Is there a proper framework for salvation, or is it “just” salvation?
Federal Calvinism believes the answer to this question is an “affirmative!” They believe[d] that God (the divine *Law-giver*) provided framework to salvation through a bilateral contract, viz. that God initiated a “Covenant” with man (“Covenant of Works”), and now man (if He is “elect”) must keep his end of the *deal* by “obeying” the “Law” (e.g. Mosaic) through a “Spirit-enablement” provided by the incidental obedience of Christ (you know quid pro quo). If “elect man” keeps his end of the deal (and he will, since he’s elect — so goes the “story” [“Covenant of Grace”]), then based on the conditions originally set out by the “Law-giver,” he will (according to the divine “pact”) reap the “rewards” of said obedience consummating in “eternal felicity.” This is a “rough” overview of the “legal” (juridical) framing of salvation [in fact much of this is still in force, at a very popular level, through the preaching and teaching of folks like R. Scott Clark and the White Horse Inn]. So this is scenario, and framework #1.
There is another group though. This other group “grew up” concurrent with the group above (the Federal Calvinist), and they had a different answer — albeit an affirmative to my original question. Instead of saying “Your honor” (as the Federalist), they say “My lover,” let me explain. This group, lets call them the Marital Mystics, believed that the best framework for salvation is not primarily “legal,” but “marital.” They believed that the Apostle Paul’s framework, in Ephesians 5:18ff, of Marriage; was much more than a metaphor, but that this language spoke to a “real union” (an ontological reality) between Christ and His bride — so human marriage is only a “prefigurement” of the real thing between Christ and His Church. Instead of a “potential union,” as implied by the “legal guys” (i.e. if we meet our end of the deal [viz. obedience to the Law, good works], then God will ratify the deal and bring us into eventual union at the eschaton), the *Marital Mystics* believed that we have been sought after by the “lover of our souls;” and once He catches us, we are overcome with His winsome beauty and love (we become smitten with “love at first sight”). At this instance, we reciprocate His love for us (cf. Rom. 5:5) and respond with an “I do!” It is this framework that shapes our relationship to Jesus Christ (Song of Songs is a favorite book of the Bible for this group, and lets not forget the “bridal” language of John in Revelation, and other smadderings throughout the OT [Hos., etc.]), and it is this kind of relationship that crowds out the “responsibility” (cooperative) duty driven construction provided by the “Legal guys.” The “Marital guys” see a freedom for reciprocating love, a unilateral movement initiated by the bridegroom for His bride; which eventuates in whispers of sweet nothings towards the bridegroom, from His bride — there is not a sense of responsibility and duty shaping this relationship, but a continual and deepening love for the bride as He woos her with His beauty and charm. There is no fear of “not living up to the “Judge’s” expectations, in this arrangement, but a disposition of hopeful anticipation; as the bridegroom takes His bride into His Father’s house, and “covers” her with His “robes of righteousness” through penetrating and “mystical union” (unio mystica) [but real union] with Him. The focus in this arrangement is on Him — the Bridegroom — and His love and righteousness given as a “dowery” to His Bride, through the communion (communio) of the Spirit. And this is framework #2 (notice the trinitarian involvement in this model, this is meaningful vs. the “legal approach”).
I was first introduced to “framework #2” by my prof in seminary, Ron Frost. He did his PhD dissertation on a Puritan named Richard Sibbes, and Sibbes was a proponent of framework #2 (and so was John Calvin, Martin Luther, and Bernard of Clairvaux, amongst others); and his opining (Sibbes’) on this subject was intentionally contrairian to the “Legal guy’s” (typified by William Perkins, amongst others) approach — and rightly so. Here is how Frost summarizes Sibbes’ framing:
. . . It seems likely, then, that Sibbes’ doctrine of mystical marriage based on a Bernardian reading of the Song of Songs drew him away from the cooperative theology of his Perkinsonian training, back to a unilateral view of the covenant. He came to hold that the affections are crucial in the function of mystical marriage, and that mystical marriage is the ground of saving union. In his emphasis he was well aligned with the view of the early reformers who held that the marriage of Christ and the church represents a primary foundation for the theology of real union. (Ronald N. Frost, “Richard Sibbes’ Theology of Grace and the Division of English Reformed Theology” [Unpublished PhD Dissertation, King’s College University of London, 1996], 121)
You may ask why is this important? And you may ask for a variety of reasons. I would just say, because understanding how we relate to Christ has everything to do with everything! If our conception is formed by the “legal accounting” then we are stressed with an relationship that comes off rather cold and calculated . . . not to mention an arrangement that causes us to be consumed with ourselves and our performance (“man-centered” — anthropocentric) — and approaching life in Christ this way could have dastardly consequences on our daily walk and spirituality (could lead to: angst, fear, depression, dark nights and seasons of the soul, anger, frustration, fatalism, hopelessness, etc., etc.). But beyond the “consequences,” scripture is replete with passages and concepts that present the “Marital Framework” as the most adequate framing, providing the greatest explanatory power for understanding a biblical approach to thinking about “salvation.” I’m an advocate for #2, how about you?
P. S. There are other implications (having to do with: salvation from the “inside-out” vs. “outside-in,” “assurance” [becomes an non-issue], sanctification, ethics, etc.), but we will have to wait and flesh those out later . . . or if you want in the comment meta on this post.
Bobby, this is good stuff. I definitely am in the “marriage” framework camp.
Thanks for sharing this. And for sharing the struggles and victories in your battle with cancer on your other blog.
In Christ,
Ten Cent
I have to say that this marital framework is probably the first thing God hit me with after spending a little time reading here and on Glen’s site. I don’t think either of you actually had written anything like this but it is exactly what I saw.
I think a key passage for me was Matthew 19:6-11, which begins with: Therefore they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate,,,
followed by Jesus contrasting of the Law’s allowance for divorce because of hardness of heart with “but from the beginning it was not so”. So much of what Jesus taught is stark comparison between Him and the Pharisees (or the world’s way of doing things). So, I started wondering whether He was saying “You guys have hard, unforgiving hearts. But that’s not My nature”
Blink.
Later, I noted that Paul talks about how marriage is meant to be a picture of Christ and His Bride, so we need to preserve this picture accurately.
Blink. Blink.
Then I read the book of Hosea.
No more scales π
It’s amazing how that little shift in perspective can change basically everything about the way I relate to God.
Ten Cent,
Great to hear from you! And great to know you fit into the “Marriage” side of things; I think you’re on the best side here π .
On cancer. I can’t wait till this season is over with; but I’m glad to be able to share it with you all, and it’s encouraging to know you all are praying!
Heather,
Good, I’m glad you were already attuned to this; that’s why it resonated with me so much too, when I first heard it, it is very natural to scripture.
G’day Bobby,
Let me attempt to comment well :).
I am a firm advocate of the “marriage framework” but I’m not sure I understand why it makes “assurance” a non-issue.
For example, one of the tendencies in our culture (at least NZ and Australian culture) is to idolise romantic love and make that the basis for marriage. Married people “fall out of love” and so get divorced. As a result marriage is not as secure as it should be.
That being the case, offering the “marriage framework” as a descriptive analogy of the Christian life contains some cultural dangers, and in fact can cause insecurity and lack of assurance when the love for Christ is not felt.
My answer has been to point people back to the cross as evidence of Christ’s love and to say, “If you believe that Christ’s death applies to you, then you are saved”, but of course that assumes that their understanding that Christ’s death applying to them doesn’t include feeling love. That is why I’ve also worked hard to define love in different ways so that people will understand that, as in marriage, love in the Christian life is not dependant on feelings, but is far better. My definition is that love is – at it’s most basic – valuing another. There is far more to love than that (I don’t have the space here to elaborate on my understanding) but what that basic understanding of love does is allow people to feel or not feel, commit to love and allow love spontaneously to arise, grow or remain static and so on.
All that to say that the “marriage framework”, at least in my experience, causes people to start worrying whether they actually love Christ enough, or worry whether Christ requites their love because they don’t feel it.
“All that to say that the βmarriage frameworkβ, at least in my experience, causes people to start worrying whether they actually love Christ enough, or worry whether Christ requites their love because they donβt feel it.”
****************************
Bobby will probably come back and correct me a bunch, but I wanted to offer my understanding of why the marriage picture offers assurance.
When recently I read about divorce in Matthew 19 I finally realized that throughout Matthew, Jesus repeatedly contrasted human behavior with Who He really is.
Moses (the Law) allowed divorce because people have hard hearts. But God’s decree (from the beginning) was that no man can separate what God has joined together. We say these words during weddings all the time–but the significance, I think, is that GOD is the one doing the joining between Christ (also God) and His bride (sealed by God via the indwelling of the Holy Spirit).
Check out the covenant God made with Abraham in Genesis 15. The promise was sealed in a manner that was customary for the parties of arranged marriages when the Dads of the bride and groom assured each other that their kids would be good spouses. Basically, killing the animal and walking through the blood was like saying “if my word is not true, you may do this to me”. But, when you look closely, it is not Abraham who walked through the blood as the second party. God is on BOTH sides of that covenant. Which means that the deal is completely sealed by God. What GOD has joined together, (the deal between the Father and the Son) no mere man can rip apart.
And, Christ died on the cross in order that those who believe His Word do not have to pay the horrible price for breaking our end of the covenant. Which is very good, because we WILL at some point be unfaithful.
When you go to chapter 16, you can see that Abraham fell flat on his face in even trusting that God could do what he said without any human interference. He listened to his wife and got Hagar pregnant so he’d have a human heir that could supposedly fulfill God’s promise. He was sorry later, of course, but still, his belief of God (which later we read is counted as righteousness) was NOT pristine throughout his life.
I’ve been one of those people who worried about whether I love Christ enough to be sure I don’t get kicked out of His kingdom. And TULIP was doing it to me.
What I didn’t understand was that I’m calling God a liar when I doubt that He has in eternity past and will continue into eternity future accomplished everything He has said.
If I really want to be a part of what He’s doing (which is building a family, not an MLM corporation), My eyes need to be off of “me” and squarely on Him. Jesus having paid the price allows for this, so I’m not constantly having to worry where the line is that will cause Him to evict me. When I do waver (commit fornication, spiritually), I am to go back to Him and confess that I’ve been unfaithful and I see that we are promised in 1 John 1:9 that He is faithful and just to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Jesus’ heart is not hard and HE is faithful.
If my understanding of Christ’s parables is correct, Jesus purchased the ENTIRE world and everything has been given to Him. In Psalm 2, sinners are told to “kiss the Son” lest He be angry and those who place their trust in Him are blessed.
As the song says, “He’s got the whole world in His hand” and has made salvation accessible to all. We are urged to take refuge in New Jerusalem (Christ’s true bride that He’s actively purifying). But not all will believe, so those who refuse to reconcile and trust Him are, in essence, committing fornication during this “betrothal” period. And, if people die in this rebellious condition, they remain citizens of the harlot “City”, Babylon.
The rejection of Christ’s husbandship can be up front or more subtle–as in those who have an emotional or intellectual Christian experience but later decide they don’t want to be a Christian for some reason. Either way, if the heart has not been converted and sealed by the Holy Spirit, anyone is able to walk away. But I believe that since the bride price was paid for everyone, the adulteress who “wipes her mouth and says ‘I’ve done nothing wrong'”(in continuing to reject God’s offer of salvation) will be left outside of the wedding feast when Christ returns to consummate the marriage .
I believe that the “vicarious” aspect of being in Christ is what makes the marriage framework work. We AREN’T faithful, even when we desperately want to be. But He is our advocate before the throne of God, pleading our case, asking for mercy on behalf of all who have asked Him to be their rescuer.
When we have a clearer idea of how serious God takes the marriage picture (and the fact that He’s on both sides of the covenant), it lifts a huge load of worry and allows us to just concentrate on loving Him back and allowing Him to “wash our feet” daily as we step in this or that pile of garbage while we’re in this world. Ephesians 5 also talks about how Christ cleanses His church with the “washing of water by the Word”. The wife’s “job” is to submit to her husband. It’s almost frighteningly passive on the surface. But the thing is that as we are washed and changed by Christ, we can’t help but respond out of love and gratitude. In this, we can see the growth of fruit which is evidence of our “saved” status.
He wants us to be faithful and, when a person’s heart has truly been converted, we should desire to be. Yet He knows we are weak and will mess things up and there are often unhappy earthly consequences to our stupid choices. Even Paul talked about the frustrating battle that rages between the Spirit and the flesh.
Thankfully, Jesus is merciful in His dealings with His currently immature, untrustworthy and foolish wife-to-be.
Okay, Bobby…time to whip out that red marking pencil and straighten me out π
Alternatively, you could ban me for writing a comment that rivals your post for length.
Sorry about that.
Ali,
This isn’t just an analogy it is an ontological reality. This isn’t presupposing cultural notions; but theological presuppositions. People’s perception needs to be reoriented to how scripture defines and speaks of things, not vice versa (which seems to be the way you’re approaching this). Why the cross is not central to the understanding of love within the framework is beyond me; in fact I would say it is the touchstone of what love is in this framework (not thinking of self, but the other out of sacrificial committment).
I can see how, given your def. of the marriage framework, which is not what I’m speaking of here, that assurance would indeed be a problem. But properly, scripturally defined and understood it poses no such issues (categorically).
So in other words, the way you’re framing this is akin to saying that someone who has had an abusive father has problems understanding or perceiving the love of THE Father acurrately. So the problem is in the perception, not the reality.
In summary then, it is because of His faithfulness and love; and not ours that the relationship “works.” Marriage to the Lamb presupposes no conditions, no works, no nothing but unconditional love that first comes from Him (I Jn 4:19) and then is reciprocated back by the bride.
I think your points on His faithfulness in this relationship are the right ones, Heather.
So in other words, the way youβre framing this is akin to saying that someone who has had an abusive father has problems understanding or perceiving the love of THE Father acurrately. So the problem is in the perception, not the reality.
That’s not an inaccurate description. In fact, I think this reveals the different way we are thinking about the matter of assurance. I am seeing it pastorally, whereas you seem to see it strictly theologically. (Unfortunately there is sometimes a great divide between the two).
I am still not convinced that your theological model is a foolproof against concerns about assurance, but I know for a fact that, pastorally, people do not truly percieve the love of the Father – that is what keeps them from Christ as both non-Christians and Christians – no matter how good the theological model. And that lack of perception leads some people to confess that for years they thought they were Christians until they actually became Christians despite theological knowledge.
That is my understanding about what is at stake when discussing assurance.
Why the cross is not central to the understanding of love within the framework is beyond me; in fact I would say it is the touchstone of what love is in this framework (not thinking of self, but the other out of sacrificial committment).
I got a little confused reading that, but I think you were saying that the cross is not central to the understanding of love in my understanding.
In response to that (because I think it’s an important thing to respond to) I assert that the cross is the ultimate example of love, but it is not the ultimate definition of love. In fact, by using the cross to define love as “not thinking of self, but the other out of sacrificial committment” causes problems when we compare it with 1 Corinthians 13:3.
What I mean is that in 1 Cor 3:3 Paul asserts that without love, giving away all you have or giving your body up to be burned means nothing. But what is giving away all you have or giving up your body to be burned but “not thinking of self, but the other out of sacrificial committment”? Is it not quite possible to “not think of self, but the other out of sacrificial committment” out of duty and not love?
Instead, I would argue that the love of God is the “heart valuing” of the beloved that depends solely on the lover and has nothing to do with the worth of the beloved. That is the love that is exemplified in the cross and that enables us to love not only the Lover, but the unlovely.
No doubt I haven’t explained that fully enough, but it’s off-topic, so I’ll leave it there. π
Hi Heather,
Just quickly.
I agree with most of what you say there. I am not fully convinced that the whole world has been bought in the way you are describing i.e. that everyone has been betrothed and now must respond to that betrothal, but in terms of assurance of confessing Christians, I understand what you are saying.
I guess my thing is, what about those whose hearts used to respond but are now deadened? In other words, theologically you might be able to convince them, but pastorally their heart is not tracking with the gospel. There is room for lack of assurance there, no matter whether there “should” be or not.
Just my opinion.
Ali,
I apologize for throwing such a lengthy comment at you. It’s a bad habit I’m trying to break.
I’m not a theologian or culture expert so my perception of “betrothal” may be way off in some areas. Like you, Iβm here to learn but sometimes the way I get my work checked is to make a statement of my current understanding and wait for someone to say either ββThat is correctβ or βWHAT are you smoking?β.
By way of clarification, I didn’t mean to say that I think the whole world is predestined to be Christ’s bride.
I do understand Scripture to say that God has a target group in mind and it seems that He always has.
What I was trying to get at is that everything (including both the redeemed and the damned) is oriented around Christ. Jesus is the rightful owner of this world and those who believe in Him have eternal life (John 3:34-36). Psalm 2 gives strong warning to the rebels in His Kingdom to make peace with Him before it’s too late. In a sense, we are all murderers and those who don’t reconcile with Christ before they see Him will be found with His blood on their hands.
1 John 2:1-2 says that Christ was not only the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the believing audience, but also of the whole world. If it were not possible for everyone to come to repentance, then it makes no sense to me what Paul wrote in 1 Timothy 2:1-6.
The price paid in order to be able to justly make the demand of reconciliation would need to be sufficient to cover everyone –don’t you think? God is not the one standing in the way of Salvation. This is what I meant by the payment of the bride price.
John 6 talks about everything being given into Jesusβ hand but only those who are drawn by the Father will come to Christ. I am guessing this is in reference to the βotherβ sheep that Jesus came to seek and recover.
So, I see that only those who God has chosen will actually be saved. And Jesus promises that all who come to Him will not be cast out.(John 6:37-40). Verse 40 is really crucial, I think, because it says that everyone who SEES the Son and believes on Him will have eternal life. Jesus warned that there would be many false prophets and Christβs in the last days but they would not deceive βthe electβ (Matthew 24:24). I think the main reason for maintaining pure doctrine is so that the picture of who Christ is would not be distorted. Only those who have seen Him and believed on Him will be saved. He will draw His own in spite of misrepresentation, but He pronounces βwoeβ on those who would get in the way (Matthew18:1-7).
If we have put our faith in a false representation of Christ (Jesus plus lifestyle, Jesus plus sacraments, Jesus plus deep theological understanding, Jesus plus good deeds etc) then we havenβt placed our trust in Christ alone, His finished work and His irrevocable promise to save any who have placed their faith in Him. It can appear that a person is βsavedβ without them having actually been broken and grafted into Christβs family as a newborn baby.
When it comes down to it, none of us is qualified to be able to read hearts. God has reserved this right for Himself and has basically told us it’s really none of our business who He chooses to draw and how He makes such decisions.
But those who have truly met Him and believe on His name can be assured that His word is trustworthy, even in spite of our imperfect performance or misunderstanding about how He works salvation in an individualβs heart. We put our faith in His perfection, and not in our own ability to prove that we love Him.
Ali,
I agree that folks don’t perceive this rightly, but that doesn’t mean there’s not room for growth. And that’s definitely what I’m talking about. If salvation is grounded in God’s life, then I’m not sure how assurance could ever be an issue (theologically). If the Incarnation is what it is, then I’m not sure how assurance could ever be an issue. So to me there is hope for the pastor, there is something to point struggling Christians to in this regard.
I disagree with you definition of love, it’s not Trinitarian. Phil 2 says that Jesus was not mindful of being God (my paraphrase), which is what caused Him to do what HE did for us. In other words, love is defined by thinking of the other, first. And that’s what the cross exemplifies to me.
G’day Bobby,
Actually, my understanding of love is extremely Trinitarian. I can try to explain it, but, again, I think it’s off-topic for this post.
But that’s where the rub is, Heather. You say that believing in Christ+ does not save, so there are those who appear saved but are not. This would also mean there are people who appear to themselves to be saved but are not (a la Matt 7 etc).
The marriage framework, at least how you are representing it, doesn’t actually give a foolproof method for determining that we have responded to Christ alone instead of Christ+. Yes, it means we don’t have to look to ourselves, but it also means there is the possibility that God has not chosen us and our response is self-deception.
I’m pushing the issue because these are the things that people who lack assurance keep struggling with, again and again. It’s only when there is some conviction from the Spirit enters their heart that many of them actually find peace.
Ali,
You can explain it, I don’t care. If love starts with self though, then it’s not trinitarian. But maybe I’ve misunderstood you.
Have you read TF Torrances’ “Christian Doctrine of God?”
Let me just say on the issue of assurance, to be clear, I’m not denying that people struggle with this; I’m saying they don’t need to. They struggle with it because of a faulty theological construct and the culture it has created; not because of the reality that scripture communicates in Christ. Of course the issue is getting folks to believe God’s word and “not their own” (which is the source of their struggle).
The conditions of the “Marriage Framework” don’t involve the question of whether He has chosen me or not. The fact that our hearts are in love with Him (not feeling) is enough to know, if anything. But there is no practical syllogism in place (per federal calvinism), there is no: if I do this, then I am “elect.” The love of Christ spread abroad in our hearts is enough, that’s it. In fact historically, Richared Sibbes, developed this framework to undercut the legal frame which had everything to do with assurance and proving it by performance. The marriage framework is intended to counter this by grounding things in “real ontological union with Christ” (thus marriage) versus legal limbo union that one hopes they have if they persevere (per federal). The “real union point is huge,” and is what struggling souls need to begin to grasp. There is no performance involved, Ali, so it’s not a faith+ framework at all (and it’s not my “thing” others like Richard Sibbes developed this as a pastor in a climate much worse than ours, Puritan England, in re. to assurance issues, and he picked this up from Luther and Calvin and Bernard of Clairvaux, and Augustine and most of all, Scripture). The only performance involved in this framework, that matters, is Jesus’ . . . and that is the source of our confidence in the relationship, it’s unconditional, “Free Grace”, there’s a reason this approach has been labeled “antinominan,” Ali, it’s not because performance is emphasized. It’s all based on Jesus, grounded in Jesus, and IMMEDIATELY not MEDIATELY (per Federal Calvinism i.e. their concept of grace as a quality or substance vs. the Affective framework who sees grace personfied in Christ and the Holy Spirit).
Ali,
Yes, there are those who appear to be saved and are not. I also said it is up to God alone to make that determination.
I don’t know that we ought to be looking for a method to be able to determine whether we have responded to Christ alone. I expect many people who are truly saved have had Christ-plus at some point in their walk. We are human and imperfect in our understanding. But, I believe that God will not fail to show His people what needs to be trashed in order to purify us and remove the hindrances to trusting in Him alone.
I have great empathy for those who have doubts and struggle with lack of assurance, Ali. These past few years have been internal hell for me in regard to that very subject. After nearly 30 years of assuring myself that I was saved because I prayed a prayer, was baptized and am a pretty “good” person, several subsequent arrangements of circumstance left me seriously questioning whether I was only faking the Christian experience. Whether I was just pretending or simply immature, I still cannot say. But I know exactly what a spiritual crisis is.
I tried looking for some sort of framework or lifestyle to be able to find peace for my heart but nothing was happening and I kept coming across stuff like “true Christians are Calvinists or live xyxy lifestyle or are pacifists and don’t live in America because it’s “Babylon”” and so on. Every new bit of information contradicted something I’d previously thought sounded reasonable. I was reeling and there was nothing to grab hold of because I also was coming across stuff that said things like “xyxyxy famous pastor is a false teacher” and regardless of whether that is true, I knew I couldn’t rely on sermons or commentaries or even respected friends to give me my answers.
You said: “Itβs only when there is some conviction from the Spirit enters their heart that many of them actually find peace.”
And that really is the main point. This last year, God pointed out to me one idol after another (health, financial security, family, “stuff”) and made it clear that none of those things can be between Him and me–in the same way that nothing should be between a husband and wife in their relationship.
I was left alone, stripped down to what I really am. Facing God and terrified of what would happen if He called me to account at that time.
Several of David’s “anguish” Psalms were frequent companions and I was repeating them back to the Lord because I didn’t have any words of my own. Waves of depression kept flooding over and God mercifully directed me to:
Proverbs 3:11-12 My son, do not despise the LORD’s discipline or be weary of his reproof,
for the LORD reproves him whom he loves, as a father the son in whom he delights.
And when I realized that my faith in Christ had never really been tested and proven, I began begging to be disciplined and trained so that I would know for sure where I stand with Him.
And He has been faithful to answer.
There is no foolproof method by which we can know that we are saved. I don’t keep a handy checklist available to whip out when I want to be sure that I’m being a good wife or wonder if my husband still loves me. We have to maintain our relationship on a daily basis and I’m reassured because of the closeness we share. And, I miss it when we spend too much time apart.
God meets with us as individuals and offers to have a personalized relationship. There can be amazing mountain top experiences and frustrating “dry” times. And, when God is quiet for some unknown reason, the lack of close communion ought to spark a desire to once again experience the intimate fellowship that we know CAN be had. He’s the best friend that I don’t want to be away from and am crushed when I realize I’ve done something evil against Him. It is very much like being in a healthy marriage relationship.
Sorry for hogging your comment space, Bobby. Guess I’ll just move along now and let you two alone.
Heather,
Thanks for sharing your heart. I went through this same kind of battle quite a few years ago now. One thing I disagree with you on is that I believe there is a foolproof way of knowing that we are saved, and that is simply following Johns teaching in I Jn 5:11-13 . . . simply resting in who God is in His life. And further, really grappling with the inner logic and implications of the Incarnation; there is a solid ground there for all doubters and strugglings to “come and find rest” in. The problem with doubting and assurance is that its rooted in an individualistic conception of personhood, versus a relational identity — wherein identity is found in the other. If this is the case we look away from ourselves to find our identity, and we look to Christ and then we serve others out of His service/love for us and them. If this is how we are defining personhood, Heather, then assurance becomes a non-starter (which is what I’ve been getting at ever since my initial assertion). The fact that people struggle with this issue doesn’t make it the “ought”, instead it is an “is” that shouldn’t be in light of the “ought.” That’s my point, and in my view it is very pastoral — often times pastoral, in our day, means giving in to the questions of the “people” to the point that the “truth” becomes marginalized/hybrided and thus morphed into something that offers no solid ground for pastors to actually pastor from. In other words, the objective truth of God’s Word and life must shape the subjective questions and struggles that we often deal with (not the other way around). And to me, that is comforting, and not really into skepticism ad infinitum, if you can’t tell by now (that’s only because I went through that hell, mentally, for about 10yrs, that’s long enough). At some point people simply have to believe God, or continue beating their heads against the wall in subjective angst (but this takes time for all of us to deal with).
I’m glad you are finding rest, there is more available for you. There is “certainty and rest” available in Christ! The certainty is that He is faithful and we can rest and trust Him w/o reservation . . . His Word is enough, and He has demonstrated that in the history of salvation (OT) over and over again.
Just rest.
Bobby, you said:
“One thing I disagree with you on is that I believe there is a foolproof way of knowing that we are saved, and that is simply following Johns teaching in I Jn 5:11-13 . . . simply resting in who God is in His life.”
I appreciate your insight. It is possible that we disagree. I wasn’t saying that I believe there is no way to have assurance, though.
What God has made crystal clear to me is that He is trustworthy regardless of what I feel or how things look. When I couldn’t make sense of anything else, I spent a lot of time meditating on Scripture that declares the upright nature, strength, goodness, mercy and tenderness of God to those who call on His name. The crushed and wounded and sick ones are those He came to rescue.
I’m totally with your statement concerning whether we can know we are saved and 1 John is actually one of my favorite “go to” books. π
I’ve basically had to throw myself at the Lord’s feet and wait for Him to pick me up and put me back together properly. It’s all I knew to do. Really, all I could do with my soul shredded and bleeding out all over the place. But, it is a good thing too because I needed to see that it’s okay to let go of my illusion of control and my need to be able to explain everything.
What I was railing against is the notion that we can assure ourselves by mentally running down a list of biblically based “to do” items and then creating a system by which we hope to please God without actually spending any time getting to know Him.
That isn’t restful or helpful–especially when there are hundreds of conflicting versions of such lists from which to choose.
I agree with you Heather, and I think the point of throwing yourself down bleeding and wounded is exactly what I am trying to get at as well . . . it wasn’t until that point that I was finally able to just rest in who He is (then it’s just a matter of living in that, that’s what Martin Luther’s theology of the cross was on about, btw).
Yeah the “to-do-list” is what EC is striving against, Heather . . . that’s just legalism gone awry and gone to it’s logical conclusion. I’m so glad the Lord is bring through this season!
I think it would be best if I explained it on my own blog. When I’ve got something up, I’ll let you know.
I want to say thanks for sharing, too, Heather. I don’t think there’s much to disagree with.
I, too, have stuggled with assurance in the past, but my release from that struggle was not as clear cut. But I don’t advocate having a list or method to find assurance, (if I said that, I wrote it wrong). I agree that our Christian “status” is only known through relationship with the Lord. My point has been all along, however, that I don’t think the Marriage Framework precludes the issue of assurance. Bobby has agreed that the issue remains, but only because people don’t “get it”. But I am still struggling to see why not “getting it” is not an inbuilt issue of assurance with the Marriage Framework. If the whole marriage depends on the Lord, then when the heart does not speak love for the Lord (and it happens) we can only throw ourselves at his mercy and wait.
That, I believe, is still an assurance thing, but I suspect it’s a different type of “assurance thing” to the legalistic list making Bobby has in mind.
Oh, I see where the method thing came in. I’ve actually muddied the water by using the word “method” in one way, and then taking on your use of the word “method” when replying to your response.
(If only these comments weren’t separated by hours and hours π ).
Anyway, I think there is a method of assurance, and that is to throw ourselves on the mercy of Christ. I suspect your use of the word “method” was more a step-by-step process relying on our efforts. At least, that’s what I was denying when I said I don’t advocate a method.
Got it? Probably not. I think I’ve confused myself!
Summary: The only method to dispel doubts about salvation is to throw yourself on Christ’s mercy, i.e. look to Christ.
Thanks for clarifying, Ali.
You know, certain words can really be “button-pushers” for some people, can’t they? And it is difficult to communicate well when certain key words can be used in more than one context.
I think I see what you meant now.
Well, if you agree with me, and I agree with Bobby….Maybe you two also are not as far apart as it first appeared.
I do think it is significant to note that Israelite culture and it’s definition of marriage is not what we have come to see marriage as being. And, if the gospel discourse on marriage and divorce is an indicator, the Jews had missed the point, too.
Perhaps some today will not be able to find comfort in the marriage construct. But I do tend to think it is because our picture of marriage has been incredibly distorted from what God has decreed marriage to be. I don’t think it is any coincidence that the biblical definition of marriage and the traditional family unit has been under such attack by certain radical social groups. Even within the realm of Christianity, divorce rates are high and many couples who stay together are miserable. Could it be that “someone” doesn’t want us to see what God is really like and is not only manipulating those he holds captive but also tempting the “flesh” of those who belong to Christ?
Thanks, Bobby.
The Lord certainly is faithful.
Speaking of Luther…I was recently reading that he had a similar personal “assurance” crisis which is what started him off on his course to try to reform Roman Catholicism.
I’ve been wondering whether this agonizing period of questioning and fear is a part of the process of dying to self that all believers must undergo to a certain degree.
It’s good that we all apparently agree. Yeah, Luther certainly had a struggle with assurance; and that’s the kind of context I’m speaking through. His was caused by his bad Roman Catholic Theology, and the framework; “Reformed Orthodoxy” has adopted the same “Thomistic” framework and thus have produced the same atmosphere for conflict (at a methodological level). This is what Richard Sibbes and others argued against.
As far as an “inbuilt” assurance issue, I don’t think the “system” I’m presenting has than interwined. Because it doesn’t think of God, grace, and salvation in terms of substances and qualities which produces people who try to cooperate with God in salvation. Although I can see a similar problem being produced for people who try to think of Affective theology in “Cooperative Theology” terms — I would say that’s probably what’s inbuilt, a tendency to think this way.