture that supports it…nor have I seen an explanation of the irrationality of the already / not yet (I really need to know what I’m missing on that one).  It isn’t a future gospel I believe, it is a now gospel that especially looks to the future (fear of death is gone (Hebrews 2), etc.).

28:30-31. These verses are Luke’s final “progress report” (cf. 2:47; 6:7; 9:31; 12:24; 16:5; 19:20). 
With freedom in his own rented quarters Paul … preached God’s kingdom.
This eschatological expression indicates not only that Jews and Gentiles alike are justified by faith but also that 
Gentiles with Jews will participate in the millennial kingdom (cf. comments on 28:23).
Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary. (1983-).
The Bible knowledge commentary : An exposition of the scriptures (Ac 28:30–31). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.

Third, what if it leads to a kind of separation of social and political from the spiritual?  Why is that a big deal?  So what?  Would you mind that distinction if God meant for it to be there?  Are you assuming that the social, political, and spiritual are joined…so it tempts you to look for ‘how’?  I don’t think it is a given, but I need scriptures not convictions :-).  Of course, I do think that this division you mention is correct for the church and her purposes, but not for the individual.  All of us can be involved in all manner of things by our calling…but when the social justice etc is made the call of the church…the church will die (I came out of Methodism and the social gospel, so I’ve already seen it happen).

The Matthew 6 issues especially concerns why Christ would be inviting them to ask for the kingdom to come if it is already there…but it also has in it the issue of ‘which kingdom’.  He didn’t invite them to pray for the kingdom to grow.  The order is significant because the working out of God’s will follows from the arrival of the kingdom…it isn’t a means to it (Post Mill…are you PostMill now?).  Of course, we both agree the kingdom needs to be defined from the text and not for the text.

If you believe “I believe the kingdom exists whenever and where ever the reign and rule of God exists”

Then when was the kingdom ever not on earth?  Why can’t there be a kingdom with rebels in it (God isn’t ruling them)?  When or where is God not ruling and reigning according to this view?  If I quit letting Him rule in my heart did His kingdom shrink?

Peace bro,

Fred

www.fredlybrand.org

5 Free Writing lessons

www.advanced-writing-resources.com

Biblically Speaking

The Great Mistake: Thinking Christ’s Kingdom is Here Now

9 Comments

I run into this often, and I find it really distorts our ability to read the Bible accurately.

Innocently, it is found in the phrase ‘already / not yet’… propagated, I’m sure, from Ladd’s The Presence of the Future.  Often we do this sort of thing for rhetorical reasons, and many do it to promote unity.  I mean, honestly, aren’t we all working together for ‘the kingdom’?  Isn’t it all about kingdom work?

I suppose the answer is ‘yes’; except that none of us seem to know what we mean be the word itself.

First, a little logic.  In Back to Faith (p. 15) I said,

Logic does not exceed the plain statements of Scripture;
however, the Scriptures cannot violate logic. The most
foundational principle in logic is the law of non-contradiction (also
called the law of contradiction).

Carl Henry underscores the importance of the law of non-contradiction:
Divine revelation involves intelligible sequences of information, not an incoherent and self-contradictory
chaos. The fact is that whatever violates the law of contradiction cannot be considered
revelation. The truth of revelation is not a series of unrelated and disconnected propositions like ‘Today I
love my wife.’ ‘The astronauts have returned.’ ‘The salmon are running.’ The God of biblical revelation
is the God of reason, not Ultimate Irrationality; all He does is rational.

Basically something cannot be both true and not true, A and -A, exist and not exist. The reason for this mention of the law of non-contradiction is that it has never applied so well as to the ‘already / not yet’.  The idea is that the kingdom is literally here in some sense, but is yet future in another sense.  Of course, the idea of ‘some sense’ has faded away.  Nowadays we say the kingdom is already and not yet as thought it is as well established as the fact that 1,006,201 angels can sit on the head of a pin (isn’t that right?).

So here’s the lesson in logic:

Both ALREADY and NOT YET are true

NOT YET = NOT ALREADY

(substitute equivalent terms)

both ALREADY and NOT ALREADY are true

In other words, people are saying that the kingdom is Already / Not Already.  Now, no one would say it  out in the open this way…but, in effect, it’s exactly what they’re saying!

The issue is equivocation; different meanings of ‘kingdom’ are in play at first, but then they are treated the same.

The verse most commonly quoted is

“The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, 21 nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is within you.” Luke 17:20b-21 NIV

Notice the rest of the verse in context,

Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, 21 nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is within you.” Luke 17:20-21 NIV

It is the Pharisees Christ is telling ‘the kingdom of God is within you’— who actually believes that the Pharisees possessed (or even belonged to) the kingdom?  Pretty much no one.

Most translations offer it correctly,

20 Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed, 21 nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.” ESV (Lk 17:20–21)

There in the presence of the King is the kingdom.  In the south we’d say, “If it were a snake it would’ve bit you!”

The kingdom is not within us, we are in it…or will be when it comes.

We belong to the kingdom as children of God, but we are currently aliens (Hebrews 13:14) and serve as ambassadors (2 Cor 5).  We are seeking to populate the kingdom on behalf of the coming king!  The kingdom simply is not here right now.  The earth is ruled by the Prince of the power of the air (Ephesians 2:2) who owns the kingdoms of this world (see Luke 4:5).

Our King is coming.

So, finally, there is one last argument often mentioned.  Some define the kingdom as wherever the king rules (so if He rules in your heart, then the kingdom is there).  This seems largely made up and doesn’t match the nature of kings or kingdoms (which actually often have rebellion in them).  The support is primarily from the Lord’s prayer,

10 Your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.  (Mt 6:10)

Notice the sequence is FIRST the kingdom comes, and SECOND His will is done.  The already/not yet advocates misread this passage as saying,

Your will be done,
your kingdom come
on earth as it is in heaven.  (Matt 6:10) ESV

HUH?  In fact, if it is already here, then why pray for the kingdom to come at all?

It really is simple.  The kingdom is not here now…and when you impose that assumption on a verse you are reading all will go awry.  The kingdom is coming and you’ve been sent ahead to proclaim it and gather it’s membership and well represent the king.

Here are a couple of final suggestions—

1.  At least ask each time you read a verse, please decide if it is referring to the future kingdom or a present one.

2.  Try reading Matthew with ‘future’ placed before ‘kingdom’…WOW will that particular book of the Bible make sense!

Just to nail it down, here are two irrefutable passages about the future of the kingdom:

3 He presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God.
4 And while staying with them he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me; 5 for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”
The Ascension
6 So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” 7 He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority. (Acts 1:3–7) ESV

21 When they had preached the gospel to that city and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch, 22 strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying that through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God. (Acts 14:21–22) ESV

God bless,

Fred Lybrand

P.S.  Ever noticed that the kingdom is only mentioned in a mere 3 verses in the Gospel of John?

Biblically Speaking

“Does Works Prove Faith?” (Can We Really Judge Others’ Salvation?)

3 Comments

So, I am just back from Houston, and am quite encouraged the response to my presentation by the same basic title concerning works and faith.  This isn’t exactly a problem of debating whether a believer ‘must’ have works, but rather if one can discern ‘true-and-saving-faith’ from another’s works.

I’m a skeptic (as some of you know from my recent work, Back to Faith).

Here’s a bit of the logic I shared (called Affirming the Consequent)…which is a basic logical fallacy.

Here’s how it works (or doesn’t, as the case may be):

If it rain, the streets will be wet.

The streets are wet, therefore it rained.

This is clearly flawed because there can be other reasons for wet streets (dew, street cleaners, broken water main, etc.).  It turns out that anything which works this way is a fallacy.

If x (rain), then y (wet streets).

y (wet streets), therefore x (rain)

…is wrong / invalid.

So, try it with faith and works!

If faith (x), then works (y).

Works (y), therefore faith (x).

False.  The truth is that someone can do works for many reasons, including trying to work really hard to prove to God they deserve His favor!

Just because you see someone’s works, it doesn’t mean they have faith.

……………………………………….

Even more intriguing is the fact that two Bible passages state that believers can basically be works-less (fruitless).

“And let our people learn to devote themselves to good works, so as to help cases of urgent need, and not be unfruitful.” (Titus 3:14, ESV)

“For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (2 Peter 1:8, ESV)

In Greek, the word ‘unfruitful’ is exactly the meaning in the original language (not + fruit).

Crazy how much judging we like to do!  Let’s let folks of the hook and keep sharing grace!

Grace and Truth,

Fred Lybrand

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