Thursday, April 13, 2006
Follow up to... Following Jesus?
I wanted to answer Adam's last response on another post here and give his forum a plug. Maybe someone else may want to add something to this discussion that might not be reading the comments on the last post.
Adams last response:
Making the message clear does not necessarily mean making it simple. I could say that Kris went to Starbucks and ordered a venti soy chai latte. This is a clear message. I could also say that Kris went. This is the same message, but simpler. Both express the exact same idea, that Kris went, however the first explains fully and with more clarity exactly what happened.
Perhaps the same is true with the gospel message. We could give the simple version: 'believe and receive'. And then we would have the countless walk the aisle and 'believe'.OR we could give the more clear message: 'believe in the LORD, the Savior of humanity, and He will give you eternal life and will come into your life and forever make you other.' This is the clearer message of what truly transpires.
We LORDship are asking for a clearer message. We understand that we can abbreviate the message and make is simple. 'Turn or burn'. But with such confusion that is associated with the abbreviated and simple version, we would opt for the more clearer message so that we can assure that people are not 'believing' and yet having no clue as to what this belief entails.Does that make sense?I think I have an entry idea. Keep up the good work. So far you have given me two ideas. :)
My response:
Adam, I can understand YOU asking for a clearer message and I agree that making it clearer does not necessarily make it simple, BUT the clear message is simple, the clear message is so simple that Jesus said unless we become like children we won't see how simple it is.
What I am talking about are those who ADD to the clear message qualifiers such as "follow Jesus", "if He is not Lord of all then He is not Lord at all", "be willing to give up all", and etc in order to be saved. My whole point in the clear message of believing in the Christ alone is for the person hearing it along with Holy Spirit convicting them of the fact that ours/their God/Creator is the one offering it to them without any conditions whatsoever other than coming to Him as a sinner. That is what changed yours and my heart and will change whosoever hears who also has ears to hear it.
In fact alot of preachers seem bent on adding qualifiers to those after having believed to confuse and make them stumble over the assurance that God so clearly gives us.
I love John Piper, but I have to disagree with some of the things he has been preaching along these lines for last few years. We should very much preach fear of the Lords discipline to believers but not fear being cast into hell, that would be calling what God said in John 3:16 a lie. Why? Because if we believe in the Son for everlasting life and then perish, then God was not telling us the truth.
I am in no way advocating making a believer comfortable in their sin, but we should not make them uncomfortable about their assurance of everlasting life after having believed God for it. If we do this then we are suggesting that their eternal life depends on faith plus works and not the free gift of God.
And if those who are comfortable depending on their works for assurance, then maybe they have missed the Good News all together. If I depend on looking at my works and my heart then I am most miserable in my assurance, if I look to my Lord Jesus alone for everlasting life then I am free from doubt and am free to produce good works for Him (John 15:4)Does that make sense?
I would much rather discuss issues like this in your forum at http://protestantpub.com/forum/ it is much easier a format especially if we can have some one on one like you suggested.
besides I can make fun of your hair there. LOLOLOL
Adams last response:
Making the message clear does not necessarily mean making it simple. I could say that Kris went to Starbucks and ordered a venti soy chai latte. This is a clear message. I could also say that Kris went. This is the same message, but simpler. Both express the exact same idea, that Kris went, however the first explains fully and with more clarity exactly what happened.
Perhaps the same is true with the gospel message. We could give the simple version: 'believe and receive'. And then we would have the countless walk the aisle and 'believe'.OR we could give the more clear message: 'believe in the LORD, the Savior of humanity, and He will give you eternal life and will come into your life and forever make you other.' This is the clearer message of what truly transpires.
We LORDship are asking for a clearer message. We understand that we can abbreviate the message and make is simple. 'Turn or burn'. But with such confusion that is associated with the abbreviated and simple version, we would opt for the more clearer message so that we can assure that people are not 'believing' and yet having no clue as to what this belief entails.Does that make sense?I think I have an entry idea. Keep up the good work. So far you have given me two ideas. :)
My response:
Adam, I can understand YOU asking for a clearer message and I agree that making it clearer does not necessarily make it simple, BUT the clear message is simple, the clear message is so simple that Jesus said unless we become like children we won't see how simple it is.
What I am talking about are those who ADD to the clear message qualifiers such as "follow Jesus", "if He is not Lord of all then He is not Lord at all", "be willing to give up all", and etc in order to be saved. My whole point in the clear message of believing in the Christ alone is for the person hearing it along with Holy Spirit convicting them of the fact that ours/their God/Creator is the one offering it to them without any conditions whatsoever other than coming to Him as a sinner. That is what changed yours and my heart and will change whosoever hears who also has ears to hear it.
In fact alot of preachers seem bent on adding qualifiers to those after having believed to confuse and make them stumble over the assurance that God so clearly gives us.
I love John Piper, but I have to disagree with some of the things he has been preaching along these lines for last few years. We should very much preach fear of the Lords discipline to believers but not fear being cast into hell, that would be calling what God said in John 3:16 a lie. Why? Because if we believe in the Son for everlasting life and then perish, then God was not telling us the truth.
I am in no way advocating making a believer comfortable in their sin, but we should not make them uncomfortable about their assurance of everlasting life after having believed God for it. If we do this then we are suggesting that their eternal life depends on faith plus works and not the free gift of God.
And if those who are comfortable depending on their works for assurance, then maybe they have missed the Good News all together. If I depend on looking at my works and my heart then I am most miserable in my assurance, if I look to my Lord Jesus alone for everlasting life then I am free from doubt and am free to produce good works for Him (John 15:4)Does that make sense?
I would much rather discuss issues like this in your forum at http://protestantpub.com/forum/ it is much easier a format especially if we can have some one on one like you suggested.
besides I can make fun of your hair there. LOLOLOL
Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home
<< Home
