QC and SG accountability (13/12/19)
Today we addressed the idea of whether one can receive Jesus as Saviour, but not as Lord - or put another way, whether we can be saved without at the same time showing evidence of submission to Jesus' authority in our lives. This used to be called "the Lordship controversy" and the underlying ideas are carried on by the "Free Grace movement". So, the teaching goes that one can be saved, and yet show no outward evidence of salvation for a time, with the possibility that one's works are only known to God.
The ideas behind this are represented by some churches in Singapore that teach that, once saved by grace, there is no need for continued repentance, and that our salvation is assured. This is an important pastoral issue, because it is true that modern evangelistic methods downplay the need for repentance and surrender. This leads to people inside churches who think they are saved but have never known true salvation and the experience and reality of the indwelling Spirit of God.
I think the teaching of our Lord is clear that unless we aim to give up everything to follow Him, we cannot be His disciple (Lk 9:23). And yet we are in a situation where we know in ourselves that while we acknowledge Jesus as Lord, He is not fully Lord in all aspects of our lives. So full surrender is not necessary for salvation, and yet some evidence of salvation is needed.
We are called to make our calling and election sure (2 Pet :10) by exhibiting certain qualities of character. In other words, the evidence of changed life leads to assurance. And we should always strive to be assured of our hope in Christ- this is our heritage as adopted children of the Father (Rom 8:15, Gal 4:6). We remember that a living faith must be manifested by works (James 2:14-17).
So, we should conclude that we cannot receive Jesus as Saviour without the intent of also receiving Him as Lord. or else we would be asking for the benefits of salvation as distinct from a living relationship with Jesus and all that means.
We said that, pastorally speaking, there should be no fear that greater assurance should lead to greater complacency, since the grasping of truths that lead to assurance should lead to less, and not more, complacency.A child who knows he/she is well-loved by the parents would be a better child, not a worse one.
We also spent time discussing the meaning of Scripture in general. I was saying that passages only have one meaning, although there may be multiple layers of meaning in that passage in terms of pointing to ultimate spiritual events(e.g. the Passover at Exodus foreshadows the Cross), or spiritual truth (e.g. the parable of the Prodigal Son points to God's love). The point is that we cannot anyhow give meanings to passages as we like, nor can we accept that 2 interpretations that are logically contradictory are equally possible.
The ideas behind this are represented by some churches in Singapore that teach that, once saved by grace, there is no need for continued repentance, and that our salvation is assured. This is an important pastoral issue, because it is true that modern evangelistic methods downplay the need for repentance and surrender. This leads to people inside churches who think they are saved but have never known true salvation and the experience and reality of the indwelling Spirit of God.
I think the teaching of our Lord is clear that unless we aim to give up everything to follow Him, we cannot be His disciple (Lk 9:23). And yet we are in a situation where we know in ourselves that while we acknowledge Jesus as Lord, He is not fully Lord in all aspects of our lives. So full surrender is not necessary for salvation, and yet some evidence of salvation is needed.
We are called to make our calling and election sure (2 Pet :10) by exhibiting certain qualities of character. In other words, the evidence of changed life leads to assurance. And we should always strive to be assured of our hope in Christ- this is our heritage as adopted children of the Father (Rom 8:15, Gal 4:6). We remember that a living faith must be manifested by works (James 2:14-17).
So, we should conclude that we cannot receive Jesus as Saviour without the intent of also receiving Him as Lord. or else we would be asking for the benefits of salvation as distinct from a living relationship with Jesus and all that means.
We said that, pastorally speaking, there should be no fear that greater assurance should lead to greater complacency, since the grasping of truths that lead to assurance should lead to less, and not more, complacency.A child who knows he/she is well-loved by the parents would be a better child, not a worse one.
We also spent time discussing the meaning of Scripture in general. I was saying that passages only have one meaning, although there may be multiple layers of meaning in that passage in terms of pointing to ultimate spiritual events(e.g. the Passover at Exodus foreshadows the Cross), or spiritual truth (e.g. the parable of the Prodigal Son points to God's love). The point is that we cannot anyhow give meanings to passages as we like, nor can we accept that 2 interpretations that are logically contradictory are equally possible.
Comments
Post a Comment