Biblically Speaking

Can I be a Calvinist and be Free Grace?

17 Comments

CLICK FOR A .PDF COPY OF THIS ARTICLE

Can I be a Calvinist

and be

Free Grace?

-Dr. Fred R. Lybrand

Honestly, I get this question a lot. Most Arminians aren’t in our conversations among Free Grace advocates because of their conviction that one can lose his eternal life. Calvinists do affirm the security of the believer, so we are in the same basic conversation. In my book Back to Faith I take Calvinism to task, but only a bit. The confusion around Perseverance (is it that we persevere in works, persevere in faith, or that God perseveres in keeping us safely His children forever?) is the big issue I think some forms of Calvinism fumble over. On the other hand, there is a great debt of gratitude owed to Calvin and the Reformers in my own understanding and tradition.   Am I Free Grace and a Calvinist?

What Makes one a Calvinist?

What really makes one a ‘Calvinist’? I don’t think we’ve done a fair job defining this among ourselves, and as a result we have some of our number at times condemning all things Calvin. Most of the time we say being a Calvinist is all about the ‘5 Points’. In particular the notion is almost ubiquitous that if you believe in one point, then you must believe in all five points because it is a ‘system’—so the argument goes. I don’t believe it is a system, nor do I believe that one must accept all five points (even logically)…I’ll prove it in a minute. Indeed, if I had to be labeled, I’d request that you consider me a 1.5 Arminian!

The following chart is from the Moody Handbook of Theology (p. 490). It involves a little more than the 5 Points, but gets the issue in focus.

CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM CONTRASTED

Doctrine Arminianism Calvinism

Depravity

As a result of the Fall, man has inherited a corrupted nature. Prevenient grace has removed the guilt and condemnation of Adam’s sin.

As a result of the Fall, man is totally depraved and dead in sin; he is unable to save himself. Because he is dead in sin, God must initiate salvation.

Imputation of Sin

God did not impute to the entire human race through Adam’s sin, but all people inherit a corrupt nature as a result of Adam’s fall.

Through Adam’s transgression, sin was imputed—passed to the entire race so that all people are born in sin.

Election

God elected those whom He knew would believe of their own free will. Election is conditional, based on man’s response in faith.

God unconditionally, from eternity past, elected some to be saved. Election is not based on man’s future response.

Atonement

of Christ

Christ died for the entire human race, making all mankind saveable. His death is effective only in those who believe.

God determined that Christ would die for all those whom God elected. Since Christ did not die for everyone but only for those who were elected to be saved, His death is completely successful.

Grace

Through prevenient or preparatory grace, which is given to all people, man is able to cooperate with God and respond to Him in salvation. Prevenient grace reverses the effects of Adam’s sin.

Common grace is extended to all mankind but is insufficient to save anyone. Through irresistible grace God drew to Himself those whom He had elected, making them willing to respond.

Will of Man

Prevenient grace is given to all people and is exercised on the entire person, giving man a free will.

Depravity extends to all of man, including his will. Without irresistible grace man’s will remains bound, unable to respond to God on its own ability.

Perseverance

Believers may turn from grace and lose their salvation.

Believers will persevere in the faith. Believers are secure in their salvation; none will be lost.

Sovereignty

of God

God limits His control in accordance with man’s freedom and response. His decrees are related to His foreknowledge of what man’s response will be.

God’s sovereignty is absolute and unconditional. He has determined all things according to the good pleasure of His will. His foreknowledge originates in advanced planning, not in advanced information.

There is a good bit of discussion out there about the ‘perseverance point’—whether it is about persevering in good works, persevering in faith (as the Moody Handbook claims), or God persevering in keeping one saved (preservation of the saints). How many of us have read the Canons of Dort of late? I have read the Canons of Dort over and over recently, and I can tell you that:

      1. All three types of ‘perseverance’ are mentioned in the Canons of Dort
      2. The focus of the point concerning perseverance IS the eternal security of the believer (and his assurance).

I know this all sounds a little stuffy and theological, but George Bernard Shaw weighs in here for us:

No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means.

The Bible is what matters not any particular theological system. Theological systems are great when they match the Word because they help us make sense, remember, and expand what we observe. But, why is Dort the definition of Calvinism? Personally, I think it just turns out to be a rhetorical stronghold.

Here are a few facts to consider:

      1. The Canons of Dort was a RESPONSE to the Five Articles of the Remonstrance
      2. It was a localized debate in Holland (hence TULIP ?)
      3. It was authored 55 years after Calvin’s death
      4. There are other statements like Heidelberg and Westminster, and many other variations of Calvinism (please read Spurgeon & Hyper-Calvinism by Iain H. Murray).

What is a Calvinist? In the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (ed. Walter Elwell), Calvinism is defined by the three tenants of

      • Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone)
      • Soli Deo gloria (God’s glory alone)
      • Sola fidei (Faith alone)

The EDT article goes on to admit the variation and development of theological thought in Calvinism. It is clearly the Reformed faith, but Covenant-Reformed like Covenant-Calvinism, is a branch or variation of Calvinism. In our day, a few popular leaders have taken the rhetorical road of claiming that they alone are the true Calvinists…and…if you ain’t a 5 Pointer, you ain’t a real Calvinist (B.B. Warfield would call non-5 pointers ‘bad’ Calvinists; others would call them ‘inconsistent’ Calvinists).

So why all the fuss? The reason is pretty simple— Free Grace folks have gotten immersed in the frayed rhetoric. The concern is that we can inadvertently come across as ‘banishing’ those who belong with us. The fears we have are not based on the real nature of things. Yes, you can be a Calvinist and be a Free Grace advocate (I think I’m one)! As to being a semi-Arminian or 5-Point-Covenant-Reformed person and being Free Grace, well that’s a different article. If you are a Hyper-Calvinist or a Hyper-Arminian, then you won’t want to join with us.

It is the Covenant of the FGA that guides our membership. Quite frankly (as Dr. Zuck wrote me) it is a very well-crafted statement of our basic view. There is nothing in it that excludes a person who has Calvinistic convictions.

How to Kill the Argument

I’d like to finally kill the argument — ‘if you buy one point you must buy all 5’ — that seems to be accepted as a given in many circles. I could walk through the logic of it and display why the nature of the atonement and eternal security are not necessarily what follows from the other points; but I can do something better. I can show you how almost no Free Grace person really believes that the 5 Points of Calvinism lead to the misunderstanding of Lordship Salvation. That is actually the real issue. I’ll lay it out in a sequence:

      1. If the 5 points of Calvinism (Canons of Dort) are a system and must be believed together
      2. Then the 5 points of Arminianism (Remonstrance) are a system and must be believed together as well. This is particularly true because the Canons of Dort was developed as a REACTION TO the Remonstrance.
      3. So, if one believes one point of Arminiansim, then he must believe all 5 points.
      4. Many Free Grace advocates affirm Unlimited Atonement (Christ died for all and not just for the elect)
      5. Therefore, they (#4) must also believe in falling from grace (losing one’s salvation / eternal life) as one of the points of Arminianism.

Said differently, I know lots of Free Grace folks who believe in Unlimited Atonement AND who believe in eternal security. They are, in effect, 1 Point Arminians (at least). The claimed logical connection is bogus. All systems are ‘logical’—but there are additional aspects to logic, such as the issue of whether or not a premise is true or whether the chain of logic really follows.

Of course you can be a Calvinist and be Free Grace, but certain kinds of Calvinists are definitely not Free grace. Of course you can be basically Arminian and be Free Grace (but you must reject the idea of ‘losing your salvation’).

Our views and our systems are always struggling—we are trying to answer the most questions while raising the fewest problems. To be Free Grace, the issue isn’t about our theological systems as much as it is THE GOSPEL. Some systems make keeping the gospel clear an easy thing, while others make it quite a challenge.

Here is the basic FGA Covenant…which isn’t about Calvin or Arminius, but rather it is about the word of grace:

As members of the Evangelical Tradition, we affirm the Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the inspired Word of God and is therefore inerrant in the autographs. Furthermore, God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory. As members of this tradition, we are concerned about the clear understanding, presentation, and advancement of the Gospel of God’s Free Grace.

We affirm the following:

  1. The Grace of God in justification is an unconditional free gift.
  2. The sole means of receiving the free gift of eternal life is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, whose substitutionary death on the cross fully satisfied the requirement for our justification.
  3. Faith is a personal response, apart from our works, whereby we are persuaded that the finished work of Jesus Christ has delivered us from condemnation and guaranteed our eternal life.
  4. Justification is the act of God to declare us righteous when we believe in Jesus Christ alone.
  5. Assurance of justification is the birthright of every believer from the moment of faith in Jesus Christ, and is founded upon the testimony of God in His written Word.
  6. Spiritual growth, which is distinct from justification, is God’s expectation for every believer; this growth, however, is not necessarily manifested uniformly in every believer.
  7. The Gospel of Grace should always be presented with such clarity and simplicity that no impression is left that justification requires any step, response, or action in addition to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

FGA Covenant:

In agreement with these affirmations, we covenant to work together graciously and enthusiastically to advance this Gospel of Grace, and to communicate with a positive and gracious tone toward all others, both inside and outside the Free Grace Alliance.

As an added point, John Nelson Darby, the ‘father’ of dispensational theology was a proponent of many Calvanistic beliefs…

Darby defended Calvinist doctrines when they came under attack from within the Church in which he once served. His biographer Goddard states, “Darby indicates his approval of the doctrine of the Anglican Church as expressed in Article XVII of the Thirty-Nine Articles” on the subject of election and predestination. Darby said:

“For my own part, I soberly think Article XVII to be as wise, perhaps I might say the wisest and best condensed human statement of the view it contains that I am acquainted with. I am fully content to take it in its literal and grammatical sense. I believe that predestination to life is the eternal purpose of God, by which, before the foundations of the world were laid, He firmly decreed, by His counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and destruction those whom He had chosen in Christ out of the human race, and to bring them, through Christ, as vessels made to honour, to eternal salvation.” [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Nelson_Darby]

Millard J. Erickson in his Christian Theology (Volume II, p. 835), as he analyzes the extent of the Atonement, weighs in on the reality of Calvinism subject to modification (or moderation)—

The view that we are adopting here should not be construed as Arminianism. It is rather the most moderate form of Calvinism or; as some would term it, a modification of Calvinism.

Let’s keep perspective and united with all who affirm faith alone in Christ alone according to our FGA Covenant as a reflection of God’s Word. Can you be a Calvinist and be Free Grace? Of course, but labels often complicate the conversation. Yet, denying one’s clear Arminian or Calvinistic bent tends to confuse things all the more; no matter our wish, much of the conversation has been had for eons and we remain in the flow of it.

Pick your label or deny your label; but do you affirm faith alone in Christ alone—communicating this alone? Then join us in the good fight.

Grace and Truth,

Fred Lybrand

Former FGA President (2008/2009)

www.fredlybrand.org

www.backtofaith.com

CLICK FOR A .PDF COPY OF THIS ARTICLE

[tweetmeme source=”fredlybrand” only_single=false]

Biblically Speaking

What is the Most Misused Verse in the Bible?

2 Comments

MY PICK FOR THE MOST MISUSED VERSE IN THE BIBLE: “As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he.” (Proverbs 23:7) -King James Version

Someone gave me a copy of John Eldredge’s “Waking the Dead”–which I must say, I actually find a likable volume.  However,  on page 45  he makes a double-stumble:

“Thus, the writer of Proverbs preempts Freud by about two thousand years when he states, “As [a man] thinketh in his heart, so is he…”

Never mind how debunked Freud has been by those thoughtful and good researchers in ‘psychology’, but the casual mention of the verse has become all-but-cliched in our day and age.  In using my research software I found the phrase mentioned in 29 separate articles…all ‘positive’ in the mention.

Here’s the idea: you think…you do.  In fact, it is a little worse than that— you do BECAUSE you think.  More generally it is said that, “You will eventually become what you think.”  Not to ruin it for you…but, what if you think like what you’ve become instead?

I would be the last one to say that our thoughts don’t influence our actions, but to say all action is caused by ‘thought’ is bordering on the absurd.  Think about it…don’t we say that we ‘loose our mind’ when we do inane things?  Don’t we look at teens and say, “You weren’t thinking?”  It is not that thinking doesn’t influence is, but rather, it is that there are other sources of input in our actions (think about such things as emotions, temptations, the flesh, duress, others, low blood sugar, drugs, etc.).

No less than Packer and Ferguson misuse the verse too:

These twin doctrines are characteristic of all oriental mysticism, especially in the Indo-Aryan world. The law of Karma is simply the law of causality applied rigorously in the moral and conceptual realm as well as the physical. ‘As a man thinketh, so is he’ is an example of this law as it works in the realm of thought and moral intent.
Ferguson, S. B., & Packer, J. (2000). New dictionary of theology (electronic ed.) (303). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

So, now causality, karma, and ‘as a man thinketh’ are all linked together under the banner of truth [pardon my agitation].

Here’s the trick (before we look at the verse): IF THIS IS TRUE, THEN THERE CAN BE NO HYPOCRITES

Hypocrites act one way and think another.  I supposed one could pitch the idea that they are acting consistently with their thinking by being deceptive.  However, the plain truth here is that one can act (or not act) in a way that is inconsistent with his own thinking.  James 2 is eloquent on this point, though it is often misunderstood as related to one’s eternal salvation (for an alternative explanation of James 2 as having to do with spiritual growth not spiritual re-birth, see my book at www.backtofaith.com).

Of course, all we need to do is figure out what the verse actually is talking about:

ESV | Pr 23:6 Do not eat the bread of a man who is stingy; do not desire his delicacies, 7  for he is like one who is inwardly calculating. “Eat and drink!” he says to you, but his heart is not with you.
NCV | Pr 23:6 Don’t eat the food of selfish people; don’t be greedy for their fine foods. 7  Selfish people are always worrying about how much the food costs. They tell you, “Eat and drink,” but they don’t really mean it.
NLT | Pr 23:6 Don’t eat with people who are stingy; don’t desire their delicacies. 7  They are always thinking about how much it costs. “Eat and drink,” they say, but they don’t mean it.
NKJV | Pr 23:6 Do not eat the bread of a miser, Nor desire his delicacies; 7  For as he thinks in his heart, so is he. “Eat and drink!” he says to you, But his heart is not with you.

It should be easy enough to see what’s up with these versions of the famous phrase.  In fact, unless the KJV and the NKJV translated it in the now popular way, then it would never have made it into our christian/western folklore.  All we have here is a hypocrite, a stingy person.  He THINKS one way, but ACTS another.  The verse itself is a counter-example of the point the ‘man thinketh’ theory asserts.

The truth is that you can think and act, think and not act, not think and act, and not think and not act…on some particular point.  All of these options float around out there in the real world.

If I were a betting man, I’d say: IT’S HARD TO THINK STRAIGHT AND WALK CROOKED.

But I would never dare to reduce the amazing nature of the human spirit to something so incomplete, and something not taught in the verse that claims it.

“But Fred,” someone might say, “It’s still true.”

“OK,” I’d respond, “Then why not use the verse that really teaches it?” [Philippians 4:8 is a good choice…except 4:9 shows ‘doing’ is a separate step].

The first danger is in misusing scripture to support a theory we’ve come to love.  The second danger is in not appreciating how important choosing action to match our thinking really is in our growth.

Here’s how I’d finally say it:

Hypocrisy: Thinking one way and doing something else

Integrity: Thinking one way and doing that which matches the thought

We really don’t believe the ‘as a man thinketh’ theory because we truly admire integrity.  Integrity turns out to be special because our actions don’t necessarily match our thinking.  “Wow,” we say, “There walks a person who really lives what he believes (thinks)!”

Sounds like Jesus when He said of Nathanael,

“Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no deceit!” (John 1:47)

God bless,

Fred Lybrand

P.S.  The reason this is so important is because the importance of taking action is easily ignored if one buys into the ‘as a man thinketh’ theory.

Biblically Speaking

John Piper’s Leave of Absence — Is It the Logical Result of His Theology?

9 Comments

First, allow me to share my own empathy for John Piper and the struggles he alludes to (see: http://bit.ly/aTDmGg) as he takes a leave of absence from the ministry (altogether, including writing).

Having just recently retired from the pastorate, I know the strain on the soul and the family.  I suppose I should add a lecture on how abusive most churches are of the pastor’s time, life, and energies…perhaps another day.

In the meantime, I want to offer a possibility for our own lives.  Last year I released a book called Back to Faith, which explores and analyzes the mistaken assumptions about works proving faith.  John Piper’s writings were my example; in fact, an entire chapter was dedicated to him alone.  I also must add here (and you’ll see it if you get a copy of Back to Faith) that I affirm John Piper’s accuracy on the gospel…he clearly affirms faith alone in Christ alone.  On the other hand, he has an incongruity in play.

In the straightest of terms, John Piper believes that we can look at our works (or those of other people) and conclude something about our faith in Christ for our destiny.

If that is true…then fine…except, what if your works don’t match up?  In Piper’s thinking it should call your salvation into question.  Now, that seem quite despair-growing.  So, here is John Piper (in a classy and self-effacing way) looking at his faltering works and feeling grieved.  The grief, however, is much more than sadness…if Piper is true to his theology, he can’t really be sure about his eternal salvation.  Wouldn’t you need a leave of absence if you were haunted about your eternal destiny, and served as a pastor in a church?  It would be easy to misunderstand me here and think I’m psycho-analyzing John Piper; I am not at all.  I am saying, however, that one piece of his theology really does exactly match the nature of his open admissions and struggles over the past year or two.

Here are a few quotes of his from What Jesus Demands from the World [I discuss this in Back to Faith].

Sometimes I am asked whether my understanding
of Jesus implies that divorce is the unforgivable sin.
The answer is no. Jesus said that his blood will be
the basis for the forgiveness of all sins…
From these wonderful promises we learn
that forgiveness of sins is available on the basis of
the shed blood of Jesus. Forgiveness is available
for all sins, without exception. Forgiveness is
received freely through trusting Jesus to forgive our
sins. (What Jesus Demands from the World, 68)

So clearly Piper gets the importance of looking at the shed blood of Christ, which is awesome.

The only unforgivable sin is the sin that we refuse
to confess and forsake. We commit unforgivable
sin when we cleave to a sin so long and so
tenaciously that we can no longer confess it as sin
and turn from it. (What Jesus Demands from the World, 69)

Now, we are seeing a misstep here.  The tendency with this incongruent piece of theology (works prove saving faith), all we can do is see our sin as unforgivable if it keeps showing up (even on occasion)…and if unforgivable, then you remain unforgiven.  Piper knows it’s a problem because he addresses it on occasion.  The issue will always come back to whether we are looking at Jesus or looking at our works.

Here’s a full statement from Back to Faith (Piper is in bold),

In fairness to Piper, he would completely deny the
incongruence, though he seems to realize others are concerned
about it

Some readers will see this stress on the necessity of
a change in obedience to Christ as ‘justification by
works.’ But that would be a misinterpretation of
what I am saying. That is why I wrote chapter 4
and put it near the front of this book,

“Brothers, Live and Preach Justification by Faith.” Obedience
is the evidence of faith that alone unites us to Christ
who is our justifying righteousness. Nothing I have
said here contradicts that truth.


Making the claim that one is misinterpreted is different from being
misinterpreted. It does not seem to have dawned on Piper that he
really may be communicating something scarily similar to
“justification by works” when he claims “obedience is the
evidence of faith…” It seems his theme is that one can tell true
faith (salvation) in an individual because of obedience, but Piper
again displays his incongruity,


It does imply that one can be called a ‘brother’ on
the basis of appearances but in the end prove not to
be a brother because of failing to persevere in the
end. (Back to Faith, 219)

I wouldn’t label John Piper’s theology as evil or bad, but it does have a harmful incongruency that haunts all Hyper-Calvinists (not all Calvinists).

If your works prove you have faith,

and your works are inconsistent or weak,

then…you MAY NOT (probably don’t) have faith.

I don’t know the intricacies of John Piper’s life and issues.  I’ll pray for his leave of absence.  I do know that if I look at my works, I lose assurance…and…when I look at Christ alone I am greatly assured.   What else can you do with something so wonderfully clear?


Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. (Romans 5:1–2) ESV

Fred Lybrand

P.S. Yes, I sent John a copy of Back to Faith (which he graciously had acknowledged to me).

Listen to a more detailed explanation of some of these matters at: https://www.backtofaith.com/LISTEN.html

[tweetmeme source=”fredlybrand” only_single=false]

Biblically Speaking

The Great Mistake: Thinking Christ’s Kingdom is Here Now (A Dialogue)…part 2

Leave a comment 

The following is from a friend of mine, we'll call him BP.
He was responding to my previous post on The Great Mistake
I thought this would be of interest because he does well articulate the view I don't hold to!
What you see is his letter (Italics) to me punctuated with my responses / thoughts (Bold).  I'm publishing this with his permission.

…………………………………………………………………

Hey BP…as always good to hear from you!

On 3/22/2010 7:25 PM, BP wrote:   >  Read your blog on kingdom. Those 3 uses of kingdom in John are a >  problem, aren’t they?

I DON’T SEE WHY THEY’D BE A ‘PROBLEM’…ENTERING THE KINGDOM, SEEING THE KINGDOM, AND MY KINGDOM IS NOT OF THIS WORLD— THEY ALL FIT A FUTURE COMING KINGDOM IN WHICH THE LORD REIGNS ON EARTH.  WHY DO YOU THINK THEY ARE A PROBLEM? WHEN ONE IS BORN AGAIN IT DOESN’T HAVE TO MEAN THEY THEN SEE AND ENTER THE KINGDOM RIGHT THEN DOES IT?  AND, HIS KINGDOM (FUTURE ESPECIALLY) IS DEFINITELY NOT OF THIS WORLD.

What do you think the meaning of the kingdom >  of god is at hand means?  I like Willard’s definition of rural America >  when electricity became available.  He says, “Electricity is at >  hand!”. It is here. It is available.

YOU AND I BOTH KNOW THAT RURAL ENGLISH AND THE GREEK ARE NOT QUITE THE SAME.  IN THE NEW TESTAMENT ‘AT HAND’ CLEARLY MEANS ‘NEAR’ OR ‘CLOSE’. IF DALLAS IS SAYING THAT IT MEANS IT IS ‘HERE’, THEN (WITH ALL DUE RESPECT) HE MIGHT NEED TO GO BACK AND RECONSIDER THE LEXICONS AND THE CONTEXTS OF THE PASSAGES. HERE ARE SOME EXAMPLES:

He said, “Go into the city to a certain man and say to him, ‘The Teacher says, My time is at hand. I will keep the Passover at your house with my disciples.’ ” 19 And the disciples did as Jesus had directed them, and they prepared the Passover.(Mt 26:18–19).

You also, be patient. Establish your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is at hand.(Jas 5:8). The end of all things is at hand; therefore be self-controlled and sober-minded for the sake of your prayers. ESV (1 Pe 4:7).

HIS TIME WASN’T ‘HERE’ NOR IS HIS COMING ‘HERE’ NOR IS THE END OF ALL THINGS ‘HERE’—THEY ARE NEAR, BUT NOT HERE.  WHEN CHRIST SHOWED UP AS THE KING-TO-BE…HE OFFERED THE KINGDOM (LEGITIMATELY).  IT WAS NEAR, IT WAS OFFERED…BUT IT DIDN’T MAKE IT (HENCE ACTS 1…IS IT AT THIS TIME THAT YOU WILL RESTORE THE KINGDOM TO ISRAEL?)  DEFINITELY OLD TESTAMENT INFORMATION.

Check out what Paul was >  preaching in Acts 28:31. Kingdom is not heaven.

I SURE AGREE, NEVER HAVE THOUGHT IT WAS HEAVEN…BUT EARTHLY MILLENNIAL…AND FUTURE.  LUKE’S VIEW OF THE KINGDOM IS CLEARLY FUTURE AND EARTHLY (FOR ISRAEL) IN ACTS…SEE ACTS 1 AND 14 AS I MENTION IN THE BLOG.

Kingdom is rooted in >  Old Testament theology. AMEN…ROOTED IN OT THEOLOGY AS IT CONCERNS ISRAEL PRIMARILY AND CENTRALLY. You should read McClaren’s Secret Message of >  Jesus. Fred, partial fulfillment is all throughout the Bible. Even new >  covenant promise found in Jeremiah 31:31-33 is not completely >  fulfilled. Joel prophecy of Holy Spirit not completely, fully >  fulfilled.

ABSOLUTELY THERE CAN BE PARTIAL FULFILLMENTS OF THINGS…AND IF IT APPLIES TO THE KINGDOM, THEN THAT IS FINE (A DIFFERENT DEBATE).  MY POINT IS THAT FOLKS ARE NOT ACTUALLY TALKING IN THESE TERMS…THEY ARE TALKING IN THE INCONGRUENT ALREADY/NOT YET LINGO.  IF YOU THINK THE KINGDOM IS PARTLY HERE THEN SAY THAT…BUT DON’T SAY THE KINGDOM IS HERE (IT IS MISLEADING).  WHY NOT SAY THE KINGDOM IS PARTIALLY/FULLY (EXCEPT IT WON’T MAKE SENSE)?  I GUESS IT COULD BE PARTIALLY / NOT PARTIALLY…NO, STILL DOESN’T MAKE SENSE.  OH, HOW ABOUT ALREADY / NOT YET?  🙂 JUST STAY THE KINGDOM IS PARTIALLY HERE, BUT NOT FULLY HERE…THEN I’LL BE HAPPIER 🙂 🙂 🙂 IT IS LIKE SAYING CHRIST HAS RETURNED BUT HE HASN’T RETURNED…WELL, ‘YES’…BUT BE CLEAR ABOUT WHAT KIND OF RETURN YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT.  I ESPECIALLY MEAN THIS AS IT CONCERNS THE THE PASSAGE ONE IS EXPOSITING IN THE MOMENT.  TAKING A THEOLOGICAL IDEA AN IMPOSING IT ON THE PASSAGE IS A BIG NO NO THAT IS HAPPENING ALL THE TIME. IF A VERSE TALKS ABOUT HIS RETURN, BE CLEAR ON WHICH ONE IS IN VIEW.  IF A VERSE TALKS ABOUT THE KINGDOM, BE SURE WHICH ASPECT (IN YOUR OWN VIEW) THE TEXT ITSELF IS REFERENCING.

I think it is possible to have aspects of the kingdom in >  play but the completion to take place in full in the future. OK, MAYBE…WHERE IS THE VERSE WHERE THIS IS HAPPENING? Just some >  food for thought. I believe Jesus’ message was the gospel of the kingdom >   which includes forgiveness of sins but is much broader including >  political and social change.  check out Luke 1:52-53 >  Check out Luke 4:18-19. We often skip over these very important >  verses.

YOUR GOING TO HAVE TO HELP ME ON THESE VERSES (I DON’T SEE POLITICAL AND SOCIAL CHANGE IN THEM).  ALSO, WHY CAN THE POLITICAL PARTS BE FULFILLED IN THE EARTHLY KINGDOM (FUTURE)? LUKE 13:1-5 SEEMS TO ARGUE THAT JESUS WASN’T CONCERNED ABOUT SOCIAL INJUSTICE COMPARED TO THE SPIRITUAL FUTURE OF INDIVIDUALS.

Seems like your argument about Kingdom is all or nothing. It >  is either fully present or not present at all.

YOU ARE RIGHT…EXCEPT I SEE IT AS AN ISSUE THAT MUST BE DISCUSSED ONE VERSE AT A TIME.  OF COURSE, I DO THINK MATTHEW IS REFERRING TO THE FUTURE KINGDOM THE WHOLE WAY THROUGH (I’M NOT COMMENTING ON OTHER AUTHORS HERE). I AM SAYING THE KINGDOM IS EITHER HERE OR IT IS NOT…OR…I’M SAYING YOU SHOULD SAY SOME ASPECT IS PRESENT OR NOT.  TO SAY AN ASPECT OF THE KINGDOM BEING PRESENT IS THE SAME AS THE KINGDOM BEING PRESENT FOULS UP OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE WORD (ESPECIALLY SPECIFIC PASSAGES). FURTHER, I’D SAY I LOSE NOTHING IF THE KINGDOM IS ENTIRELY FUTURE…MY LIFE, WALK, AND INTERPRETATIONS MAKE PLENTY OF SENSE.  BUT IF I THINK THE KINGDOM IS HERE NOW, I’M GOING TO WIND UP A BIT GOOFY ON SOME PASSAGES (WHY PRAY FOR THE KINGDOM TO COME IF IT IS HERE?), AND I’M GOING TO NEED TO BECOME POST-MIL AND BRING THE KINGDOM IN. I DO NOT BELIEVE THE EARTHLY KINGDOM IS HERE.  IF WE SAY THE KINGDOM (SPIRITUAL) IS HERE BUT THE KINGDOM (EARTHLY) IS COMING, THEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. THAT IS MY CONCERN…IT IS AN EXERCISE IN EQUIVOCATION (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation).  THE EARTHLY KINGDOM IS NOT ALREADY.  I’M GUESSING YOU’D SAY THE SPIRITUAL KINGDOM IS NOT ‘NOT YET’ TOO.

I think Matthew 6 has it >  in the right order kingdom comes and God’s will gets done, but it is >  not complete like new covenant, outpouring of Holy Spirit.

SO, WHY DID JESUS INSTRUCT THE PEOPLE TO PRAY FOR THE KINGDOM TO COME IF IT WAS ALREADY THERE? IF IT HADN’T COME YET (BUT IS HERE NOW), THEN WHEN EXACTLY DID THE KINGDOM THAT IS HERE NOW COME? THANKS (I’M STARTING TO GET CONVINCED about my view! 😉

FRED —

………………………………………………………………….

BP’s Response:

Feel free to post it.  I think your understanding of the kingdom leads exactly to the kind of separation of social and political from the spiritual.   Both Mary and Zechariah saw the gospel in terms of rich/poor, social upheaval and change.   Luke 4:18-19 is about Jesus and his fulfillment of this Isaiah passage which involves poor, oppression etc.   What I mean by rooted in Old Testament is that Kingdom involved social, political and not just spiritual.   If you make kingdom all about the future, then I think you miss the gospel that Paul was preaching in Acts 28:31.  I don’t think he is preaching a future gospel.  He is preaching a now gospel.   I believe the kingdom exists whenever and where ever the reign and rule of God exists.    Jesus had us to pray for the kingdom to come because the gospel is about the reign and rule of God right now, not just in the future.   Don’t see how your argument about the order of Matthew 6 affects meaning at all.   Kingdom comes and the will of God gets done.  That’s what God wants to happen right now.   Will it happen completely –no.   The completion of this prayer will take place in the future in Israel.   You didn’t respond to the paritial nature of new covenant, Holy Spirit.    Love that you are wrestling with key issues and sourcing your arguments from the Word.

Sincerely,

BP

…………………………………………………………….

Fred Lybrand Response:

BP,

I agree…thanks for the wrestling!

First, I did respond to the partial nature of the new covenant, etc.  Here’s what I said,

ABSOLUTELY THERE CAN BE PARTIAL FULFILLMENTS OF THINGS...AND IF IT APPLIES TO THE KINGDOM, THEN THAT IS FINE (A DIFFERENT DEBATE).  MY POINT IS THAT
FOLKS ARE NOT ACTUALLY TALKING IN THESE TERMS...THEY ARE TALKING IN THE INCONGRUENT ALREADY/NOT YET LINGO.  IF YOU THINK THE KINGDOM IS PARTLY HERE
THEN SAY THAT...BUT DON'T SAY THE KINGDOM IS HERE (IT IS MISLEADING).  WHY NOT SAY THE KINGDOM IS PARTIALLY/FULLY (EXCEPT IT WON'T MAKE SENSE)?  I GUESS IT COULD BE
PARTIALLY / NOT PARTIALLY...NO, STILL DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.  OH, HOW ABOUT ALREADY / NOT YET?  :-

Second, I really don’t understand what you think Acts 28:31 definitively says about the gospel Paul preached.  Here’s the Bible Knowledge Commentary…which fits my point nicely, I think.  There is nothing in the verse that tells us what God’s Kingdom is according to Paul…but Acts 1 sure tells us (it is a Kingdom for Israel).  I honestly see that you believe these things, but I don’t see scripture that supports it…nor have I seen an explanation of the irrationality of the already / not yet (I really need to know what I’m missing on that one).  It isn’t a future gospel I believe, it is a now gospel that especially looks to the future (fear of death is gone (Hebrews 2), etc.).

28:30-31. These verses are Luke’s final “progress report” (cf. 2:47; 6:7; 9:31; 12:24; 16:5; 19:20). 
With freedom in his own rented quarters Paul … preached God’s kingdom.
This eschatological expression indicates not only that Jews and Gentiles alike are justified by faith but also that 
Gentiles with Jews will participate in the millennial kingdom (cf. comments on 28:23).
Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary. (1983-).
The Bible knowledge commentary : An exposition of the scriptures (Ac 28:30–31). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.

Third, what if it leads to a kind of separation of social and political from the spiritual?  Why is that a big deal?  So what?  Would you mind that distinction if God meant for it to be there?  Are you assuming that the social, political, and spiritual are joined…so it tempts you to look for ‘how’?  I don’t think it is a given, but I need scriptures not convictions :-).  Of course, I do think that this division you mention is correct for the church and her purposes, but not for the individual.  All of us can be involved in all manner of things by our calling…but when the social justice etc is made the call of the church…the church will die (I came out of Methodism and the social gospel, so I’ve already seen it happen).

The Matthew 6 issues especially concerns why Christ would be inviting them to ask for the kingdom to come if it is already there…but it also has in it the issue of ‘which kingdom’.  He didn’t invite them to pray for the kingdom to grow.  The order is significant because the working out of God’s will follows from the arrival of the kingdom…it isn’t a means to it (Post Mill…are you PostMill now?).  Of course, we both agree the kingdom needs to be defined from the text and not for the text.

If you believe “I believe the kingdom exists whenever and where ever the reign and rule of God exists”

Then when was the kingdom ever not on earth?  Why can’t there be a kingdom with rebels in it (God isn’t ruling them)?  When or where is God not ruling and reigning according to this view?  If I quit letting Him rule in my heart did His kingdom shrink?

Peace bro,

Fred

www.fredlybrand.org

5 Free Writing lessons

www.advanced-writing-resources.com

Biblically Speaking

The Great Mistake: Thinking Christ’s Kingdom is Here Now

9 Comments

I run into this often, and I find it really distorts our ability to read the Bible accurately.

Innocently, it is found in the phrase ‘already / not yet’… propagated, I’m sure, from Ladd’s The Presence of the Future.  Often we do this sort of thing for rhetorical reasons, and many do it to promote unity.  I mean, honestly, aren’t we all working together for ‘the kingdom’?  Isn’t it all about kingdom work?

I suppose the answer is ‘yes’; except that none of us seem to know what we mean be the word itself.

First, a little logic.  In Back to Faith (p. 15) I said,

Logic does not exceed the plain statements of Scripture;
however, the Scriptures cannot violate logic. The most
foundational principle in logic is the law of non-contradiction (also
called the law of contradiction).

Carl Henry underscores the importance of the law of non-contradiction:
Divine revelation involves intelligible sequences of information, not an incoherent and self-contradictory
chaos. The fact is that whatever violates the law of contradiction cannot be considered
revelation. The truth of revelation is not a series of unrelated and disconnected propositions like ‘Today I
love my wife.’ ‘The astronauts have returned.’ ‘The salmon are running.’ The God of biblical revelation
is the God of reason, not Ultimate Irrationality; all He does is rational.

Basically something cannot be both true and not true, A and -A, exist and not exist. The reason for this mention of the law of non-contradiction is that it has never applied so well as to the ‘already / not yet’.  The idea is that the kingdom is literally here in some sense, but is yet future in another sense.  Of course, the idea of ‘some sense’ has faded away.  Nowadays we say the kingdom is already and not yet as thought it is as well established as the fact that 1,006,201 angels can sit on the head of a pin (isn’t that right?).

So here’s the lesson in logic:

Both ALREADY and NOT YET are true

NOT YET = NOT ALREADY

(substitute equivalent terms)

both ALREADY and NOT ALREADY are true

In other words, people are saying that the kingdom is Already / Not Already.  Now, no one would say it  out in the open this way…but, in effect, it’s exactly what they’re saying!

The issue is equivocation; different meanings of ‘kingdom’ are in play at first, but then they are treated the same.

The verse most commonly quoted is

“The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, 21 nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is within you.” Luke 17:20b-21 NIV

Notice the rest of the verse in context,

Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, 21 nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is within you.” Luke 17:20-21 NIV

It is the Pharisees Christ is telling ‘the kingdom of God is within you’— who actually believes that the Pharisees possessed (or even belonged to) the kingdom?  Pretty much no one.

Most translations offer it correctly,

20 Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed, 21 nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.” ESV (Lk 17:20–21)

There in the presence of the King is the kingdom.  In the south we’d say, “If it were a snake it would’ve bit you!”

The kingdom is not within us, we are in it…or will be when it comes.

We belong to the kingdom as children of God, but we are currently aliens (Hebrews 13:14) and serve as ambassadors (2 Cor 5).  We are seeking to populate the kingdom on behalf of the coming king!  The kingdom simply is not here right now.  The earth is ruled by the Prince of the power of the air (Ephesians 2:2) who owns the kingdoms of this world (see Luke 4:5).

Our King is coming.

So, finally, there is one last argument often mentioned.  Some define the kingdom as wherever the king rules (so if He rules in your heart, then the kingdom is there).  This seems largely made up and doesn’t match the nature of kings or kingdoms (which actually often have rebellion in them).  The support is primarily from the Lord’s prayer,

10 Your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.  (Mt 6:10)

Notice the sequence is FIRST the kingdom comes, and SECOND His will is done.  The already/not yet advocates misread this passage as saying,

Your will be done,
your kingdom come
on earth as it is in heaven.  (Matt 6:10) ESV

HUH?  In fact, if it is already here, then why pray for the kingdom to come at all?

It really is simple.  The kingdom is not here now…and when you impose that assumption on a verse you are reading all will go awry.  The kingdom is coming and you’ve been sent ahead to proclaim it and gather it’s membership and well represent the king.

Here are a couple of final suggestions—

1.  At least ask each time you read a verse, please decide if it is referring to the future kingdom or a present one.

2.  Try reading Matthew with ‘future’ placed before ‘kingdom’…WOW will that particular book of the Bible make sense!

Just to nail it down, here are two irrefutable passages about the future of the kingdom:

3 He presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God.
4 And while staying with them he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me; 5 for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”
The Ascension
6 So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” 7 He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority. (Acts 1:3–7) ESV

21 When they had preached the gospel to that city and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch, 22 strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying that through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God. (Acts 14:21–22) ESV

God bless,

Fred Lybrand

P.S.  Ever noticed that the kingdom is only mentioned in a mere 3 verses in the Gospel of John?

The Faith that Saves is not Alone?