I'd have to say at the surface that in truth we cannot know that a person is saved. A person might make it abundantly clear that they are not saved. Jesus said, "By their fruits you will know them" and obviously meant that we were to recognize false teachers by their fruits, not by their words. They could say all the right things. Don't be fooled by their words. And Jesus warned about the tares among the wheat, the goats among the sheep, the wolf in sheep's clothing. There will be "lookalikes", people that seem to be "from us", but are, in fact, "not of us".
Having said that, however, I still mulled over the concept. And the next day in my reading I came across this:
By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey His commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome (1 John 5:2-3).Now, that's interesting, isn't it? "By this we know ..." How do we know? "When we love God and obey His commandments." We are commanded first and foremost as even the casual Bible reader knows to "love God with all your heart" and so on. What does John say that is? "This is the love of God, that we keep His commandments."
There are two impacts with this passage. First, it would appear that, at least to a large degree, our commenter was accurate. We know a believer because he obeys God's commands. Oh, sure, maybe to varying degrees. Certainly not perfectly. But it would appear that a believer makes it a point to live a life of obedience to God's commands. And this is what sets him or her apart from a non-believer. The second harks back to the question of rules. If commandments (at least, God's commandments) make rules and a life of obedience to the rules marks a true believer, I would suggest that the Bible is indeed, at least in the area where God makes commands, a book of rules. How can it not be?
So, I think John cleared up my question with my commenter's comment. All clear now. Thanks, John.
8 comments:
First off, I would ask: Do you agree with me that the Bible is primarily God's Word of GRACE to humanity? I gladly concede that the Bible contains rules, obviously so. I'm concerned that anyone would call it a "Book of Rules," though, as if that were it's primary function.
It is primarily God's Word of Grace to humanity, seems to me.
The problem with considering it a mere rule book is the problem of having the wondrous Word of God devolving down into petty and deadly legalism (as I would suggest happens in all circles, but especially in conservative circles, seems to this observer...)
My second question would be: Then on what basis do you rule keepers believe I'm not a Christian? At least some here have stated that it's because of the evidence that I "don't obey" God's rules? But then the question would be, what "rules" is it you think I've broken?
The "rule" against saying marriage between gay folk is okay? As you know, there is no law against that in the Bible, only in your extrapolated opinions.
The "rule" against not taking certain lines literally that you all THINK should be taken literally? Again, no such rule exists in the Bible.
What "rule-breaking" would you all cite as "evidence" that I (and folk like me) are not Christians?
By this unanswered and unanswerable question, I think you can see the problem with making the Bible a petty little rule book.
Is the Bible "primarily God's Word of Grace to humanity"? I have to figure out what you mean. The key component in that phrase is "grace". Linguistically, grace is favor. Biblically, it is unmerited favor. Now, your position is that the Bible is "God's Word of Grace to humanity". By that would you mean God's unmerited favor given to all humanity? In your understanding, does "grace" contravene "justice"? (Your use of the phrase makes me think so, since you are opposed to the reference to "rules" in the Bible, as if "rules" apply when "grace" should cover that. Thus, it would seem that "grace" bypasses "justice".)
Does the Bible contain grace? No doubt. Is the Bible "primarily" about grace? I'm not as sure about that. Is God's favor for all humanity? I'm less sure about that. Does grace contravene justice? I'm sure it does not. Thus, rules are significant, not insignificant.
But, perhaps you just don't like the term, "rules". What I said in the post was "God's commands". Do God's commands not make rules? Does "grace" (whatever version you prefer) eliminate the need for "rules" (following God's commands)? What does it mean to "cover people with grace" (a very popular term in churches these days)?
And thank you for the wonderful illustration of the logical fallacy known as "the false dilemma". Your "problem with making the Bible a petty little rule book" as if there are two options -- "a petty little rule book" or "grace" -- is a false dilemma. And a strawman, too (since I said "I would suggest that the Bible is indeed, at least in the area where God makes commands, a book of rules.")! As is that whole thing about "What 'rule-breaking' would you all cite as 'evidence' that I (and folk like me) are not Christians?" Others may, but I don't think I've ever cited your "rule-breaking" as proof of your spiritual condition. Strawman. How nice! A logic lesson!
Stan...
Is the Bible "primarily" about grace? I'm not as sure about that. Is God's favor for all humanity? I'm less sure about that. Does grace contravene justice?
I'd posit that the Bible - rightly understood - is God's revelation of God's Self and the story, repeated and clarified and eventually lived out by Jesus, of God's grace for all humanity - the Good News that God is a God of Grace who does not wish for any to perish, but for all to be saved, and that salvation BY GRACE is available for all who'd receive it.
I'd posit that the Bible repeatedly points to the sin of legalism, the overly-literal abuse of God's concern and directions for humanity revealed in rules for a specific people at a specific time into instruments of oppression in their graceless application of said rules/commands.
I'd posit that this legalism is the antithesis of grace and is something to be seriously watched out for and avoided, lest we become the Pharisees whom Jesus took to task so soundly ("fools! snakes! blind guides!"). I'd not want to be on that side of Jesus' Justice.
Stan...
Your use of the phrase makes me think so, since you are opposed to the reference to "rules" in the Bible, as if "rules" apply when "grace" should cover that. Thus, it would seem that "grace" bypasses "justice".
As I have already stated, clearly, there are rules in the Bible. Some specific rules for Israel ~3000+ years ago, for instance, in the OT. Some specific rules for the early church. There ARE rules in the Bible. Some of which are universal in nature and would apply today, and some which are NOT universal in nature.
I'm not saying there are no rules (commands, etc) in the Bible. I'm saying that the Bible is not PRIMARILY a book of rules and to make it into such is a serious misunderstanding/misreading of the Bible. It flies into the face of grace.
And emphasizing Grace in no way diminishes Justice. It would be a false dichotomy to make that suggestion. I'm certainly not making it. Are you?
Stan...
As is that whole thing about "What 'rule-breaking' would you all cite as 'evidence' that I (and folk like me) are not Christians?" Others may, but I don't think I've ever cited your "rule-breaking" as proof of your spiritual condition.
And yet, some people HAVE done so. Would you like me to cite their words? If my so-called "rule-breaking" is not the reason YOU don't consider me a Christian, then that statement is not directed to you, but to your comrades who HAVE said that.
Your reasoning for making the astounding claim that I'm not a Christian is much more vague than that, I believe. For you, it was a vague combination of me being "too wrong" on "too many points," (not your words, just trying to get the gist of it.
Yours is a different and perhaps even more insidious sort of legalism, since you can't even nail down why I'm not a Christian, you just make the claim.
Legalism: Watch out for it, it kills and destroys.
Okay, thanks for sharing. Fare thee well.
While I think a true Christian will have works in keeping with his faith, just because a person has good works and claims he is a Christian -that doesn't make it so.
Case in point: Mormons claim to be Christians and can be noted for the good works they do. Often Mormons be better works and moral behaviors than Christians, but that still doesn't make them Christians.
I notice Dan had to drag back his claim that the Bible does not have a "law" against same-sex fake marriage, again claiming it is only an opinion. He tries to very hard to justify his false teachings, and I don't remember a single comment string on any post he's hit which, regardless of the subject matter, that he hasn't dragged in this nonsense. Dan, you really need to get a different schtick. Please try to stay on the subject at hand, for once in your life!
I think the phrase "false dilemma" is the operative concept in this discussion. We need not even consider terminology like "primary" because what we understand and live out as disciples of Christ is the interwoven idea of redemption. We are told that the law is a gift from God to shine the light on our wrongdoing so that we can repent and change since the goal for believers is perfection, not our best shot. However, we are also instructed that before the law sin was in effect because man tried to play God.
What we cannot skip over, which I didn't see mentioned anywhere in Dan T.'s comments is the crucifixion of Christ. Christ had to die as the outworking of the unmerited favor of God because sin is living in opposition to God, not according to the purpose for which we were created. There was a violation of purpose from the initial bite in the Garden that required atonement.
So, is the Bible about Grace. Yes as man could not atone on his own and so Christ's sacrifice on the cross was absolutely necessary and is inextricably tied to Grace.
Is the Bible about law. Yes, as there was at least a violation of purpose in addition to the volitional breaking of God's commands, and so it is only by God's Grace that a Way was made so that provision for that death penalty is available to all.
We see continually throughout the Old and New Testament the idea of love and law. We cannot zero in like laser beam on one to the exclusion or even the diminishing of the other. The are perfectly working together: interwoven. Redeeming man is a marvelous tapestry woven together by God. We shouldn't presume to unravel it.
I believe we do a disservice when we say it is merely by following commands because the Holy Spirit must be operating in our lives so that our love of God drives us to not make even a nudge toward things that would dishonor the Gospel. We also do a disservice when we say Grace alone, never mention the Cross of Calvary, and refer to the Bible as merely a book of rules. I think we all, including myself, can do better here and should struggle daily to better understand and appreciate the Grace of God, the breaking of a law that required the death of God Incarnate to atone, and how they work together as woven together in the Sovereignty of God.
One of the most telling phrases in my understanding of the unfolding of the Gospel is in Romans 3. While declaring that "all have sinned" (the problem), we read that God's righteous wrath against sin is propitiated by the blood of Christ. It is this "mechanism" that allows God to "be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" (Rom 3:26). God is not capable of being gracious and merciful without being just. They don't cancel. But in the payment of Christ, both justice and mercy can be found. An overemphasis on justice will tend to crowd out grace, and an overemphasis on grace will crowd out justice. The requirement is a balance of the two.
I would say that the Bible is primarily a revelation of Who God is and how He expects us to relate to Him as He offers Himself to us, as well as how He expects us to relate to each other.
Post a Comment