Obstacles to the More-Than-Enough Life
Too Little Too Late? • Sermon • Submitted • Presented
0 ratings
· 3 viewsAre current "gospels" keeping us from the abundant life Jesus comes to bring?
Notes
Transcript
In our last lesson, we attributed the world’s (and church’s) being more stressed and lightly flavored rather than blessed than highly flavored to the church having lost its oomph, its ability to be salt and light. The growing irrelevance of the church, except as a voting bloc, is especially puzzling in light of Jesus’ promise.
The thief comes only so that he can steal and kill and destroy; I have come so that they may have life, and have it abundantly.
We may call this the more-than-enough life. Surely with the dissatisfaction with life that is commonplace today, the lost world would flock to a place whose inhabitants exhibit such a life. The fact it is not is a ringing judgement that it does not see in us evidence of such a life. What is it that keeps the church, that keeps us from having such a life? Willard maintains that the “gospel” of both the right and the left are gospels of sin management that have little to do with everyday living. Is he right?
Here is how Willard summarizes the two “gospels.”
Here is how Willard summarizes the two “gospels.”
For the right, the issue is individual sin and the sole target of salvation is heaven and that salvation is achieved through mental assent to a set of theological propositions.
For the right, the issue is individual sin and the sole target of salvation is heaven and that salvation is achieved through mental assent to a set of theological propositions.
For the left, the issue is social evil and the goal of salvation is the eradication of those evils and that salvation is achieved through identification with the oppressed and marginalized.
For the left, the issue is social evil and the goal of salvation is the eradication of those evils and that salvation is achieved through identification with the oppressed and marginalized.
We’re going to examine each in more detail and see how each promotes/is an obstacle to the more-than-enough life.
There is the “gospel” on the right which Willard divides into two branches.
There is the “gospel” on the right which Willard divides into two branches.
After some research, some things I grew up with made sense.
After some research, some things I grew up with made sense.
I grew up hearing a distinction between accepting Jesus as Savior and receiving (submitting to) him as Lord.
I grew up hearing a distinction between accepting Jesus as Savior and receiving (submitting to) him as Lord.
In teaching this myself, I was actually teaching a version of two works of grace theology: justification followed by sanctification.
In teaching this myself, I was actually teaching a version of two works of grace theology: justification followed by sanctification.
While we had never heard the name, this idea is what is called Free Grace.
While we had never heard the name, this idea is what is called Free Grace.
For in this way God loved the world, so that he gave his one and only Son, in order that everyone who believes in him will not perish, but will have eternal life.
Free Grace interprets this passage and others like it to mean salvation (and heaven) is found through intellectual assent to a set of theological propositions.
Free Grace interprets this passage and others like it to mean salvation (and heaven) is found through intellectual assent to a set of theological propositions.
Most of us who were “saved” in Baptist churches are quite familiar with this approach.
Most of us who were “saved” in Baptist churches are quite familiar with this approach.
This doctrine holds to the idea in Ephesians 2.8-10 that we are saved by grace through faith and our works can have no place in the process.
This doctrine holds to the idea in Ephesians 2.8-10 that we are saved by grace through faith and our works can have no place in the process.
Surprisingly, repentance, commitment and surrender are considered works and are not necessary for salvation.
Surprisingly, repentance, commitment and surrender are considered works and are not necessary for salvation.
Therefore whoever abolishes one of the least of these commandments and teaches people to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever keeps them and teaches them, this person will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Free Grace-ers use a Pseudo_Chrysostom interpretation from around the 6th century to say that those who believe without obedience will be in the kingdom but will not reign with Christ.
Free Grace-ers use a Pseudo_Chrysostom interpretation from around the 6th century to say that those who believe without obedience will be in the kingdom but will not reign with Christ.
In its working out, a carnal Christian then is one who is “saved” but has no intention of forsaking sin or obeying Christ, not one who seems beset by sin despite his greatest desire to be otherwise.
In its working out, a carnal Christian then is one who is “saved” but has no intention of forsaking sin or obeying Christ, not one who seems beset by sin despite his greatest desire to be otherwise.
The second branch which either pre-dates or arose in opposition to Free Grace, depending on who you listen to, is called Lordship salvation.
The second branch which either pre-dates or arose in opposition to Free Grace, depending on who you listen to, is called Lordship salvation.
When I progressed beyond Free Grace doctrine, it was this I progressed to.
When I progressed beyond Free Grace doctrine, it was this I progressed to.
To put it simply, the gospel call to faith presupposes that sinners must repent of their sin and yield to Christ's authority. This, in a nutshell, is what is commonly referred to as lordship salvation. (Grace Community Church, John MacArthur)
This follows in the footsteps of the Reformers who said works are evidence of salvation which is just an echo of James.
This follows in the footsteps of the Reformers who said works are evidence of salvation which is just an echo of James.
The weaknesses of both branches are the reason I no longer hold exclusively to either.
The weaknesses of both branches are the reason I no longer hold exclusively to either.
They each attack the other on the grounds it denies the believer assurance of salvation and each accusation has some legitimacy:
They each attack the other on the grounds it denies the believer assurance of salvation and each accusation has some legitimacy:
How does the Free Grace-er know they have assented to the correct theological truths?
How does the Free Grace-er know they have assented to the correct theological truths?
How does the Lordship Salvationist know he or she has done enough of the right kind of works to confirm Jesus as Lord, hence “saved?”
How does the Lordship Salvationist know he or she has done enough of the right kind of works to confirm Jesus as Lord, hence “saved?”
But both are weak in that they are so heavenly-minded as to be no earthly good: one can be “saved” in either without having abundant life here and now.
But both are weak in that they are so heavenly-minded as to be no earthly good: one can be “saved” in either without having abundant life here and now.
Indeed, unlike their prosperity counterparts, many proponents would deny Jesus’ words pertain to the here and now at all.
Indeed, unlike their prosperity counterparts, many proponents would deny Jesus’ words pertain to the here and now at all.
The Free Grace-ers relegate all of Jesus’ words about the KOG to the Millennium.
The Free Grace-ers relegate all of Jesus’ words about the KOG to the Millennium.
We can see why the world isn’t lining up to sign up is this is all we offer. Can the “gospel of the left do any better? Next time.