Subject: "Once Saved Always Saved" |
Bible Note: Hank: It is perfectly understandable. Like I said, this point was driven home to me just this last weekend thanks to an article I read. I recently left a church that shifted its focus completely in order to grab hold of what the elders consider to be an "Acts 2" church model. My response was similar to yours, in that the modern church is post-apostolic and multi-ethnic, which is something we didn't have in Acts 2. Of course, I don't think man-centered, theologically-empty songs and a "felt-needs" approach to preaching was consistent with Acts, in any case. However, that is a story for another post... As I said, the obvious was also pointed out to me by way of the article I had mentioned. The article in question is in this month's Tabletalk magazine, and it is written by Douglas Wilson. It is chock full of little gems like this: "One view is that the modern church is a restoration -- the original church all but disappeared, but God has brought it back. This restorationist mindset sees the work of God on this continent in the past two centuries as God starting over. Then the question is asked, 'Where was your church before (insert the date of your denomination's founding)?' the usual answer is "The first century." But the classical Protestant, when asked where his church was before the Reformation, replies by asking, 'Where was your face before you washed it?'" Wilson rightly suggests that it is a complete lack of historical literacy which contributes to our viewing of the first-century church as somehow idealistically "closer to God." While God certainly did give the apostles to the early church, we in turn have the benefit of His eternal written Word, which was largely written in response to the error and lack of Christ-likeness that was present then. One thing that particularly alarms me about the idea that the first-century church needs to be "recovered" or "restored" is that such an approach has led to the founding of many cults here in the United States. The Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses were both founded on the notion that the church as a whole had become 100 percent apostate and had disappeared shortly after the apostles died. The distinctive practices and beliefs of these cults are supposedly things that have been "lost" for nearly two milennia, but that God finally decided to restore through their organization alone. This also ties into the idea of baptismal regeneration. Whether one thinks that the proper biblical mode of baptism is immersion or not, one has to concede that until the Anabaptists came along after the Reformation, pretty much everyone was sprinkled or poured upon. If the only people saved are the ones who are immersed, then what one in effect is saying is that the Church of Christ (ahem) disappeared completely off the face of the earth for a period of time on the order of centuries. Is that consistent with a sovereign God who has always maintained a remnant of people for His own? Same thing for people saying that speaking in tongues is a prerequisite for salvation... Wow...lots of implications of a restorationist view. I would encourage everyone who visits this group to take the time to get an overview of chruch history (a good place to start is "Church History in Plain Language" by Bruce Shelley). I remain firmly convinced that knowing where we have come from as God's people would eliminate a lot of the error that we allow into the congragation of God's people today. It also gives us a sense of community with the saints of God who came before, a connection to our Christian heritage (after all, we are a "chosen NATION" --1 Peter 2:9), and a very clear picture of how our sovereign Lord fulfills his purposes through a VERY imperfect church (which causes me to marvel all the more at His works!). --Joe! |