Hi OBW,
I actually don't have problems with Calvinism especially when it's not used as a license to sin. For example, John Piper, a well known staunch Calvinist believes anyone practicing sin (not just sinning by accident or stumbling into sin, but addictions) per Galatians 5:19-21 without repentance was never saved to begin with even if they call themselves a Christian. This includes people who divorced and remarried on grounds other than sexual immorality and men who are regularly looking at porn.
I believe Witness Lee's version of grace is dangerous because he teaches that only mere calling on the Lord is necessary for salvation. Repentance (or metanoia a change of mind / turning from practice of sin) is never taught in the LRC and confession of sins is taught as only necessary to clear our conscience with God. I wouldn't call LRC's version of grace standard calvinism, it's more like free-grace or hyper grace also similarly taught by other Christians from extreme dispensationalist backgrounds.
That said, here's my take on faith and works from my website:
Faith, Works and Weddings
Another way to look at faith versus works is through the lens of what happens before a wedding. In the New Testament, the church is referred to as the bride of Jesus who is our bridegroom (Eph. 5:25-27). Jesus often related to his followers in the context of a traditional Jewish wedding, where the bridegroom had to purchase the bride with a price or the mohar. He accomplished this by paying the bride price for our salvation with his life thereby granting us a gift we did not deserve (Romans 6:23). This is what the apostle Paul meant when he said we're not saved by works because there is nothing we can add to pay for the mohar. The debt has already been paid, it is finished (John 19:30). We now belong to him and are set apart for his return (1 Cor 6:20). However, before the bridegroom Jesus comes to receive us, the bride is expected to remain faithful to the bridegroom (Matthew 25:11-13). We can do this by giving our heart fully to Jesus which results in a life of obedience (John 14:23).
Persisting in faithfuness is important. After the bridegroom pays the bride price to fulfill the marriage covenant or the ketubah, the bride and groom would drink a cup of wine to seal their covenant. The bridegroom would then depart for his father's house to prepare a room for the bride; as Jesus described he would do in John 14:3. After they were apart, the bride and groom would continue to drink a cup of wine regularly in remembrance of their faithfulness to each other. So when we take communion, it's a statement not just of remembrance, but of our promised faithfulness to Jesus our bridegroom.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
I believe that "once saved always saved" is an overly simplistic slogan that does not properly reflect some portions of the scripture that we read. It has even been said that Calvin (the alleged source of Calvinism, the original OSAS doctrine) did not believe what is taught officially as Calvinism.
When I look at the official doctrine of Calvinism, then at the official doctrine of Arminianism, I see issues with both. Yet I find truth in both. Neither is total right or totally wrong.
I think that, to some degree, the problem lies in the use of the word "saved." In scripture, it refers to something that happens when you "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ," and it also refers to something that you must spend your entire life endeavoring to work out with fear and trembling. And that latter version is not just "by grace alone." It requires work over the remainder of our lives. It requires a sober mind that is diligent and a will to go with it.
Sometimes I wish I had at least one of those.
So there may be some real serious theology buffs that may want to take this on. But suffice it to say that I find little cause to completely buy the teaching, but also no reason to simply reject it. The fortune-cookie approach to Bible exposition is what got us the competing doctrines in the first place, along with others like "trinity." I like that one, but I doubt that it is really that important to put so much thought into it or fight about nuanced versions of it. (Not even sure that Modalists are truly heretics that believe in a different Jesus.)
|