Scott Ellard's Second Reply
By Scott Ellard
[This is a response that was made to my essay here.--Merle]
------------------
Hello Merle,
Many thanks for our continuing discussion.
Merle wrote:
You express the view that is commonly referred to as lordship salvation. This is the view that one must surrender to Jesus as Lord in order to obtain salvation.
In my opinion I am not describing "lordship" salvation, therefore many of the things you go on to relate about your understanding of the concept, your survey on the Christian Forums, and one of your previous churches, simply aren't relevant. But perhaps that will become more clear as we continue through your response.
Merle wrote:
You say that one must surrender all the claims of his life to Jesus if he wants salvation.
Not exactly, my statement was:
I had to be *willing* to surrender to all of his claims on my life.
Two issues here, "willing" and "his claims".
There is a *big* difference between surrendering and being willing to surrender. The first case implies the strength and/or endurance to surrender while the second recognizes that one may have a desire/will but not have the strength and/or endurance to do it.
Actually this illustrates one aspect of the controversial "hardening" of Pharaoh's heart. One possible meaning of the Hebrew term translated hardening indicates that while Pharaoh had a desire/will to keep the Israelites enslaved, he didn't have the strength to actually do it. Therefore when God "hardened" his heart, he was merely giving Pharaoh the strength to do what Pharaoh already had the will to do.
The principle here is the same, once the willingness is there, His impartation of spiritual life takes care of the rest.
Nor did I say anything about "lordship", as I later also wrote:
True saving faith is nothing more or less than unconditional surrender to God on his terms. As I have stated before, only the Holy Spirit can prove those terms to you. I believe the Holy Spirit is trying to do just that, but you get to choose whether you want to believe Him or not.
You then go on to create an analogy between salvation and an "installment plan". Most of your description of that plan is a by product of your own thinking and nothing I actually said.
Merle wrote:
You wander if I made the unconditional surrender that you say is required. Well, I tried to make that surrender. I surrendered to Jesus, not because I thought it was necessary for salvation, but because I thought it was good.
I believe you. Again, respectfully, the unconditional surrender includes a willingness to all of His claims on your life on His terms, but that doesn't mean that you don't have some claims on your own life. Remember, I also said that it is the Holy Spirit's job to prove those terms to you. However, He will not force you to believe anything against your will.
Merle wrote:
How about you? Can you truly say that you have surrendered every claim to your life? Were even your subconscious desires surrendering at that moment? Have you lived up to that commitment? If not, could it be that you really didn't mean it?
First, I didn't surrender every claim to my life, but I was *willing* to surrender to every claim He has on my life. And, I can tell you as faithfully and as fully as one man can say to another man, Yes absolutely Yes. There was a point in my life when I knew that there was nothing, nothing I wasn't *willing* to surrender to know the truth. At that exact moment, about 2AM, August 31, 1980, I had spiritual life imparted to me and I was born again. There is absolutely no chance, zero, that I didn't mean it because I knew as much as I have ever known anything how desperately I wanted to know the truth about whether he was real of not and I could not have cared less what it cost me. Now of course as we have discussed before my experience could be explained ed by naturalist principles. :)
Now once spiritual life is imparted, once one is born again, one is truly a new creation and can never be un-born again, even if you want to be unborn again. (Kinda like a butterfly trying to be a caterpillar again. Later, it may walk like a caterpillar and even convince itself that is a caterpillar but like it or not, its a butterfly.) So at this point I must disagree with my Armenian friends who deny the eternal security of being born again.
I have never ever doubted my willingness to unconditional surrender to his claims on my life at that moment in time. Have I sinned since then? You bet. Have I resisted his claims on my life? You bet. But now I am his child through the new birth and he has disciplined me more than once. It is a very cool thing to know God as Father and even to be disciplined by Him.
Merle wrote:
It seems to me that, if complete and unconditional surrender is required to escape hell--as you suggest--we are all doomed.
As previously stated, there is a *willingness" factor here that is inherently a part of trust in Him and faith in Him (and not something separate as in the lordship debate). It really isn't so much a question of escaping hell (or death which is eternal existence without knowing God) as much as it is a question of accepting heaven (or life which is eternal existence knowing God). The knowing here is a very intimate knowing, as when we speak of a husband and wife "knowing" each other.
As I stated, the sin penalty has been paid for all. The question now is one of reconciliation and relationship. But let God be God and have that relationship on his terms. Doesn't he have that right?
Moving on, regarding "the just shall live by faith".
You seem to be making my point. First you ask: "Where is Habakkuk saying that one becomes righteous by believing God?" and then later you state, "How should they live? Habakkuk says they should "live by faith", that is, they should remain faithful to the Jewish tradition."
We have no disagreement here. Remaining faithful to the Jewish tradition is the basis of their being just. The just *at all times* live by faith. The Jew obtains righteousness or "justification" by faith in the covenant relationship established with the Jews *at that time*. Paul goes on to use the exact same principle of justification by faith -- with faith being defined in both cases as believing God relative to the context at hand. This isn't a works issue at all. Paul in Romans uses Abraham as an example of a man believing God, before the Law and that was accounted to him as righteousness. The Jews also obtain righteousness by believing God, and we in this present time of grace also obtain not only righteousness but spiritual life by believing God. I believe you have too narrow a view of faith when you contrast it only with works in terms of salvation.
Moving on, regarding "salvation by works".
Merle wrote:
Okay, the reference I usually use is Matthew 19:16-21, where it says one must keep the commandments and give to the poor to be saved. Do you or do you not agree with Jesus that one must keep the commandments and give to the poor to be saved?
This is where I really wish we were having lunch and could talk about this face to face. There are lots of interesting things to look at here, but don't stop at verse 21, stop at verse 26.
Remember this was most likely spoken to a Jew and at the time when the Jewish Law was in effect as the temple sacrifices were still available. Among other things the person wanted to do something to obtain eternal life. Jesus answered with 5 of the 10 commandments plus one other. While the person claims to have obeyed those commandments, I doubt it, but to drive the point home, Jesus says, OK if you want to be perfect, sell everything and give it to the poor and then follow me. The person didn't want to do that and went away sorrowful.
So is Jesus teaching here that the way to eternal life is by obeying the commandments? At one level yes, that is one way to eternal life -- it always has been and always will be. But no one has ever obeyed the commandments -- if they had they would indeed be "self-righteous" and "self-justified". Note that Jesus didn't even recount the other of the 10 commandments which were Godward. If you can't keep the manward commandments, you won't keep the Godward commandments. Keep in mind that under Jewish law, this person could still be *considered* righteous assuming he was *by faith* following the sacrificial rules.
Remember what Paul tells us in Galatians as to the real purpose of the Law whether explicitly to the Jew or implicitly to the Gentile. It was given to lead us to Christ where Christ's righteousness can be credited to us by faith. (or by believing God as Abraham did -- before the Law.) In this age of Grace (the Jewish system is dormant as the temple no longer exists for true sacrifices to be made today), we can be justified and made righteous on the exact same principle that was accounted to Abraham. That is one of the central concepts in Romans. But it is more than that for us, the mystery includes that those who become believers during this time of Grace have more than the "righteous" Jews under the Law. We have spiritual life imparted to us.
Merle wrote:
On the other hand, Paul says salvation is given to "the one who does not work" (Romans 4:5). Do you or do you not agree with Paul that one who does not do any works can have salvation?
Of course! That is the whole point and has always been the point. Justification is based on believing God. The "just" at all times and in all ways are in that state by believing God and that is credited to them as righteousness. *IF* one could keep all the laws perfectly then one could demand to be recognized righteous but no one has. But the second Adam came and fulfilled all the laws and we can share in His righteousness simply by faith on His terms. The problem for most (not implying you) is one of pride as they attempt to establish their own righteousness by works -- not willing to accept that they cannot ever do that.
Best Regards,
Scott
 |