Get ready. I’m going to ramble for a while. š
When I was growing up one of the most
frequently debated subjects in youth group (yes, we had theological
discussions) was “eternal security.”
That’s what we called it. I don’t
hear that terminology much, which is fine.
It’s not specifically Biblical.
The Bible talks about “keeping” and “perseverance” and “endurance” and
other terms. What we were debating was
whether or not you could “lose your salvation.”
If not, then your position was, “once-saved-always-saved.” I didn’t care for that too much either,
although it was an accurate way to state what you believed if you believed in “eternal
security.” For me, the problem was that “o-s-a-s”
sounded like it doesn’t really matter how you live your life as a Christian; if
you were saved then you’re in regardless of how you live. And, of course, in the Bible it always
matters how you live your life.
Now why did this subject come up in youth
group? I think the answer was that our “community”
church was made up of a diverse collection of believers, many of whom had roots
in the dust bowl days of Oklahoma and Texas.
Many had Methodist background, which would be Wesleyan (you can lose
your salvation), and others were Baptist (they varied on the subject). I’m not sure I have it right, but my
understanding was that our church was a union of Presbyterian and Methodist
churches in the early 1900’s. That, in
itself, might call for disagreement on this very issue, if either group of
people cared that deeply about theology.
I just went on the web page for this church and found this in their
statement of beliefs. Note that they
still refer to the doctrine as “eternal security.”
Eternal Security of Believers
We believe that all the
redeemed, once saved, are kept by God's power and are thus secure in Christ
forever.
John 6:37-40; John 10:27-30; Romans
8:1; Romans 8:38-39 ; 1 Corinthians 1:4-8; 1 Peter 1:5
I would be interested as to when our church
adopted this position. I have a suspicion
it was not that way from the start. My
dad became the pastor of the church in 1953.
I couldn’t tell you the church’s official position at that time,
although I know my dad’s position.
For what it’s worth, as a young person I
became pretty convinced in what we always called the “Calvinist” view. Today I would not characterize it that
way. I would just say it’s the Biblical
view. But I would also like to say that
I learned, as a young person, that people who held the opposing view were some
of my spiritual heroes. They were godly
people! They cared as deeply as anyone
should about the integrity of Scripture.
That may explain why, when I entered pastoral ministry, I was able to be
the shepherd at churches that were of a “community” nature, by which I mean,
groups of people who varied on some doctrines that have split churches and
denominations over the years. We were
able to work together. The key was that
everyone believed the Scriptures to be “the final authority for faith and life,”
as church doctrinal statements often put it.
The pastor was expected to teach the Bible. If it was known to be a controversial topic
where there could be grace applied, then that’s the way he taught. He might even present two differing
viewpoints on a doctrine, and tell you why he thought one view was correct, and
then tell you how, Biblically, you could work with others who did not share
your view. We would be reminded, “Knowledge
puffs up, but love edifies” (1 Cor. 8:1).
And in the end, each church had a statement on “eternal security” much
like the one above. It was always a
wonderful thing, how many people were part of these churches, who disagreed on
what could be considered divisive issues, such as “security,” the gifts of the
Spirit, the extent of the atonement, and so on.
Yet, even if they disagreed with my teaching, they were there because, in
my view, they found a loving fellowship and a love for the word of God.
The first of these churches was in SE
Colorado. My ministry began as an “interim
pastor,” travelling 280 miles each way from Denver on the weekends, in my final
year of seminary. Then we spent an
additional 7 years there. What a
blessing! In the town of 1000 people
were two Baptist Churches (ours came out of the other; I always said, you have
to have at least 2 Baptist churches), a Methodist Church, Wesleyan Church,
Friends Church, and a Church of Christ.
A couple of my best friends were the young pastors at the Wesleyan and
Friends congregations. We disagreed on
this topic, yet had such a great fellowship.
At one point, a retired Wesleyan pastor and
his wife began attending our church.
Again, they appreciated the Bible teaching approach. The congregation loved them. They were, again, great testimonies of the
life of Christ at work in them. I asked
him to preach on a Sunday evening once while we were vacationing. When I returned, I found that he had decided
to preach contrary to our doctrinal statement on the subject. It kind of surprised me. Then, members of a small group they were part
of came to me, asking about the doctrine of “soul sleep” which this pastor had
apparently raised in the group. I
accepted their invitation to come to the group and share our understanding of
Scripture on that subject. And then the
time came when I was moved to work through this topic of “eternal security.” It was something I shared in a small setting,
with that retired man present. I
produced it in an outline form and, with only a few additional comments, that
is what I’m going to share over the next few posts.
I suspect there would be people, men in
pastoral ministry or seminary profs, who might say I should never have allowed
this couple to be a part of our church.
To this day I disagree. I was a
young pastor at the time and was learning how to shepherd the flock. I did value sound doctrine, but also
understood a couple of other things.
First, the presence of contrary teaching can provide an opportunity to
teach the truth. And second, in SE
Colorado, and in Montana where I have served for the last 40+ years, where
there are not a lot of people, there is value in working hard to love each
other in the Body of Christ and to work through these issues, rather than
making division the primary tool of dealing with doctrinal differences.
The Titus passage in today’s reading is
important. It tells us to avoid
certain discussions, things that don’t deserve to be fought over. And then it says to reject a divisive man
after the first and second admonition.
In between those two commands is a lot of space, where people are not
divisive but genuinely searching the Scriptures, on subjects of great
importance. We need to be in a
relationship of love with those folks, and not puffed up.
No comments:
Post a Comment