Fire Insurance? (June 10 Show)

[Jason]

Steve, I think you are responding to an argument I'm not making. Perhaps you're talking over my shoulder to address the sad state of commitment to Christ in the west. You are relating to this topic from a "heaven is getting whatever tickles your fancy" point of view and I'm looking at it as "eternal life with the Father who loves you and wants to be with you." Is that not the kind of Father our Lord revealed? To say you would serve a God who doesn't want you around sounds masochistic and to make this the standard of calling oneself a Christian disagrees with too many scriptures to cite. Did Jesus not give reasons why a person should love God? Was Jesus preaching a shallow message too? Yes, the Lord commanded that we deny ourselves but he had to mean "in this life" because he always gave motives to deny ourselves. "Blessed are the meek, for they...."

The problem I have is that the way you presented God in that discussion struck me as eerily similar to the "God" of Calvinism... nothing more than an iron fist. Bow or be crushed. When Jesus taught us to call God our Father, I think he was making a point that had been previously lost on the Jews. While fathers deserve the utmost respect and obedience, they also love their kids and want to be with them. I've never seen God face to face but how I would love to! To be denied that opportunity would cause great misery in this life, along with a significant loss of hope.

To stress the Lordship aspect to a new believer is a given. But it must be tempered with a healthy dose of motivation. There are ample reasons why a person should love God and want to serve him cheerfully, but if those reasons aren't presented then we're not doing our job. As we all know, a person can do everything Jesus commanded, but with wrong motives. Paul said exercising the gifts without love is nothing. So the motivation of the heart is an important factor and we can't just assume that every individual knows why God should be adored. Many people have not been exposed to a healthy view of God like those who were raised in Christian homes. I was raised in a very pagan atmosphere where no respect was shown to God or his Son and you were considered stupid if you believed in the supernatural. As an adult man, I was able to think for myself but I was already handicapped in a sense. Someone like me needed to hear that God actually loved me and wanted me around. That changed my heart and made me want to serve Him... and I don't think this was a shallow response to the gospel.

Edit **I don't know why my post was bolded. It was not intentional.**

[steve]

Hi jason,

You wrote:

Steve, I think you are responding to an argument I'm not making.

All I have done in this thread is reassert, clarify, and defend the original comments I made on the radio (because they were challenged). I have not taken the discussion in any new directions. If this is not relevant to your objections, then it must be that your objections were not relevant to my original comments. Most of those who have taken issue with me in this thread are addressing points irrelevant to my comments, so you should not think you are alone in this.


You wrote:

To say you would serve a God who doesn't want you around sounds masochistic and to make this the standard of calling oneself a Christian disagrees with too many scriptures to cite.

Why would anyone represent my view in this way? Why not just respond to what I actually say (I generally say what I mean). I never raised the subject of a god who does not want us around. Why bring up this straw man?

In any case, even if God gave us no indication that He wanted us around, but He commanded us to obey Him, we should do so. Many has been the king (and the father) who showed no interest in his subjects (or children), but whose authority remained unquestionable. In America, we know nothing of royalty, and very little about authority of any kind. That is our handicap. We are left without the frame of reference about such matters that all societies took for granted until about three or four centuries ago. Loyalty to your king (or country)—even under torture—is not masochism. It is the opposite of rebellion and treason.

To be honest, I have been quite surprised that my comments would even be regarded as controversial in this forum. However, since they were, I am glad that they have been challenged, so that I would have another chance to clarify and reassert the Gospel of the Kingdom of God. The message has always been the simplest of all declarations: Jesus is Lord!

[Paidion]

Steve, while I totally agree with you concerning your main thesis here (and especially with the words you quoted from Thomas A. Kempis), I have some difficulty with your understanding of the passage from Acts 23:

On Paul's statement that he was persecuted for his belief in the resurrection, in Acts 23:6, he was referring to the fact that he preached the resurrected Christ (not his belief in the resurrection of the last day). He thought he could find common cause with the Pharisees against the Sadducees on this point, since the Pharisees accepted the resurrection of the dead, in principle, as a possibility, and the Sadducees did not. There would have been no persecution from the Jews for his belief in a general resurrection, which most of the Jews themselves also accepted (see Acts Acts 24:15).

I don't see Paul's statement that he was being persecuted for his belief in the resurrection as being exactly forthright. He was deliberately trying to divide the Jews with the hope of escaping them. I think there is no doubt he was referring to the resurrection from the dead of all people (whether it occurs at the same time in a "general" resurrection, or in a first and second resurrection at the beginning of and after the millenium), for the resurrection of all people is what the Pharisees believed. He couldn't have been referring to the resurrection of Christ, since he stated, "with respect to the hope and the resurrection of the dead, I am on trial." Hope is in something yet to come, not something that has already occurred.

But when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, "Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees; with respect to the hope and the resurrection of the dead I am on trial."

And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees; and the assembly was divided. For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit; but the Pharisees acknowledge them all.

Then a great clamor arose; and some of the scribes of the Pharisees’ party stood up and contended, "We find nothing wrong in this man. What if a spirit or an angel spoke to him?"
Acts 23:6-9

Notice it was when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, that the cried out, "Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees; with respect to the hope and the resurrection of the dead I am on trial." Paul wasn't speaking of the resurrection of Christ here; he was speaking of the resurrection of all people. His plan to divide the Jews worked, as the Pharisees then began to support him, declaring that they found nothing wrong in him, and that possibly a spirit or angel spoke to him."

[Jason]

To be honest, I have been quite surprised that my comments would even be regarded as controversial in this forum. However, since they were, I am glad that they have been challenged, so that I would have another chance to clarify and reassert the Gospel of the Kingdom of God. The message has always been the simplest of all declarations: Jesus is Lord!

You'll find that we all agree with this declaration. And indeed people in this country do not have a familiarity with monarchical government but do we hold that against them? You and I aren't superior to others because we know that gospel, lord, and salvation are all first century political terms. If people in this country, as you rightly say, don't understand what "lord" means then why do you still use that language when dealing with them? You might as well just use the word kurios because you'd get the same reaction. Nevertheless, stating that Jesus is Lord doesn't help our discussion because we all believe that. In fact, it's the reason we're even discussing these things -- we want to know what Jesus taught about God and our service to him. He gave ample reasons to follow Him and strict warnings about not following Him. I only call someone out when I feel they've gone beyond that.

Also, forgive me for sounding accusatory in my last response. I know everything you do and teach is done to glorify Christ. I would never in a million years question your motives. But every once in a while I might question your take on things if they differ from what I understand the scriptures to teach. Would I be a serious Christian if I didn't?

[Homer]

Hi Steve,

I am a bit embarrased. I just listened to the segment of the June 10 show where you discussed eternal security. I could find little to nothing I would disagree with. You and I agree with regard to easy-believism and the necessity of Jesus as Lord. If He is not your Lord He is not your savior. I do believe, however, that the gospel was an appeal to the self-interest.

Perhaps we misunderstand each other. Examining the ideas of Bernard of Clairvaux (a hero to Luther, claimed by some to be the holiest man who ever lived) might help clarify where, or if, we differ. I have discussed Bernard's "ladder of love" with you briefly before; here is some futher detail:

Step 1 Love of self for self's sake

We can not love others unless we first love ourselves, and unless we love our neighbors, we cannot love God. "For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church" [Ephesians 5:29 (New King James Version)] This self love, however, must be restrained.

Step 2 Love of God for self's sake

Here we do not rise far above the first step, for we still love for selfish reasons. But this is the beginning of our relationship with God. As God's love and mercy is experienced through recurrent troubles, we may begin to move to the third step.

Step 3 Love of God for God's sake

We have experienced how gracious the Lord is. At this level we love purely without self interest. Many of the contemplatives view this step as the highest love humans could attain to, but Bernard added one more stage.

Step 4 Love of God for sake of self

This means to put oneself completely at God's disposal, to merge one's will into God's, to surrender completely. Bernard doubted whether even martyrs attained love of this degree, that it could only happen "to souls loosed from their bodies". Others have claimed this stage can be reached momentarily.

Bernard belived we only love through God's power. He lived a life of unimaginable (for us) self-deprival.

What I thought you were saying was that a person at step 2 was not a Christian, that only those at step 3 are saved. I believe all (or almost all) who come to Christ do so at step 2. If they never progress to step 3, which they should, I can not say they are lost if they are trusting in Jesus and have yielded to him as Lord.

You wrote:

What I said was that people are probably not true Christians who would not serve God in the absence of assurance of a life after this one. Those who would not do so are certainly less in love with God than were even Old Testament saints, who knew less than we do of how generous God is. Since I do not believe the Old Testament saints were even regenerated, I would expect even better things from a regenerated heart.

I agree that the OT saints had no clear idea of eternal life. But did they not depend on God for everything from victory in battle to having children to having a harvest?

You acknowledged I had a point, concerning the gospel, with John 3. I believe Jesus' message appealed to self-interest:

Mark 10:29-30 (New King James Version)
29. So Jesus answered and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands, for My sake and the gospel’s, 30. who shall not receive a hundredfold now in this time—houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions—and in the age to come, eternal life.

Although Luke may have only hinted (Acts 13) at eternal life being preached by the apostles, I can not believe they did not preach it as Jesus did.

I do not know how many of us would have ever followed Jesus initially had we known there was nothing in it for us. It is easy to say we would, but it is a hypothetical question. We come to Jesus as unregenerated persons. The Calvinist might have a different take on this.

[TK]

Homer wrote (quoting Bernard):

Step 3: Love of God for God's Sake: We have experienced how gracious the Lord is

Per Bernard very very few if any reach step 4. so it appears that the highest level of love we can reach is premised on how gracious the Lord is to us.

This begs the question-- could we reach step 3 if God was NOT gracious?

TK

[darinhouston]

I do not know how many of us would have ever followed Jesus initially had we known there was nothing in it for us. It is easy to say we would, but it is a hypothetical question. We come to Jesus as unregenerated persons. The Calvinist might have a different take on this.

I don't think we actually "follow Jesus" because of our self interest. I believe it's on a spectrum of sorts and that the degree to which we respond out of self interest may well represent the degree to which we actually have responded salvificly to the gospel. There are a great number of nominative Christians today that responded out of self interest, and that's reflected in the state of the "church." Yes, we come unregenerated, but not utterly and totally depraved. I believe there is still a spark of God's personality within all of us, and I believe the ones who are saved by their response are those who let that spark resonate by the gospel out of obedience and also because that resonance sounds as if we would be "at home" with Him and His way. Once we make that initial resonant response, I believe the Holy Spirit works to regenerate our hearts and allows us to receive the Holy Spirit and begin our process of sanctification and oedience.

[Paidion]

We can not love others unless we first love ourselves.

I have heard this statement made many times. It is probably the basis of our modern emphasis on self-love. Some even offer the Biblical "Love your neighbour as yourself" as the Scriptural justification for the belief. They think these words are promoting self-love. Instead, Yahweh knew that everyone does love himself. This is evident in the very passage you quoted, "For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church" [Ephesians 5:29] So we do not have to be taught self-love. All of us already possess it. So Yahweh was saying in effect, "Everyone loves himself more than anyone else. Now learn to love others just as much as you already love yourself." Nowhere does the Bible instruct us to love ourselves. Nowhere does it say that we cannot love others unless we love ourselves.

Today, teachers are instructed to enhance the self-esteem of their pupils. Nowhere does the Bible give this instruction. Such instruction promotes arrogance. We already have too much self-esteem. In Philippians 2:3 [AV], Paul instructed the Philippians to esteem others better than themselves.

[Jason]

Homer makes a really good point in that Jesus appealed to self-interest on many occasions and in Matthew 28 commanded the aposltes to teach others everything he said. So when they preached the gospel we'd have to assume they instructed others in the same way Jesus did, even if we find their sermons (in Acts) abbreviated to stress the message that there's a new King to be followed.

I also agree with Paidion that the love of self isn't a useful goal as it's already intrinsic in humanity. However, for those who grew up being told they are not wanted and have no value, this can cause some unhealthy mental issues and it helps to show such individuals that they are indeed valuable to God. This wouldn't be a matter of teaching them self-love but rather showing them something that's true (God values them) and removing a false idea (nobody loves them) from their minds. But to further agree with Paidion, most Christians I know suffer from over-inflated self esteem.

[steve]

I am not sure what remains for me to say. The challenges that have come up since my last post (except for one from Paidion) have already been answered by me from scripture. I am of the same opinion still. No amount of citations of statements Jesus made to His disciples about their future rewards can convince me that He was saying, "...and if no such rewards were offered, you'd pretty much be off the hook with regard to obeying God's and my commands."

Paidion raised a good challenge about the meaning of Paul's statement to the Sanhedrin. I say Paul is referring to the belief in the resurrection of Jesus (which to Paul was all one with the general hope of future resurrection—Jesus being the firstfruits, and the only really controversial aspect of Paul's teaching on the subject). If he was referring to the general teaching of a future resurrection, then, of course, Paul was not just being disingenuous. He was outright lying, since none of his persecutors could give a rip about Paul's belief in the future resurrection. The Pharisees also believed in that, and none of them was ever placed in prison for that belief. It is obvious that, if Paul was not lying (and how in the world could he expect to get away with lying to his accusers about the essence of their accusations?), then he was referring to the resurrection of Christ, which to him was part and parcel with the general teaching of the resurrection of all the dead. His belief in the hope of a future resurrection was inseparable from his really offensive doctrine—the one about Jesus having already risen.