A theology of the second river: 2nd breakaway!
There was a second breakaway among the RB fraternal of churches. This time was the Sungei Dua Church from Penang that left the fraternal. This breakaway was purely a dispute over doctrinal issue and which later got out of hand and became unthinkably messy. It was not a continuation from the first breakaway as someone has suggested, “The controversy spilled out of control so that these men soon had serious disagreements between themselves.”[i] These breakaways were two separate incidents caused by two different issues. There was no connection between the two.
Initially, the elder from Sungei Dua church was thinking aloud his new found emphasis of a theological point pertaining to “salvation by grace alone”. Then as time went by, he was more convinced and expressed himself more clearly. He used to share in a few occasions how he discovered the fine point in his thinking from a dinner conversation with his son. It was like his son has discovered something new from his own observation that “we must be alive to enjoy eating”. This has then become his allegory of the fine point in his thinking. It was from there he developed a so called “doctrine” of his own.
The fraternal of elders has from the beginning requested him to confine the discussion of this doctrine among the elders but he refused to cooperate. Instead he began to propagate this doctrine openly through various channels and at different occasions, to his own members as well as members of other churches. When the fraternal detected the threatening force of this teaching was too strong to be ignored, and in many and various ways tried to persuade him to abandon it, but to no avail. Many working hours were taken up by this tedious back and forth dispute over the fine points of this teaching and that of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith. This dispute dragged on for a few months and in the course of it many strong words were spoken and emotion flared up and anger surged high, and the last straw that broke the camel’s back finally took place at the combined church camp in Mersing, Johor. The elder from Penang packed his bag and left the fraternal fellowship.
This is a summary of his “doctrine of grace“:
- Total Depravity: Men are, by nature, sinners who reject God and desire wickedness. They are incapable and unwilling to pursue righteousness.
- Unconditional election: Before the creation of the universe, God chose, or “elected” an innumerable group of persons out of every nation, kindred, tongue, and people and predestined them to eternal life. This electing is not conditioned upon any foresight of merit by the individual, but purely by God’s grace.
- Particular Redemption: Christ’s redeeming work was performed and accomplished for a specific group, those elected before the creation of the universe, and not for mankind in general. Each for whom Christ died stands redeemed.
- The Effectual Call: All those who were elected and redeemed will, during their lives, be “called” by God. This “calling” is also referred to as a “new birth”, “quickening”, or “regeneration” and is descriptive of the instant in a person’s life when he or she realizes that they have the gift of eternal life.
- The Preservation of the Saints: All those elected, redeemed, and called will be preserved by God in their state of Spiritual life, and shall not finally fall away from God’s grace or favor.
- One absolute regeneration, which has no room for any means or instrumentality of men or the will of men in the work of regeneration. However, man's obedience or will is involved in the preaching of the gospel, belief, repentance and baptism. Good works, repentance, and faith are indeed encouraged, but are seen as evidences of a gracious state rather than the cause of a person’s eternal salvation. It believes that direct hearing and interaction with the Gospel is not essential for Salvation. Among such cases are elect persons that die in infancy, are mentally deficient, or are in regions where the gospel is not preached.
- Two Categories of Salvation (Eternal and Temporal): This doctrine does not always interpret the word “save” as having reference to an eternal salvation. While they believe that each of God’s elect have been eternally saved solely by God’s grace, they also maintain that elect people can save themselves from the temporal consequences and practice of sin here in this world by personal obedience and discipleship. This temporal salvation associated with discipleship is often referred to as “Time Salvation,” or “Gospel Salvation.” Accordingly, the degree of one’s discipleship, and consequently his temporal salvation, does not influence that person’s eternal standing with God, but only his fellowship and peace during his life.
What can we say about this elder’s doctrine? We have to acknowledge that it is difficult to find fault with it as far as human philosophy is concerned. It is well argued and presented in a logical manner. Obviously, he is completely engrossed with the sovereign power of God to save sinners and picked up a stream of thought that man’s will had been so corrupted by the fall and salvation was entirely a matter of divine grace, and turned it into a river by expending this hypothesis. He accused the others for not being reformed in their teaching. The fraternal suspected that he was pushing a hyper-Calvinistic view, but he took offense at the suggestion. But later it became clear that he has been communicating with a Primitive Baptist Church in America, which actually subscribes to this doctrine. But then on the other side of the aisle, the rest were so occupied by the idea “you are saved by grace through faith” and nailed it down that faith is essential and it is a tangible response to the gospel. Countless of long e-mails were written to prove that we were on the right track and he was not, and vice versa. Each side claimed that his doctrine was of reformed teaching and the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith was on his side. This dispute once again shows us the typical weakness of systematic theology. In it, once a hypothesis has been formulated and then it will push this philosophy to a logical conclusion. It will also throw out whatever that disagrees with its logic and reinterpret the scripture to suit its logic.
While entangled in this doctrinal tuck of war, digging into whatever fundamental teaching we knew on the issue, none has actually called for a half time rest and return to the basic. Only if we have done that, the outcome of the dispute could have been different. At least a half time rest would allow emotion to settle and temper to rest and the minds would be clearer to think better. The basic thing to do was simply going back to the scripture and take a closer and exegetical look at the texts one more time, and see where we might have gone astray or where we might have misinterpreted each other, and find out a new lead that may untie the nod. But we did not do that; instead we were drowning by the flood water from the streams which we have turned into rivers.
Going back to the basic:
The issue in our hands is so big and so wide, so we have to be selective in what to discuss. Since the dispute focused mainly on “faith” as human effort and we shall select a few texts that are directly related to the teaching of faith in the context of God’s salvation. We shall treat them exegetically. God willing, the exegetical finding may serve as a lead to future discussion on the same issue with all the involved parties.
John:
1. According to John’s gospel, “No one has ascended to heaven but he who came down from heaven, that is, the son of man who is in heaven. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the son of man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God so love the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send his son into the world to condemn the world, but the world through him might be saved. He who believes in him is not condemned, but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten son of God.” (3.13-18)
2. Remarkably, the gospel has announced two wonderful things in a parallel manner, firstly, God loved the world and that he gave his only begotten son; secondly, whoever believes in his son might have everlasting life. It is a picture of two entirely different entities being placed together, on the one hand is what God has done, and on the other what man might choose for himself.
3. The remark “whoever believes” was there to contrast “he who does not believe” and therefore a reminder to Nicodemus, who was a teacher of Israel and who was more familiar with the Jewish way of obtaining everlasting life, that this everlasting life could only be received differently, by a new born faith in Jesus Christ.
4. John had no problem in declaring the gospel message with God and man working side by side each other. Moreover, the act of believing was commanded by the gospel and therefore it is not illegitimate to declare that man would have eternal life by his believing in Jesus Christ.
Romans (1.16-3.28):
1. Paul declared that in his gospel the righteousness of God has been revealed from faith to faith (1.17), and elaborated that this righteousness was revealed through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe (3.21-22), and stressed that “therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law” (Rom.3.28).
2. The gospel made known two things, first is that God is justifying man, and second is that man is justified because of his faith. There is no contradiction between God’s justifying act and man’s faith.
3. However, there is a contrast between “faith in Jesus Christ” and “deeds of the law“. The “deeds of the law” were the practice of circumcision and other Jewish religious customs and by which the Jews were trying to establish their own righteousness. Whereas “faith” does not try to establish its own righteousness but instead believes in God’s righteousness.
4. The concept of “faith” does not in any way suggest that man was contributing his effort to assist in the saving act of God. But instead, it was there to mark the difference between the righteousness of the Jews and the righteousness of God. It serves in the sentence like an adjective, answering the question “What kind of justification?” There are two kinds of justifications, one is justification by faith and the other is justification by deeds of the law.
Romans (2.6-11):
1. The gospel shows that, God is impartial in his judgment and he “will render to each one according to his deeds; eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; but to those who are self seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, on every soul who does evil, of the Jews first and also of the Greek; but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jews first and also to the Greek.”
2. By far, this is one of the clearest explanations on justification by faith, and most difficult one for those who believe in absolute predestination. Justification by faith is man acting on the gospel’s command. The gospel reveals that God is impartial in his judgment of man and it also reveals that man’s deeds would determine the verdict of the judgment. Man has two choices before him. He can either choose a path that leads to eternal life or one that leads to condemnation.
Galatians:
1. Paul declared that , “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus , that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.” (Gal.2.16)
2. Paul had earlier established that Abraham was converted by the gospel before circumcision was given, and he himself, though a Pharisee, was converted by the gospel, and both the Jewish and Gentiles believers were converted by the gospel. He questioned the church why did they bring back the deeds of the law.
3. Obviously, from Paul’s point of view, “deeds of the law” was the real threat to the gospel message and not “faith”.
Ephesians:
1. Paul reminded the church that they ought to have a spiritual insight to what God had done by his exceedingly great power. He stressed that God had raised Jesus Christ from his death and then by the same power “because of his great love with which he loves us, even when we were in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ, by grace you have been saved” (Eph.2.4-5). The grace of God is associated with the saving act of God that “made us alive together with Christ”.
2. “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast” (Eph.2.8-9). Now Paul has placed the three together, namely “grace”, “faith” and “the gift of God” in direct opposition of “works”, though in the present context the kind of “works” are not clearly stated, but it is more likely referring to “works of the law“.
3. The gospel is very clear about God saving sinners through their faith in Jesus Christ and not through their works that are not commanded by the gospel. So, “faith” is legitimate because it is commanded by the gospel, whereas “works of the law” is illegitimate because the gospel spoke against it.
James:
1. James’ concern was that the believers should back up their belief with action and stressed that “works” were important. He even referred to Abraham as the good example, “You see then that a man is justified by works and not by faith only” (James 2.24).
2. James identified “faith” as “works” and both of these must go hand in hand and be seen in the believers’ life.
3. This “woks” is good works in obedience to God’s commands and not an invention of man. This “works” is the visible and tangible aspect of the personal faith.
Conclusion:
1. It is exegetically incorrect to set God’s absolute saving power against man’s obedience and vice versa. The scripture is very clear on two important lines of thought, the one is that our salvation is by the grace of God and we are saved by his power alone, and the other is that faith and gospel commanded good works lead to salvation. This is something wonderful about the scripture, simultaneously and in the same sentence and in the same discussion, it can talk about God’s absolute sovereign power in saving the lost and about man’s faith and works. These two concepts are neither fused together nor being confused by one another, nor excluding one another, but they are taught in a parallel manner and side by side with each other. So far, systematic theology[ii] has not being able to do that; instead it will select one of the two and will press it to its logical end, and will throw away anything that does not fit in to the logic.
2. It is exegetically off focus to speculate so much on the word “faith” in the phrase “justification by faith”. For the word “faith” was used like an adjective to describe what kind of justification God has offered and how it was different from the justification pursued by the Jews. It was for this reason that the scripture has made a distinction between “righteousness by faith” and “righteousness by deeds of the law”, and the former is God’s justification and the latter is self established justification. Just as the righteousness of the Jews was modified as “righteousness by deeds of the law” and so the righteousness of God was described as “righteousness by faith”.
3. It is exegetically wrong to be over careful with “faith” and overlook the danger poses by the deeds of the law. Systematic theology has heaped upon us qualification after qualification that it is God who saves us and not faith. But that was not the apostles’ concern. They have no problem with it. The main concern of the apostles was the “deeds of the law” that was threatening to corrupt the gospel. We are told not to allow it to contaminate the gospel message. For the “deeds of the law” introduces a man-made righteousness.
4. It is exegetically inconsistent to play down the importance of “deeds” or “works”, particularly in the letter of James. The scripture indicates that “works” is different from “works of the law”. This “works” is identified with “faith”. This “works” is commanded by God. God has commanded us to repent and believe in his son, and afterward bear the fruit of repentance and do good works. When we do these “works” commanded by God we are not in any way contributing to God‘s power to save the lost, but instead we do them in obedience knowing that at the end we will obtain a 100% God’s justification and not a man made justification.
Reconcile with the scripture:
Now, in view of the above study on “faith”, obviously both sides have drifted away from the scripture into different directions and thus both differ greatly in the position of “faith” in God’s salvation. We can illustrate our positions by using the line chart at the below. The “0” in red and that is in the center is the exegetical truth of the scripture. The number in green on the left is our position and that number in yellow on the right is the position of the theology of the second river. This line chart simply shows that both doctrines are still quite far from the scriptural truth, and it also shows a wider distance between the two fundamental beliefs.
3 2 1 0 1 2 3
Is it possible for both sides to come closer to the scripture, and via that come closer to another? Nothing is impossible. We just need to move our positions closer to the center. Nevertheless, one condition must be met before this reconciliation can become a reality. Both sides must agree to work on the exegetical study of the scripture with the objective to establish an exegetical theology or a biblical theology on the issue. When we are clearer in our exegetical study we will be closer to the exegetical truth of the scripture.
23.11.10
No comments:
Post a Comment