Understanding Evangelicalism

Thanks to the moderator for moving this discussion to its own thread.

 

So your point is that you're technically correct, given the viewpoint of God who is timeless and who foreknew before the Creation, that faith is technically our 'point of recognition' for what was 'already done' in God's sight. Whereas my point was that from the practical standpoint of a human being who is subject to time and its effects, faith is more than that. And why I think that's important is because Jesus and the Apostles (Paul in particular) taught and exhorted at length on the importance of believing (which is another word for faith). I don't think Jesus ever taught anyone that 'what will be, will be; you'll either believe in me or you won't, so no reason to think about it.' From the practical, 'hit-you-where-you-live' viewpoint, human beings live in a timeline wherein they go from a state of being 'unregenerate and unsaved' to a state of being 'regenerate, justified, redeemed and saved'. Nonetheless, I acknowledge that you are technically correct from the eternal standpoint.

 

After a bit more internet searching, it appears that the Southern Baptist Convention and the Lutherans (ELCA and MO Synod both) subscribe to 'eternal security.' Although I don't think this is equivalent to a rejection of the Law's relevance to the Christian or to antinomianism, I understand how the latter error could easily be fallen into within those denominations if the pastors fail to teach and preach messages to counterbalance.

 

You have understood me completely and I agree with your statement:

"Believing", like prayer is our means of communication between the temporal and the eternal. That is why Jesus stressed the importance of 'faith'. The opposite of faith is not unbelief nor even non belief. The opposite of faith is despair. That is why we are advised to believe in God's promises.

believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also. And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know. John 14:1-4.
.

 

That’s correct. You can hope for it, but if you believe in it, then that becomes monergist heresy. And if someone is antinomian to such an extreme degree, this becomes crypto-universalism.

By the way I expect most of the problem bishops in the Anglican Communion, in the Episcopal Church, the ACC, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Australia, except Sydney, NZ, and those who even dare to try to ruin our beloved Church of England, are Universalists. I doubt very many of them believes in the possibility of permanent damnation, which is why their preaching de-emphasizes repentance and stresses other things, and why in their own lives many do not evince the holiness one would associate with great Anglican bishops such as Laud or Seabury.

 

If we look in a thesaurus for despair, the antonym we see listed is hope.
The antonyms first listed for faith are: disbelief, doubt, distrust, faithlessness.
Hope is not the same thing as faith: And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity (1 Cor. 13:13). Faith can be described as a firm persuasion or a deep conviction, but hope is more of a wish or desire that something might come to pass.

Even atheists have faith that the sun will rise in the morning and set in the evening. We could also say that they believe the sun will behave in this manner. The words are used somewhat interchangeably.

"Faith" in the N.T. is pistis (4102 in Strong's Concordance). The Greek scholar Spiros Zodhiates describes pistis (in its most frequent and pertinent NT meaning) as "being persuaded, faith, belief."
"Believe" is pisteuo (4102). Zodhiates identifies pisteuo as a derivation of pistis with a meaning of "to believe, give credit to... have a mental persuasion."
We can see both of the above words used in Romans 10:8-10. But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

To have faith is to believe, to be persuaded. This is also supported by Vine's Expository Dictionary. On this basis, unbelief and faith are indeed opposites.

It does not do violence to the meaning of most scripture verses if we were to substitute 'faith' for the word 'belief' and vice versa. For example, in the portion of Romans 10, the word of faith which the Apostles preached was the message of belief in Christ. And if one shall have faith in his heart that God raised Jesus from the dead... (etc.)
Another example: in Matthew 14:31 Jesus pulls sinking Peter out of the water and tells him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt? It would not change the meaning significantly if it said, "O thou of little belief, wherefore didst thou doubt?"

There is, of course, a somewhat different meaning when we speak of "the faith," because the phrase is our 'shorthand' for the deeply held religious convictions we hold dear and of the basic truths and tenets of Christianity. But in most instances in scripture, the word is being used for an individual's belief.

Peace and blessings!

 

Reformed, confessional, dogmatic devotees are taken up with the precise chronology of salvation - the old chicken and egg problem. Which came first, repentance or faith? For me, in light of higher criticism, in light of ecumenism, in light of the charismatic movement, and in light of history, I am far less concerned with the precision of theology as science, and far more appreciative of the art of theology as literature. I now see in retrospect that my years of confusion came from reading pre-enlightenment documents. In these latter times, I come to see the complexity of the Bible, and use narrative theology much more than dogmatic theology. Deut. 29:29, something about the secret things belonging to God unless they are revealed. The problem is, the revelation is subtle and nuanced and progressive, so we have a huge hermeneutical task to make sense of salvation. John 3:16 is wonderful because Jesus sums it up. I also appreciate the viewpoint that election covers groups, while salvation concerns individuals (not my idea). God chooses Israel and the church as instruments of his Message, but not everyone in Israel or the church desires salvation. We all know people who become idolators and exile themselves, some return, and some do not.

 

I used to be interested in what he had to say, he actually taught at a school I went to. After awhile, however, something felt off listening to him. There was an aggression or arrogance that seemed present. What I find ironic about Chan is that a few years ago he wrote a whole book about how church should be formatted (essentially small house churches with unpaid pastors and elders) — which is of course compelling. It would certainly solve the mega-church and celebrity pastor problem. However, the books he writes are best sellers, which in turn makes him always well paid for his teachings. Sorta goes against the point of his book right? He is also a bit obsessed with his family’s own self sacrifice, lotsa stories about all the big stuff they are doing. There is just so much “I” and “Me” — it’s all about their journey and how they know the right way to do things. That’s my issue with celebrity pastors. I personally am tired of pastors writing books and teaching on podcasts rather than visiting the sick, having coffee with congregants and offering personal mentorship. If you are going to yell at the masses about being more sacrificial with their money, time and energy…and sacrifice more for the gospel (which Chan implores people to do)…it just seems hypocritical to do so from New York Times best seller list. That’s my concern with all these guys — they love a platform. When you see famous people calling for everyone to do Christianity like they do…I run for the hills. I’m not saying people shouldn’t write about faith. I love Lewis, Packer, etc - but there is a tone to a book that almost always renders the same dude with cool clothes at a conference. I ended up becoming Anglican in desperation to avoid this stuff. I’m not saying this to be hard on Chan or people who appreciate him. I think God can use anything and everything to minister to people. Chan is obviously passionate about his beliefs and shares them in earnest. Something just feels off. And so I decided to bow out.