One of the most practical results of good theology is a strong sense of hope and assurance. With these one may have peace, joy, and concern for others. I have not always had these, not because my stated theology was bad, but because my practical theology was. Let me explain. I can affirm what the Bible says, but if for whatever deep or hidden reasons I do not believe it so as to affect my feelings and actions, my stated theology is not my practical (aka: real) theology. The place where theology frequently shows itself awry is in the area of hope for eternity and assurance of salvation. Without confidence in where you will be in the afterlife, you have not confidence for living.
Does God exist? What is He like? What is the fundamental nature of man? Does man need to be rescued from sin? Is there an afterlife? Is there a heaven and a hell? Is there only one way to salvation? What is the way to salvation? These are fundamental questions of life. The Bible clearly speaks about all of these and more. It says that the above yes/no questions are all answered, “Yes!” Two of three of the other above questions may most simply be answered, “Jesus” (John 1:18, 14:6), and the third one, “in God’s image but broken.” (Genesis 1:26-27, Romans 3:23)
With that basic foundation, can a person be confident that they are saved and will remain so into eternity? Clearly, I John 5:13 says you may know. The remainder of this article is to explain from Scripture how I know that I will remain in this condition of “saved”, headed to heaven, and why I have confidence. I have been considering this blog entry for several months now, but I could not bring myself to complete it because the task seems so daunting. I have now written because I realized that I don’t have to nor can I write an exhaustive or even complete treatise on the subject. That is OK. I want to encourage others and myself, not write a book on theology.
Romans 8:28-39 says, “And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies; who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us. Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? Just as it is written, “For Your sake we are being put to death all day long; We were considered as sheep to be slaughtered.” But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
But what if I quit loving God? If you belong to Him, you will not do that. How do I know? Read the passage. Second on the list of those whom “God causes all things to work together for good” are those “who are called according to His purpose.” In reference to Israel, Paul says, “The gifts and calling of God are irrevocable.” (Romans 11:29), but the idea may be applied to all who fall under His purpose. Notice the progression following, listed in past tense. “He foreknew.” As it says in Romans 9:11-13, “for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, “The older will serve the younger.” Just as it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” It was not by anything that Esau or Jacob did but by God’s choice, which is a part of foreknowledge in that it involves predestinating, the next on the list. The next part of the sequence was calling. He then justified and finally glorified. In our time limited existence, glorified has not yet happened, but in God’s time scale it is a done deal. So how do you undo by your unbelief what God has already done and declared completed? You don’t! Those who turn back could not have ever been saved and were self-deceived, because “He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.” (Philippians 1:6)
Then God has Paul solidify the assurance by declaring that nothing can separate us from the love of God. The logical progression of the argument ensures that you know that no one or nothing physical or spiritual can rob God of you and therefore you of God. I find it most satisfying and interesting that He ends the list of things that cannot separate us from Him with “nor any other created thing.” (v.39) Are you, dear reader, a “created thing”? Can you separate yourself from God? I think not. Those whom God has chosen are confirmed. Those who separate themselves from the things of God were never His to start with. I am so thankful that I am His and that I am held firmly in the grasp of His mercy and grace.
A word of caution to those who feel self-satisfied with their assurance but show little or no evidence of a change in living. You are deceived. If I tell you that I have a red Lexus in the parking lot and you go out and do not find a red car nor a Lexus, then I have deceived you. Red and Lexus do not make them my car, but are mere evidences that the car is mine. So, if I say that I am a Christian, though I am not nor could I be saved by good works, then I must exhibit good works as evidence that God has gotten a hold of me and saved me. Am I being changed into a trajectory toward God and His ways, even with fits and starts and setbacks? Then I may have assurance that God has worked His work in my heart and I will persist in believing and persevere in salvation, already seen as glorified by God. Am I lacking in these evidences? Then I had better be crying out for God’s mercy and grace in my life so that I may see this sanctifying change, even if ever so slowly.
Read Full Post »
Basis of Civil Debate
Posted in Change, Civil Debate, Cultural commentary, Fears, General, Implications, Respect, Society, tagged Being heard, Civil Debate, Discussion, Fear, Open-mindedness, Respect on June 2, 2020| 2 Comments »
What is the way forward for our country in this time of crisis?
Awhile back I was having a discussion with two people, who we will call Mr. L and Mr. S, that turned into an argument. They were on one side of a position and I was on the other. I do not like to get drawn into arguments for reasons far deeper than the immediate discomfort, but I dislike even more when truth is being trampled. Well, from my perspective, things got worse, because I was no longer concerned about the statements being made. I agreed in principle with them, but I did not like the fact that I was never heard. Mr. L and Mr. S would tell you that they fully understood me and could see that I was patently wrong, but that is simply not true. The evidence I would give is that I was never allowed to state my point, so that I was never truly heard, and therefore, they could not have known if I was wrong or not.
And this is the reason for this blog entry*. The basis for civil debate is the requirement that the views of the parties** in the debate be heard, truly heard. If not, there has not been debate, but there has been monologue, haranguing, putdown, and dismissal. This does not mean that the two or more parties must come to agreement, though that would be a further needed step for legislative progress. But they must hear each other in such a way as to believe that the other party, at the very least, thinks that their position is reasonable. The end result will be some change in all of the parties. They will have seen, I mean really seen, that is heard, another perspective. The result may well be that they have more evidence for why they don’t agree, but it might also mean that they come to see a reason to modify their own position, even if ever so slightly.
This basic tenet of civil debate and discourse has another underlying prerequisite. In order to really hear someone, you must have some minimal respect for that person or party. When that is lacking then the monologue and so forth commences. I highly suspect from watching this scenario play out numerous times and being party to this mis-step myself, that the reason for the lack of respect, and therefore lack of listening, is essentially fear. If you believe that the other party holds some wicked position or intention that will undermine your worldview, status quo, or comfort, you are apt to attack it vociferously. But if you are confident that the truth will win out, either in the short-term or long-term, you may feel at ease enough to hear the other party out for the purpose of learning or modifying your own position.
Take note that those who least hold to what is true most vehemently avoid listening to their opponents. And be doubly aware of those who feign listening but never really hear what their opponents say.
What I have essentially just defined is open-mindedness. Some who claim to be the most open-minded, the kind who will not hold to one or any particular point of view, listen the least and are the most closed-minded. Why? Frequently they are unwilling to commit to a position, not because they don’t know (agnostic), but because they don’t want to know (stubborn). Other people wear closed-mindedness as a badge, thinking that they uphold the “real” truth. Their fear of straying from their understanding of the truth causes them to cling to a shallow truth at best. These two problems reign on both extremes of political and belief perspectives and in the middle as well. In reality, their close-mindedness is of no value to anyone, including themselves. And I do not ascribe to the definition of open-mindedness that believes that there is no truth, and therefore everyone has their own truth. That is counter to Western thought, logic, and any view of the society that works.***
A listening ear is not a rejection of truth, but a confidence that there is truth and that it appears in surprising places and can instruct and benefit the hearer from wherever or whomever it comes, and that it will win out in the end.
In summary, here are the points I made: 1) Civil Debate requires that all invested parties are really heard. 2) Really hearing someone requires a little respect for the person, even if not for their position, 3) Lack of kindly respect for your debate opponent points to fear that your position might be overcome, and 4) Open-mindedness is good and beneficial for debate.
I hope that you have heard me and benefited.
*What happened to Mr.s L and S? Stay tuned. That description will come soon, but I do not want to distract from my main point.
**Modern liberal thought that absent parties must be in the debate don’t work since that means that people no longer alive, non-citizens, non-vested interests, and others not party to the debate run the debate. Equity is not that non-parties to the debate rule the debate, but that they be allowed to become parties to the debate through involvement in the process and vested interest in the debate. That involves allowance to include other parties and commitment on the part of all parties to be involved and invested. Certain parties cannot be allowed into the conversation, because their purpose and presence is disruptive.
*** Why society without truth will not work is a topic for another day, but a worthy one.
Read Full Post »