In a different post the following conversation began…I’d love anyone’s help:

On October 28, 2009 at 11:51 am Kev Said:

Fred,

I see an opportunity to draw this conversation to something I’m VERY interested in. In the matter of Evangelism (which is my primary ministry) I need to be aware of what I’m really doing.

I read things like how people can resist clever speaking – such as we read in Ps 58:3-5. This tells me that Evangelism is not solely accomplished by argument.

You said;
I can’t create an experiment where that really works (choosing to believe something you know ain’t so).

That’s a very lucid observation.

On the other hand, I can resist believing (like my dad did). Any one can refuse to be open to a new belief…which is certainly willful.

I don’t know if a person can refuse to believe something. How would you demonstrate that by experimentation and observation?

Someone can refuse to consider something, and can even intentionally sabotage something they know to be true. I don’t think that one can any more wilfully disbelieve something they know to be true than they can believe something they know to be untrue.

The knowing, is believing (not in the Biblical sense).

I think if someone knows something to be true, they can refuse to put their faith in it. In this I believe faith and belief are two different things. I see this demonstrated in Romans 1. They know of God but they refuse to worship Him. (worship being beyond mere faith of course, but can not happen without faith)

So… when we are operating in Evangelism revealing the Gospel is of primary concern. The results have to be “up to God” of course. How do we assist someone in recognizing the difference between not believing and refusing to trust?

Kev

On October 28, 2009 at 1:55 pm fredlybrand Said: |Edit This

Kev,

Thanks for the questions. I wasn’t as clear as I should have been (sound like a politician!). When I said ‘refuse to be open…’ I was aiming at the thought that someone can avoid getting in a position of coming to believe something…as when people won’t look at the facts. I think you are right in that if one looks at it they can come to believe (despite their desire not to), much like C.S. Lewis’s testimony.

As to ‘know something to be true’ and ‘put their faith in it’— I don’t see them as different things, but I do see different ‘things to believe’ calling for different responses, which we in turn call ‘know’ and ‘trust’, etc. In grappling for a good example I think of the post office. I suppose I could ‘know’ they’ll deliver my mail, but not ‘trust’ them to do so (so I don’t mail my letter…send it FedEx, etc.). But why? Why would I know they will…but don’t trust them to do so? There is surely more to the story.

Of course, I detest hypotheticals…what’s a real example you and I could think about together? I know that believing God is going to answer my prayer is different than believing that prayer works…yet, here too, the content shifts; believing in prayer generally is different in content than believe my (specific) prayer will be answered.

So, what’s something real we all wrestle with that could display the difference between knowing to be true and believing?

Thanks,

FRL

Well,

As I’ve interacted with Jim, both publically and privately, I am confident about two things;

1.  Jim does not align himself with the GES Gospel

2.  Jim does not align himself with a traditional understanding of the content of saving faith

I’m hoping that Jim will someday share where he believes the GES view has gone awry…I think it would do much for him and for all involved in this discussion.

Jim’s view, as best as I can discern is a mediating position (see my thoughts on Hegel herein).  Of course, when you are in the middle both sides see you as the enemy.  As I’ve reflected on Jim’s position, I’ve concluded that it really doesn’t get us anywhere (sorry Jim).  Essentially Jim is interested in trusting the Person of the Messiah beyond faith in content (propositions).  While that is fine, it doesn’t really get past the issue of the need for propositions to be expressed and believed (‘and understood’ is assumed, though Jim would debate implicit / intuitive understanding over and against [at times] what we might call ‘actual’ understanding).

The curious thing in all of this is that our traditional view is still something Jim is comfortable with (insofar as how we share the gospel)…which is where we all get uncomfortable with the GES Gospel…because, in time, there is no reason for them to stick with a basic Bad News/Good News approach.

In truth, if everyone would repent of Zane Hodges’ mistaken island analogy…most of this would go away.  Of course, it’s going to go away in any event since it is not compelling practically or academically.

God bless you all,

Fred Lybrand

So, here’s an excerpt I discuss concerning John Piper in Back to Faith.

What do you think?

FRL

Consider the words from a radio broadcast for Desiring God Ministries;

first is a sound bite of John Piper’s message, then an introduction by the
announcer, then finally Piper as he eases into his message,

[Piper] The foundational fact of this argument is
‘People who know Christ, obey Christ.’ There is a
necessary correlation between knowing Christ and
obeying Christ. [Announcer] ‘Can a person be on
the way to heaven and yet live like the devil? John
Piper reveals what God said about that next on
Desiring God radio. If a person goes forward
during a church service and seemingly accepts Jesus
Christ, but his life never changes or if it changes for
a time, but ultimately he goes back to living the
same way he was before he walked the aisle, can we
say that that person was saved? John Piper
examines that question today in part five of his
series taking us through the apostle John’s first
letter. And John, I’ve heard of people who fit that
story and they’re now dead. It’s hard lesson for
some to hear. Is there anyway to soften it?’ [Piper]
Yes, I think it is and whether we should soften it or
not is an open question…

AND
There is no doubt that Jesus saw a measure of real,
lived-out obedience to the will of God as necessary
for final salvation.

-Piper, What Jesus Demands from the World, p. 160

Well,

As my conversation with Jim (many thanks Jim) comes to a close for now, it strikes me that my question from my Open Letter of April 2009 is it’s own worthy conversation piece.  I guess I have thought we all agree on this question, but as I read through the comments I’m not so sure.

Here’s the question:

CAN ONE BE SAVED BY BELIEVING SOMETHING LESS THAN THE GOSPEL?

Now, I guess I need to ask another one:

IS IT NECESSARY TO PREACH MORE THAN THE GOSPEL?

This question is where this all goes (if you’ve been following the discussions).  I guess this is where the GES Gospel controversy lives and dies for me.  The clear nature of their view is that it is unnecessary to preach the cross, etc., because it is unnecessary to believe for eternal salvation.  For examples see the following,

My Open Letter get to this point: CLICK HERE

I think this is all done if we can answer these questions honestly.  They mean that everyone knows where they stand.  But, it would be great if the GES Gospel advocates would get it that we know they care about the cross…but, it would also be great if they get it that they don’t believe the cross is necessary to preach.

Then, aren’t we done?  And, can’t God sort it out?

What do you think?

FRL

Hi All,

Within this site there are discussions that have erupted about the character and actions of individuals.  Personally I have often been embarrassed and saddened for some of the folks who have said some of the things they’ve said.  Often it turns out to be a discussion of Ad Hominem assaults rather than staying on the point.  I posted an exhortation and got some divergent responses.  So, I though I’d try to be clearer and see what happens.  Tell me what you think!

Thanks,

Fred Lybrand

…………………………………………..

Thank you both for your comments…I totally understand them. As a pastor for 23 years your divergent responses work just about like a sermon does. A sermon is preached to a large group…and every time (virtually) people hear different things. Not long ago I gave a sermon about how I felt there was a spirit of conceit in our church (focusing on Gal 6:3 as the cure). Well, I don’t think I’ve ever had such a divergent set of responses. People were writing the elders and me / wanting meetings, etc….and saying two things:

1. You should be banned from the pulpit because you’re wrong, we aren’t conceited, we are wonderful.

2. You are awesome…the first pastor I’ve ever seen willing to actually tell the truth. It is a disease in our church and you helped set a cure in motion.

The point is I both (a) know of specific examples; and (b) have all of us in mind.

You two are a perfect illustration. I have one hopeful and one in tears (finally). Wow. My hope is that you would both be hopeful and in tears!

J, my post is not a ‘mediation’ or effort at mediating. If I wanted to do that I would get the parties together.

G, though you are encouraged by the message, I hope you weren’t excluding yourself from the point.

……………..

I’m somewhat new to this community chatting through blogs, but I can tell you all the cure for the frustration and vitriol. The cure is to get off of each other. Get on to the point. Think, debate, look at the text, use logic, use a helpful illustration, stay on the issue.

Maybe the ‘other guys ARE evil’ (I’m sure some of them are)…but why are we all busy putting ourselves in the place of God in judging (see Rom 14 and James 5)?

I say it this way sometimes— If a bum on the street comes up to you and tells you your tie doesn’t match (or your shoes), you can ignore him because he is a bum. However, just because he is a bum, why does that mean he’s wrong?

I sit in this strange spot of not only not knowing how evil the the “other side is”, but I’ve also been ground fine by the Lord. I still think people are in great error (and yes, my blood can boil). But God has said the issue is especially the doctrine, teaching, logic, opinions, theories, hypotheticals, and facts themselves.

So, what you have rather than a ‘mediation’ is an exhortation. PLEASE, how about giving OCTOBER over to be the NATIONAL AD VERITAS blogging month. We take one month and we blog about information and not about people. It’s a bit of an experiment—what might happen?

Frankly, maybe Jim is a heretic…frankly I don’t know yet :-0! But I know I’d really like to just understand where he is coming from…and then try to invited him to reconsider a few things if necessary.

I can always attack him as a heretic and smear him all over the known world later.

You know, I had the same thing happen with my Open Letter about Zane.

http://docyouments.googlepages.com/GESGospel.LybrandOpenLetter.04-14-09.pdf

I had people say I was mean and others say I bent over backwards to be gracious. What I was really trying to do is understand and analyze the facts adn the text. I came to conclusions and I offered them; and yet, to this day, I have had no one even attempt to help me reconsider my key arguments…I just saw a lot of ’sound and fury’.

I think we Christians are kind of copying the news media— like we wake up every day and we are on Crossfire or Nancy Grace. Of course, we could have gotten it from Martin Luther and his attacks on the Pope as the Anti-Christ. We spout a lot of opinion, and pardon me, a lot of vitriol.

If we need to call out individuals for their error then I get it (Paul certainly did on occasion); however, I’d plead that we stay on the argument and make use of reason and insight about the text…that is where things are won or lost.

So, there’s my exhortation. It is for me mostly…and if it splashes and you pick up the cause and give it a try…then I guess it might have been for you too!

Grace and Peace,

Fred Lybrand