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

Biblically Speaking

My Favorite Conversation (ever) with an Atheist

9 Comments

Occasionally I get to bump into an atheist—even in Texas!

Here’s how I remember the conversation, though it probably wasn’t this smooth 🙂

Me: So, where are you on your own spiritual journey

Atheist: Oh, well I’m an atheist.

Me.  Cool!  I’ve hardly ever met a real atheist.

Atheist:  Well, congratulations, I guess.

Me:  So, can I ask you a question?

Atheist:  Sure.

Me:  So how do you absolutely positively know that there is no God.

Atheist:  Well, I don’t absolutely positively know that there is no God.

Me: Oh (very disappointed and crest-fallen), then you’re just an agnostic.  Well, which kind of agnostic are you, open or closed?

Former Atheist: I don’t know what you mean.

Me:  Well, an atheist knows there is no God.  An agnostic doesn’t know whether there is a God or not.  The closed agnostic says that if there is a God we can’t know because He is so beyond us we couldn’t grasp His existence anyway.  In this sense the agnostic is closed because the system is closed.  An open agnostic says that he just doesn’t know if there is a God or not.  The open agnostic doesn’t insist that God’s existence is unknowable, but rather that it is unknown to him

Former Atheist: Well, I’ve got to catch my plane.

Me: OK, have a nice day.

Well, it didn’t happen quite this way…I for sure didn’t look so ‘clever’ and he didn’t look so anxious to leave; but don’t you get the point?  Their is an innate arrogance in most atheism which really amounts to FAITH.  The atheist BELIEVES that God doesn’t exist…perhaps based on evidence, but really taken more as a matter of faith.  We too can offer our evidence, but it really comes down to a matter of faith.

Perhaps, all of this explains why I think open-agnostics are pretty cool—hey, they are honest.  What a refreshing thing to encounter; a person who doesn’t know and admits it!  I think we should celebrate these folks and invite them to consider why God’s existence makes sense to believe…but plese remember, it is ALWAYS an INVITATION.  We aren’t going to talk people into believing in God, but we can sure invite them.

I’ve always thought of golf as a great metaphor for ‘evangelism’ as such.  Basically, when you play golf, you play the ball where it lies.  Sometimes you use an iron and sometimes a putter.   And, yet, you are always simply trying to move the ball closer to the hole.

Isn’t that a better way to go?  Helping an atheist move to an agnostic is a BIG move!  Of course, I’m not really ‘moving’ anyone…just inviting them to consider things in a fresh way.

We all can do that as opportunity arises.  True?

God bless,

Fred Lybrand

Biblically Speaking

Did you know the Bible mentions Luck?

10 Comments

Well of course we all know God is sovereign, which means He is clearly in charge and He does as He pleases.  But you know, this is only one side of the story.  I’ve noticed that people tend to get theologically ‘lopsided’ from time to time.  By being lopsided I mean that we can drift into forcing the rest of the Bible to fit our own view.

I mean, is it all about sovereignty or all about free will?  I prefer the term ‘responsiblity’ over the term ‘free will’— but in any case issues such as these turn out to be about mystery.  It may seem like a cop-out, but the mysteries are best held as such.  Jesus…God or man?  Yes!  But I say this by way of admitting a mystery that I can’t (yet in this life) explain.  I affirm both elements without having to RESOLVE THE TENSION.

The Bible does this in many spots, and in this sense reminds us of Art and not Philosophy.  Art holds tension (such as in the use of irony), while Philosophy mostly does not (it must fit well as a system / answer objections).  In Art, the Mona Lisa can smile.  In Philosophy, we have to define smile and explain her motives (which means we guess)!

So what about luck?

Well, here’s the verse—

“But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead. Now by CHANCE a priest was going down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side.” (Luke 10:29-31, ESV)

I emphasized the word CHANCE so it would be easy to see.  Yes, here is Jesus Christ telling the famous story of the Good Samaritan and sticking luck right in the middle of it!  Is this really a word that means luck?

Well, here’s what an online Greek-word-tool  called Perseus which says (and I’ve verified it with TDNT, etc., if you care)—

συγκυρέω 1 2

I. to come together by chance, Il., Hdt.: to meet with an accident, συγκύρσαι τύχῃ Soph.; εἰς ἓν μοίρας ξυνέκυρσας art involved in one and the same fate, Eur.

Basically, it just means what we think it means; by happenstance, a priest came upon a man after he was attacked, beaten, and left for dead.  Things really do ‘just happen’, though I’m sure this happening is not without the permission of God in how He ordained the universe.  Personally, I don’t like it because this world doesn’t seem to work right.  And yet, I hold out that this isn’t the best world God can make (the next world will be the best world); but that in the meantime, we can give folks a taste of the world to come as the Samaritan did.

Jesus talked in truthful and plan language.  Clearly God is not obsessed with over-controlling every detail.  Surely we have free will responsibility…how else can we explain what we wear on most days!

Good luck…stuff happens…but the Lord is still above it all,

Fred Lybrand

Biblically Speaking

John MacArthur or Zane Hodges?

5 Comments

Here’s the Dedication from Back to Faith.  I’m sure I don’t necessarily please anyone with this, but it is genuine from my appreciation for aspects of both of these influencial men.  -Fred Lybrand

John MacArthur or Zane Hodges?

If you’ve been in the conversation about the gospel for the past twenty plus years, then this dedication will be the strangest thing you’ve ever seen.I’m dedicating this work to both of these men, and largely because they have both greatly influenced my own life. John MacArthur was my first introduction to understanding the Bible as the Word of God, taking it in a normal sense, and studying line-by-line and verse-by-verse. For two years, as a new Christian, I listen to John MacArthur through his tape lending library at a clip of six tapes a week. Roughly that means I listened to at least 275 of his sermons (I’m sure I had some breaks in there somewhere). When I chose to leave Law School and attend Dallas Theological Seminary, I knew only that I wanted to learn the Word; and, I wanted to learn it like MacArthur knew it. Even to this day, no matter how mistaken I may think he is, I still enjoy listening to him! When I left for seminary I wrote him a thank you letter for his huge influence on my life—but as he gets thousands of them, I never heard back. So, publically, thank you John MacArthur for your significant ministry in my life. John, you gave me a love for God’s Word, and I trust the Lord will reward you for it.

Zane Hodges was my first Greek teacher who turned into a friend and mentor over time. Zane scared me to death… though he was easily among the most gracious teachers I’ve ever known. Zane, who went to be with the Lord on November 23, 2008, was always very insightful and very patient in his teaching. I must confess, since I was so immersed in MacArthur’s view, I wasn’t really that fond of Zane Hodges! In time, however, I began to think through the issues for myself, and Zane offered me something strategic in my development as a Bible student and preacher; Zane Hodges really insisted on looking at the text for what it was saying, rather than what I felt I “needed” it to say. This ability to place the Word of God ahead of my theological bias is essential to the true exegete. So, publically, thank you Zane Hodges for your significant ministry in my life. Zane, you gave me love for being brave about looking for what the text itself really  says, apart from defending my theology or my heroes from history. I trust the Lord rewards you as well.

So, how can I have heroes that have theologies at such odds? I think the answer is simple—we aren’t having conversations. On the one hand, I am thankful that we still live in a day and age where someone has a true conviction about something that is worth the battle; on the other hand, it would be great in our quest for truth if we were willing to have real conversations. Often we are fighting with our theology rather than with the scriptures and reason. It seems if we all understood our accountability as teachers, we would tread with a lighter step and a little more willingness to consider our own possible mistakes. I remain available to have conversations with anyone, especially those mentioned in this book; but, I really desire a conversation—not a lecture. May God grace us as we labor over such eternally important issues. May God grace us to say the ultimate words for entering through the door of humility, “I may be wrong.”

You can read more about Back to Faith at www.backtofaith.com

Biblically Speaking

LORDSHIP SANCTIFICATION

4 Comments

All,

This is an article I wrote this week for the Free Grace Alliance.  I’d love your thoughts!

Fred Lybrand

LORDSHIP SANCTIFICATION

Have you ever noticed how busy everyone is with getting words just right?  It turns out to be more than political correctness, it is really an issue of communication.  You may not have thought about it this way, but language is actually the most ‘democratic’ thing on the planet.  The use of words actually determines their meanings; and, of course, the use of words in a particular context determines THAT meaning.  If I tell you I love my wife, my dog, and my Kindle, then surely you can make out the different nuances.

More to our common faith, it has become a recent trend to refer to oneself as a “Christ-Follower” rather than a Christian.  The reason for this shift is that the word ‘Christian’ has fallen on hard time and doesn’t communicate the right meaning internationally or practically.  ‘Fundamentalist’ (in the faith) has fallen under the same spell of disrepute because it has been associated with certain militaristic ‘Christian’ sub-strata, as well as ‘Islamic Fundamentalism’.  So do we change words or keep working on the proper use of the terms?  Democrats and Republicans have been two groups whose names have fallen on hard times in the back-and-forth nature of popularity.  They just keep working at redefining their name.

The Context

I’ll leave it to you to solve such matters.  My concern here is with the Gospel of Grace.  The debate between Lordship Salvation and Free Grace has been muddling along for the better part of 100 years in noticeable ways.  Here’s an example that predates John MacArthur’s entrance into the foray with The Gospel According to Jesus in 1986.  A.W. Tozer in The Root of the Righteous (Wingspread Publishers, © 1955, 1986), says

There can be no spiritual regeneration till there has been moral reformation.  That this statement requires defense only proves how far from the truth we have strayed.  In our current popular theology pardon depends on faith alone.

Unfortunately, Tozer is saying exactly what he sounds like he’s saying.  For Tozer, salvation is conditioned on a commitment to reform and not faith alone.  All of this is tied up in confusing the relationship between faith and works (see Back to Faith by Fred R. Lybrand for a  thorough discussion of this matter), so Tozer can also, at times, affirm the doctrine of ‘faith alone’ as well.  Kevin Butcher pointed out the real issue back in 1989 when he asserted that the Lordship Salvation side doesn’t represent the Free Grace side’s view of the gospel accurately.  He said,

MacArthur’s first error involves a problem of perception—he doesn’t clearly understand the other view. He does well when he states his own position, describing “Lordship Salvation” as a gospel that requires a faith that commits all (cf. pp. 169ff), a repentance that gives up sin (cf. pp. 159ff) and a submission to the “mastership of Christ” (cf. pp. 203ff) before eternal life is apprehended. The Lordship gospel, according to MacArthur, speaks of a “salvation that is a gift, yet costs everything” (cf. p. 140). But the “other” view which might be referred to as the “Free Grace” Gospel is misrepresented on several counts. (Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, Spring1989 —Volume 2:1)

The issue is rather simple:

The Lordship Salvation View: One (or many) things are required of the one desiring eternal salvation.  These things largely have to do with a commitment on the part of the seeker to pursue life-change through an abandonment of all desires, possessions, lifestyle, and choice to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

The Free Grace Salvation View:  There are no requirements for the one desiring eternal salvation.  The ‘requirement’ is that which attends the acceptance of any gift; a willingness to accept it.  In the Free Grace View this willingness to accept is found in the phrase ‘faith alone in Christ alone’.  While the content of what is to be believed is occasionally debated,  the essential idea is that one is saved eternally by believing in Christ’s promise of eternal life for those who believe in Him.  I understand this ‘believe in Him’ have to do with the basics of His person and work, especially his dying and being raised again on our behalf.

What is missed in the debate is that Lordship Salvation proponents affirm they believe in ‘faith alone in Christ alone’ and Free Grace proponents affirm they believe in the Lordship of Christ.  I sit in the curious spot of honestly believing that the Lordship Salvation proponents really do believe in ‘faith alone in Christ alone’, and often share the message properly.  Of course, I also believe they often muddle their communication and make the gospel sound as though much more is required than faith in Christ.  I have concluded that their ‘muddling’ of the issue comes from a fundamental incongruence in their theology and thinking.  While affirming a distinction between justification (being eternally saved) and sanctification (growing spiritually to match the image and character of Christ), they also deny the distinction by affirming that believer = disciple [see Back to Faith, Xulon Press, 2009].

The topic especially becomes an issue when it gets down to sharing the gospel.  The Lordship Salvation proponents accuse the Free Grace proponents of not emphasizing the ‘lordship’ of Christ in our presentation, hence misleading people from what God requires for their eternal destiny.  The Free Grace proponents accuse the Lordship Salvation proponents of ‘adding’ to faith in such a way that the individual is not trusting in Christ, but rather in oneself (or other things) for his eternal destiny.

The Appeal

I really want to appeal to those on the Lordship Salvation side to clarify the issue we Free Grace advocates wrestle with concerning presenting a gospel with various conditions attached to faith alone in Christ alone.  However, for our part, I want to propose a fresh way to explain our view.  It uses words to force a re-thinking of what Free Grace advocates are saying.  Here’s the term,

LORDSHIP SANCTIFICATION

I believe in Lordship Sanctification, and in my 24 years of ministry I have advocated individuals abandoning themselves to the Lord.  I have begged believers to completely bring their will, desires, and possessions under Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as the Lord of their lives.  I personally and deeply believe Lordship is crucial for the one who has faith in Christ.  In no sense would I ever be against Christ as Lord.  However, I do believe that this call is directed at those who have believed (see Romans 12:1-2) already.

If this understanding of Christ’s Lordship makes sense for our growth in the Lord, then the term Lordship Sanctification turns out to be a very clarifying phrase.  I believe in acknowledging Christ’s Lordship as a necessary part of the sanctification process.  I believe that in order to continue growing in the Lord, one must, in the course of time, yield utterly to the divine oversight of Jesus Christ regarding his life and conformity to the Image of Christ (see Romans 8:28-29).

There is also one great advantage in the debate over the gospel with the use of the term Lordship Sanctification; Free Grace proponents can never again be accused by the Lordship Salvation proponents of not preaching the gospel.  Frankly, if you preach Lordship as an important aspect of ones spiritual growth in Christ, then you can only be accused of being ‘slow’, never of being wrong!  They at least must admit that ‘finally’ we get around to sharing a saving message (in their estimation).

I believe in Free Grace Salvation and Lordship Sanctification.  My appeal to everyone who acknowledges himself as promoters of grace— please begin to refer to Lordship Sanctification often in your preaching, teaching, and mentoring.  If we could infuse this term into the discussion, I am confident that a new age of conversation and clarification can arise.  I believe in Lordship Sanctification as I hope you do as well, and I always get around to explaining it.  However, with one seeking forgiveness, hope, and eternity— I always begin with the good news that Christ died for you and if you will believe in Him you’ll have everlasting life, just as He promised.  In the gospel, the word is FAITH.  In spiritual growth, the word is LORDSHIP.  Let’s grow united in our clarity and in our communication.  Eternal salvation is by faith alone in Christ alone, while progress in sanctification inevitably leads to abandoning oneself to the Lord of Glory.

Grace and peace,
Fred R. Lybrand

www.fredlybrand.org
www.backtofaith.com

To print a copy of this article click on this link: http://www.freegracealliance.com/pdf/LordshipSanctification.pdf

The Faith that Saves is not Alone?