Monday, June 06, 2005
The Problem Of Counterfeit Believers
Jollyblogger continues his serialization of his sermon on Hebrews 6 with Part III.
Fortunately, in his foundation, David also plants the seed of the response.
Adrain appears to be concerned about the lack of assurance David's approach creates, and turns to the experience of the Holy Spirit as the means to gain assurance. I am not sure assurance is ultimately possible -- assurance is a matter of faith, faith that will create examination and lead to maturity. The experiences on which Adrain relies are, in my experience, too easily had under false pretenses. I can name so many who claim those experiences but lack the other signs of salvation that David discusses.
Additionally, such personal experiences cannot be used as a means to operate a community, for they are, in the end, personal. While utterly valid for the individual, and rightfully so, I as an outside observer can never truly know their validity apart from the other areas that David does address. Thus when it comes to counseling, or deciding what to preach, or admonishing, that is examining whether we are in faith, those experiences are of limited use.
I hope as David's series continues he will look at very practical ways to conduct the examination he calls for, both as individuals, and as a body. That examination is the essence of both evangelism and maturity.
UPDATE: SmartChristian has linked ot his discussion here
UPDATE 2: Why do I think quality control is such an issue? As people have increasingly stopped being participants in church and started being consumers of religion the traditional quality control methods of the church are breaking down. No longer can you count on a congregation to help a pastor shape and mold the church, nor can you rely on them to call the pastor into account when he strays -- likely they will not even know when he strays.
While it is my heart's desire to see a return to the old models, I am wondering if it is possible. And if not, what new models for quality control can we come up with? All that I can think of become highly heriarchiacal and rather distasteful. Maybe someone has a better idea, or we really do need to work on returning to the old models?
In this section of the book of Hebrews, the author was sharing his worries that he feared that there were many people there who were in the first category – they thought they were saved, but they weren't.David then goes on to support his case quite well from several Scriptural passages (Matt 7:21-23; Matt 22:11-14; II Cor 11:13-15; II Peter 1:5-11 and finally II Cor 13:5) He also examines the issue from the standpoint of some great Puritan writers.
This is a point that we don't talk about much in our day, but that the Bible actually talks about a good deal
Similarly, an old Puritan named Matthew Mead wrote a book called "The Almost Christian Discovered," which he devoted to a study of those who had almost become Christians, but hadn't. He talks about some of the things we saw in Matthew 7 where we think that because someone addresses Jesus as "Lord" and does all of these great things for Him that means that they are a Christian. He says that, in fact, this may mean that the person is almost a Christians, but not quite.I believe David has laid the foundation here for addressing what I consider to be the greatest question confronting the church today -- quality control. There is so much happening in God's name in the world today, and so much of it is so wrong-headed, and ungodly. We all know the easy targets in this regard -- TV preachers, shamanistic healers, so forth. But do we know the real and very serious problems? Those problems that happen on a personal level. Some we do -- pastors and priests that prey sexually on their flock is one example we know about. But what about pastors that encourage simple emotion dependence instead of reliance on the Lord? What about pastors that tend to the big donors and ignore the needy? What about organizations that guard their reputations more than the Lord's?
Fortunately, in his foundation, David also plants the seed of the response.
We are often told that we are not to question whether or not we are saved if we have made some kind of past decision for Christ. But Paul speaks to people who have been professing Christians for years here in II Corinthians 13:5 and says "examine yourselves to see if you are in the faith."Herein lies the heart of what I meant when I started a discussion with Adrian Warnock about whether preaching was to the found or the unfound. As a church, we need to be addressing that examination. Note that this will, if done properly, address both the believer and the unbeliever. The believer will by such examination be called to maturity, the unbeliever to Christ.
We are to examine ourselves to see if we are in the faith.
Adrain appears to be concerned about the lack of assurance David's approach creates, and turns to the experience of the Holy Spirit as the means to gain assurance. I am not sure assurance is ultimately possible -- assurance is a matter of faith, faith that will create examination and lead to maturity. The experiences on which Adrain relies are, in my experience, too easily had under false pretenses. I can name so many who claim those experiences but lack the other signs of salvation that David discusses.
Additionally, such personal experiences cannot be used as a means to operate a community, for they are, in the end, personal. While utterly valid for the individual, and rightfully so, I as an outside observer can never truly know their validity apart from the other areas that David does address. Thus when it comes to counseling, or deciding what to preach, or admonishing, that is examining whether we are in faith, those experiences are of limited use.
I hope as David's series continues he will look at very practical ways to conduct the examination he calls for, both as individuals, and as a body. That examination is the essence of both evangelism and maturity.
UPDATE: SmartChristian has linked ot his discussion here
UPDATE 2: Why do I think quality control is such an issue? As people have increasingly stopped being participants in church and started being consumers of religion the traditional quality control methods of the church are breaking down. No longer can you count on a congregation to help a pastor shape and mold the church, nor can you rely on them to call the pastor into account when he strays -- likely they will not even know when he strays.
While it is my heart's desire to see a return to the old models, I am wondering if it is possible. And if not, what new models for quality control can we come up with? All that I can think of become highly heriarchiacal and rather distasteful. Maybe someone has a better idea, or we really do need to work on returning to the old models?
