Power Politics and the Church?

I wrote a paper a few years back I never published called CHINA IN A BULL CLOSET [considering Christians in politics :-)]  My thought back then was that politics is fine for the called individual…but that the over-arching call on all of us as believers is to be engaged in our faithful ‘witness’ and discipleship / mentoring toward Christlikeness.

I proposed the following passage as THE opportunity for Christ to tell us that we should really obsesses on changing the government as the Church’s role on earth…but He doesn’t.

See for yourself (Luke 13:1-5):

There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. 2 And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? 3 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. 4 Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? 5 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. (ESV)

Galileans were His own countrymen…Pilate had killed folks in the act of worship (Clinton / Bush / Obama…haven’t been as bad as Pilate)…Christ re-focused on eternity.  My point is that there is perspective here for us…and the perspective is  l o n g – t e r m  !!!
Is it “You’re so heavenly-minded that you’re no earthly good”…or…”Your so earthly-minded you’re no heavenly good”…?
Grace and Peace,
Fred Lybrand

If you grasp the insights in this book, you’ll understand FAITH ALONE IN CHRIST ALONE in such a way that you’ll never be tempted to judge anyone’s eternal destiny again.

OK…so, I want to shamelessly tell you about the power of sorting out the Faith/Works issue in keeping the Gospel clear, assurance solid, and judgmentalness banished.  It is all in Back to Faith (see www.backtofaith.com)

Here’s the beginning of Chapter 5 from the book to consider:

CHAPTER 5
The Cliché Is Pragmatically Invalid
If the arguments presented have been unpersuasive to this
point, consider that this one great weakness of the cliché is the
only real challenge needed to justifiably abandon it: The cliché is
pragmatically invalid. Pragmatic invalidity simply means that, in
any practical sense, the theology behind the cliché is useless, even
if it is true. Assume the cliché, “It is therefore faith alone which
justifies, and yet the faith which justifies is not alone,” is true. In
other words, with the assumption that the cliché is valid, it is held
that one can indeed look at works (or the lack of works) and
determine something about the true nature of an individual’s
eternal salvation. Said otherwise, works prove faith. But can one
truly know if the works are authentic? Or, can the works be
hidden? Here a great problem appears, practically speaking,
because the true works arising from a true salvation are
indeterminable, and so the cliché is pragmatically useless. How
can one know for sure that the works seen in another are “because
of salvation,” rather than “in order to get saved?” To appreciate
this argument, one need only consider the distinction between fact
and theory.
A fact, in the simplest sense, is something that corresponds
to the actual state of affairs. Facts are those things which are
knowable and demonstrable and correspond with how things really
are. A theory, on the other hand, as used in this context, is an
unproved assumption. It parallels words like conjecture and
speculation when one speaks of theory in this sense. Obviously the
[This argument admittedly matches the correspondence theory of truth.
Ted Honderich, ed., The Oxford Companion to Philosophy [book on-line]

(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995, accessed 4 October 2006), 267;

available from Questia, http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d= 74362715;Internet.

Defined 6b: an unproved assumption: conjecture, c: a body of
theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject. Merriam-Webster’s
Collegiate Dictionary, 11 ed. (2003), s.v. “theory.”]

word of God does not contain theory, as such, but the factual
explanations from God concerning His will and revelation to
mankind. Whether or not one can demonstrate the validity of the
cliché as a biblical concept is not at issue. At issue is the
distinction between that which is provable and factual, in contrast
with that which is theoretical and based on conjecture.
If the cliché’s theory is true, then it is apparent that one can
look at works or lack of works to point to the genuine nature of
another’s saving faith. So the puritan Matthew Henry asserts,
Faith is the root, good works are the fruits, and we
must see to it that we have both. We must not think
that either, without the other, will justify and save
us.
The truth, however, is that scripturally speaking, believing
individuals can indeed lack works, while unbelievers can indeed
have good, albeit dead, works. Judas serves as a glaring example
of one whose works never betrayed him. When Jesus predicted
that one of the disciples would betray him, all were perplexed, and
no disciple stated, “Well, it is obviously Judas.”

Woe!

Fred Lybrand

Faith & Works & Logic (II)

Here’s a little more on the logic side:

There are 4 options we can view when we put together two non-causal elements.  For example, parents and kids—

Good Parents can have Good Kids
and
Bad Parents can have Bad Kids
but
Bad Parents can have Good Kids (isn’t this what salvation offers?)
and
Good Parents can have Bad Kids (Ezekiel 18

So, you see all the possibilities are out there unless things are truly causal (If…then).

………………………

Now, what about Faith and Works?

Faith can have Works
and
No Faith can have No Works
but
No Faith can also have Works (people trying to get into heaven based on their own good deeds)
and [so]
Faith can have No Works

The first three of these are clearly true, so why not the last one?

All of these possibilities exist—and, it is easy enough to notice that when a believer sins he doesn’t have works (for the moment at least); therefore, it must surely be possible for a believer not to have works.

Of course, what is normal is to have works and grow; but when people make works necessary to ‘prove’ something about faith I think they’ve left the real conversation in both ministry and God’s word.

Blessings,

Fred Lybrand

The Faith / Works Logic Issue

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

Are Faith and Belief Two Different Things…or…The Same?

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

 

The Faith that Saves is not Alone?