TILL HE COMES Blog

I had a good long talk with Lance again on Saturday, and he may be one of the most refreshing people I have ever met. I want to know more people like him. He is open, honest, and genuine. He says what he thinks, but in a way that is unoffensive.

And wow, does he know his stuff! I’m not sure exactly how he would classify himself religiously, but he knows the Bible better than most of us at Seminary, myself included. He told me that he learned under Col. R.B. Thieme in Houston (for those of you who are “Thiemers”). As I talked with Lance, he was using Greek, talking about the Bema, and quoting Scripture, all while performing amazing tricks with his devil sticks.

At one point, Wendy invited him and his family over for dinner. He declined, and the reason was one I have never heard before in my entire life, and probably will never hear again. He thought we would be offended, but Wendy and I both laughed out loud when he explained why he didn’t want to come to dinner. I’m not going to repeat what he said here on a public blog, but let me just say that it was genuine, honest, kind, and authentic.

The bottom line is that I like Lance. He is someone I would love to hang out with, and someone we Christians could learn a lot from. However, most of the time, when we interact with people like Lance, we either get offensive or defensive, and simply try to win arguments. That wasn’t my goal. Though Lance and I disagree on many things right now, I didn’t want to argue, let alone win an argument. I simply wanted to win the opportunity for another conversation.

2 Comments »

I’m attending a church planting conference on April 24-27 called Exposed, and I’m looking forward to it more than any other church planting conference I’ve been to. Here’s why:

First, they are limiting attendance to only 20-30. I’ve been to many church planting and church growth conferences over the years, and though it is exciting to be part of conferences with 100’s (or 1000’s) of people in attendance, I always feel a bit…lost. In big conferences, to those who are teaching, I’m just another face in a huge crowd. To those who are attending, I’m just some other guy who they will never meet again. But at Exposed, I imagine I will get to know the speakers and the others in attendance in a way not possible at other conferences. Who knows? Maybe I will even develop some friendships with other church planters, and we can partner with each other in the future.

Second, the conference is being hosted by Square 1 Church Planting, which was founded by two guys (Joe Centrino and Stephen Hammond) who have actually planted churches and are still pastoring churches. Not only that, they haven’t written books (yet), or been invited to the White House, or raised $4 million in four weeks, or seen their church go from 50 to 5000 in 5 years. While some of this may happen to them in the future (it could!) right now, it’s just two guys in the midst of church planting who want to help others plant too. Sometimes, I think the “big name” church planting gurus have forgotten (or never experienced in the first place) some of the sweat and blood struggles of planting a church. But Joe and Stephen have been through it all.

Third, Square 1 is about planting Missional Churches. Missional churches want to do more than just have big buildings and Bible studies, but instead want to embrace culture so it can be redeemed and transformed by the love of Jesus. Missional churches are churches that are on a mission to see the Gospel actually change lives. If all we do is talk, read, learn, and write about the Gospel, I don’t think we really understand it. Missional churches are trying to live the Gospel.

Finally, rather than just sit around and listen to speakers speak, we are actually going to go out and have some fun together! On Friday, our wives get to go shopping together, while we guys enjoy some male bonding. That night, all of us are going to attend a Texas Ranger Baseball game. Try doing that at Exponential!

Space is really limited for this conference, so if you want to go, contact me for a brochure, or contact Joe and Stephen at Square 1.

1 Comment »

When going into church planting, planters are advised to look up the demographics of the place they are thinking of planting in. Today, I found a site with a special set of demographics you won’t find anywhere else. If you want to reach into the guttes of life and find a place that needs the Gospel, a place filled with people who to be shown grace, love, kindness, and mercy, check out the following demographics studies by Forbes Magazine:

http://www.forbes.com/2008/02/14/cities-sinful-lander-forbeslife-cx_lm_0213sinful_land.html?partner=weekly_newsletter

No Comments »

I am on a panel discussion tomorrow night at the National Conference of the Free Grace Alliance. The panel discussion is related to the death and resurrection of Jesus, and whether a person needs to know and believe these historical facts in order to be born again.

I am presenting the view that while the death and resurrection of Jesus was necessary for justification to be possible, belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus is not what grants a person eternal life. A person simply needs to believe in Jesus for eternal life to be given it by God. I have written on this in the past. Certainly, the death and resurrection of Jesus are central to the Gospel, but since there is so much Biblical information that is part of the Gospel, one does not have to believe the entire Gospel to be justified. There is a difference between the mechanism of justification (the death and resurrection of Jesus, along with a myriad of other things) and the message of eternal life (believe in Jesus for it). In other words, there is a difference between the Gospel information, and the Gospel invitation.

I agreed to be on this panel for three reasons. First, I want people to be clear in evangelism. If we have a muddled message, all we do is erect barriers which keep people from believing in Jesus for eternal life. The death and resurrection of Jesus are definitely part of what we share in evangelism, but we tell them these things to convince and persuade them to believe in Jesus for eternal life, not because they get eternal life by believing in the death and resurrection of Jesus. It’s a nuance, but a very important one. After all, there are many who believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus, but don’t believe in Him for eternal life.

Second, I know there are a lot of people who are trying to understand the various positions, and I hope to let them hear my position from me rather than from those out there who don’t understand my position but continue to write pejorative and negative things about me. It’s always best when researching a matter to go to the source.

Third, I see no logical or Biblical consistency in the view of those who are taking the opposing view. Clearly, they think their view is logical and Biblical or they wouldn’t hold it. I am not exactly trying to persuade them to my view, but I do want to try to understand their view. Toward that end, here are the questions I hope to have answered:

If a person must believe in the death of resurrection of Jesus, is it sufficient to believe in the historical facts of these events, or does a person also have to believe in substitutionary atonement?

If a person believes that Jesus died on the cross for their sins, and rose again from the dead, but don’t believe that by faith in Jesus they have life that can never be lost, are they justified? (E.g., They say things like “Jesus did his 99%, but I must do my 1%” or “I’m saved now, but if I sin later, I won’t be saved any more” or “I accepted the gift of eternal life, but I can give it back if I don’t abide.”)

In all of my study of the other view, I have yet to read an attempt to answer these questions. Others have noticed this same thing, and we receive daily e-mails and phone calls from people saying they are prayerfully supporting Bob Wilkin, myself, and the ministry of Grace Evangelical Society as we continue to present the offer of eternal life to all who believe in Jesus for it.

Here is one such e-mail:

Jeremy,

By way of introduction, we have been with GES almost since its beginning and had been proclaiming the free grace gospel message for 25 years before that. We were instrumental in formatting the first several years of GES Journal articles for the website and have printed and distributed several thousand pages of GES articles to many pastors and Christian leaders in our area. In other words, we support what you are doing.

We have been keeping up with the ongoing issue of what constitutes the gospel message and are grieved about the possible damage to the cause of Christ that might ensue. We also have supported the ministry at Duluth for quite some time and distributed much of their literature.

I believe that your article, “The Gospel Is More Than “Faith Alone In Christ Alone,” was excellent and it even helped me to “connect the dots” in some of my study on the subject. The open letter on the Duluth website refers to, among other things, this article and mentions two points of disagreement. These comments appeared to me to be a bit pejorative as there was no attempt at biblical refutation or even explanation of the context of your statements.

In addition to the significant biblical evidence that you gave for your position (a position which should be either accepted or proved wrong biblically), is one point that has come up in my study and that I have not seen mentioned anywhere. It is as follows: In 1st Corinthians 15, we find the classic definition of the gospel which includes the death, burial, resurrection of Christ, and probably the contents of the next few verses. Per verse 15 we see that the resurrection is necessary for our justification, but does not say that belief in it is necessary. Verse 12 and following shows that some of the Corinthian believers did not believe in the resurrection and reiterates the deleterious ramifications of this error. This epistle is written to the Church at Corinth (1:2; 1:7 et al). Did these believers who already have eternal life then lose their salvation? Did the awareness of their lack then show that they were not true believers in the first place? Or were they eternally saved, carnal believers, who needed to know and apply these resurrection facts so that they may be saved in the sanctification sense and enjoy the resurrection life during their earthly pilgrimage? The first two options are not implied in the context and are disqualified by other scripture. Something similar to the last seems to be more on target.

Unless you are already way ahead of me on this it might be beneficial to also develop this point. No reply to this note is expected as I realize that you have a heavy schedule.

We continue to pray. Keep up the good work (1 Cor. 15:58)

This is an excellent observation by this man, and should be developed further. I also want to point out that Peter and the apostles did not believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus until after He died and rose again (cf. Matt 16:20-23; Mark 9:31-32; Luke 9:44-45; 18:31-34; 24:19-26; John 20:9, 24-30). Does this then mean that they were not justified until they believed in the death and resurrection?

I’ll give an update on how things went after the conference.

3 Comments »

I want to begin a study today on the terms “Christ” and “Son of God” as they relate to Jesus. Since this study will require quite a bit of research, I will only be able to make one post per week (maybe less!) related to this issue. Today, I am only introducing the study.

The importance of this study cannot be overemphasized, since all four Gospels center their message around the identity of Jesus, who He is, and what He has done. This study will help our understanding of the Gospel of John in particular, since John’s purpose in writing is to get people to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. If people receive eternal life by believing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, it is vitally important to understand what these terms mean, and what must be believed about Jesus, so that we can be sure we have everlasting life.

By way of full disclosure, I do not yet know where this study will lead. Too many people come to Scripture with their theology already set by tradition and what their favorite teachers proclaim. I will do my best to let the Scriptures speak for themselves. Many people today teach that the terms “Christ” and “Son of God” refer to the divinity of Jesus. While that certainly has been a popular view in the past, and may be what is considered the “traditional” view, more and more students of the Word are realizing this view does not fit all the Biblical data. However, if in my study, I find that this traditional view best fits Scripture, I will believe and teach it to the best of my ability.

Where I Currently Am
Nobody, of course, is a blank slate. We all have theological systems of thought which must either be corrected or supported by Scripture. One key to proper Biblical investigation is knowing where you are starting from, and then turning to Scripture, not in an attempt to defend what you believe, but in an attempt to see if Scripture should challenge and change what is believed. We must never believe the theology handed down to us simply because it is the traditional or majority view.

So my current view is this by historical and cultural definition, the terms “Christ” and “Son of God” do not inherently refer to deity. Instead, they refer to the role or function of someone who is being used by God in a special way to carry out God’s will on earth.

In the current tradition I am part of (the Free Grace movement), the Gospel of John is often seen as “the only evangelistic book of the Bible.” I am not completely convinced that this is the case. In fact, I think every single book of the Bible is “evangelistic” but this is more due to how I understand the word “evangelism” than anything else. I will save that for a different study.

I believe that John, in his Gospel, is trying to get people to see that Jesus is God, and is possibly trying to instill more meaning in the terms “Christ” and “Son of God” than the average person in the first century would have understood or immediately grasped. In other words, one of the primary purposes of John is to impregnate the terms “Christ” and “Son of God” with new meaning and significance that cannot be used of any other human throughout history.

If this is true, John is not trying to teach that believing that Jesus is God is how a person receives eternal life, but that believing that Jesus is God brings a person to believe in Jesus for everlasting life. There is a vast difference. 

So my hypothesis is as follows:

The terms “Christ” (or “Messiah”) and “Son of God” did not originally refer to someone who was divine, but to someone who had a special relationship with God and was therefore given a God-appointed task, which was often related to some sort of deliverance. However, as Jesus performed His ministry as “the Christ, the Son of God” the terms grew in significance to include the idea that the God-appointed task of Jesus required Him to be God in the flesh. The Gospel writers (especially John) emphasized the divinity of Jesus to prove that everlasting life is freely given to those who believe in the name of Jesus for it.

A Warning
I can already hear certain people calling me a heretic and a false teacher. If that is you, I invite you to withhold judgment and embark with me on this study. Let’s search the Scriptures together. I value and desire your input…if it is genuine and spoken in love. There are certain men out there right now on different blogs and publications calling me a heretic for even proposing such a study. They misquote and misrepresent what I have said and written, and though they claim a desire to see me “return to the truth,” the tone of their posts, their bitter name-calling, and their complete unwillingness to honestly critique their “tradition” makes anything they say worthless to this discussion. If you want to lambaste and quarrel, I can’t stop you from saying such things, but I can stop you from saying them on this site. Such comments will be deleted and such users will be blocked. For everybody else, please try to keep your comments concise, clear, and on-topic.

How We will Proceed
1. We will begin by looking at the terms “Christ” and “Son of God” in the Old Testament and extra-biblical literature to determine their customary usage. 

2. Focusing on the Gospels of John and Matthew, we will look at several key passages to determine how these terms were understood in the days of Jesus, and what the Gospel writer was intending His readers to understand by these terms. As part of this study, we will try to examine the true purpose and intended audience of the Gospel of John.

3. We will look at later New Testament usage and extra-biblical literature to determine if the meaning of the terms had changed due to the life and ministry of Jesus.

By way of preparing for points 2 and 3, please feel free to list in the comments section below the passages you feel must be discussed and looked at.

12 Comments »