So, I’m at Dallas Theological Seminary working on my dissertation (in print at www.backtofaith.com) and I take breaks by talking to the students who work in the book store, cafeteria, etc.  Here’s the basic dialog:

Me: Hey, you like theology don’t you?  I need some help on what I’m working on and have a conundrum.

They: Sure!

Me: OK.  So can we look at somebody out there (I point outside) and tell by their works if they’re going to heaven (saved)?

They: No way!  They could just be trying to work hard to get into heaven…you know, not faith in Christ but trusting in their works.

Me:  Yeah, good.  But, if I can’t tell by their works that they are going to heaven…how can I tell by their lack of works that they are not going to heaven (unsaved)?

They: Hmm…good question.

…………………………….

I think this is indeed a very strange drift in our thinking (that is, those of us who hold to the eternal security of the believer).  We often talk likes works prove faith (or a lack of works proves a lack of faith), while at the same time admit that works don’t really prove anything.

It comes across like we are saying it is THEORETICALLY TRUE but PRACTICALLY UNPROVABLE.

Maybe we should just let God be the Judge; that’s what I’m working hard at doing.

Grace,

Fred Lybrand

In a different post the following conversation began…I’d love anyone’s help:

On October 28, 2009 at 11:51 am Kev Said:

Fred,

I see an opportunity to draw this conversation to something I’m VERY interested in. In the matter of Evangelism (which is my primary ministry) I need to be aware of what I’m really doing.

I read things like how people can resist clever speaking – such as we read in Ps 58:3-5. This tells me that Evangelism is not solely accomplished by argument.

You said;
I can’t create an experiment where that really works (choosing to believe something you know ain’t so).

That’s a very lucid observation.

On the other hand, I can resist believing (like my dad did). Any one can refuse to be open to a new belief…which is certainly willful.

I don’t know if a person can refuse to believe something. How would you demonstrate that by experimentation and observation?

Someone can refuse to consider something, and can even intentionally sabotage something they know to be true. I don’t think that one can any more wilfully disbelieve something they know to be true than they can believe something they know to be untrue.

The knowing, is believing (not in the Biblical sense).

I think if someone knows something to be true, they can refuse to put their faith in it. In this I believe faith and belief are two different things. I see this demonstrated in Romans 1. They know of God but they refuse to worship Him. (worship being beyond mere faith of course, but can not happen without faith)

So… when we are operating in Evangelism revealing the Gospel is of primary concern. The results have to be “up to God” of course. How do we assist someone in recognizing the difference between not believing and refusing to trust?

Kev

On October 28, 2009 at 1:55 pm fredlybrand Said: |Edit This

Kev,

Thanks for the questions. I wasn’t as clear as I should have been (sound like a politician!). When I said ‘refuse to be open…’ I was aiming at the thought that someone can avoid getting in a position of coming to believe something…as when people won’t look at the facts. I think you are right in that if one looks at it they can come to believe (despite their desire not to), much like C.S. Lewis’s testimony.

As to ‘know something to be true’ and ‘put their faith in it’— I don’t see them as different things, but I do see different ‘things to believe’ calling for different responses, which we in turn call ‘know’ and ‘trust’, etc. In grappling for a good example I think of the post office. I suppose I could ‘know’ they’ll deliver my mail, but not ‘trust’ them to do so (so I don’t mail my letter…send it FedEx, etc.). But why? Why would I know they will…but don’t trust them to do so? There is surely more to the story.

Of course, I detest hypotheticals…what’s a real example you and I could think about together? I know that believing God is going to answer my prayer is different than believing that prayer works…yet, here too, the content shifts; believing in prayer generally is different in content than believe my (specific) prayer will be answered.

So, what’s something real we all wrestle with that could display the difference between knowing to be true and believing?

Thanks,

FRL

Well,

As I’ve interacted with Jim, both publically and privately, I am confident about two things;

1.  Jim does not align himself with the GES Gospel

2.  Jim does not align himself with a traditional understanding of the content of saving faith

I’m hoping that Jim will someday share where he believes the GES view has gone awry…I think it would do much for him and for all involved in this discussion.

Jim’s view, as best as I can discern is a mediating position (see my thoughts on Hegel herein).  Of course, when you are in the middle both sides see you as the enemy.  As I’ve reflected on Jim’s position, I’ve concluded that it really doesn’t get us anywhere (sorry Jim).  Essentially Jim is interested in trusting the Person of the Messiah beyond faith in content (propositions).  While that is fine, it doesn’t really get past the issue of the need for propositions to be expressed and believed (‘and understood’ is assumed, though Jim would debate implicit / intuitive understanding over and against [at times] what we might call ‘actual’ understanding).

The curious thing in all of this is that our traditional view is still something Jim is comfortable with (insofar as how we share the gospel)…which is where we all get uncomfortable with the GES Gospel…because, in time, there is no reason for them to stick with a basic Bad News/Good News approach.

In truth, if everyone would repent of Zane Hodges’ mistaken island analogy…most of this would go away.  Of course, it’s going to go away in any event since it is not compelling practically or academically.

God bless you all,

Fred Lybrand

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