What is the Race of Faith? Justification or Sanctification? Or Both? A Biblical Evaluation: Introduction
“Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it.”
~1Corinthians 9:24
One can focus on all of the white noise of denominationalism, but most either proclaim or unwittingly function according to the idea that salvation is a process instead of an instantaneous and complete transformation. In fact, any example to the contrary is nowhere to be found among religious institutions. The institutional church, or simply “Church,” is founded on the idea that salvation is a process; it has a beginning and an end.
If salvation is a process with a beginning and an end, the Christian life must be treated as a salvation process. Hence, you are saved by salvation, you continue to be saved by salvation, and there is a final salvation. Therefore, the Christian life isn’t so much about holy living, but salvation. Who will deny the salvation centrality of the church since the Reformation? “Make[ing] disciples” (Matt 28:19) is understood as learning more and more about salvation, not Christian living. After all, salvation is still in process. We hear it constantly: “Sanctification is the growing part of salvation.” Does salvation grow?
If a different direction is to be taken in order to please the Holy Spirit resulting in His unleashing of heavenly power, it must be started outside of the church because the church is not going to give up on a 500-year tradition. Said another way: the church is not going to admit it has been wrong for 500 years. If the case is made here, nothing can be done about it within the church.
The theses of this series is fairly basic: salvation is a gift, but there are rewards for Christian living. A gift is not a reward because a reward is earned. Because the focus of the church (this includes all stripes of Catholicism and Protestantism) has been salvation, and salvation is a process, the race of faith is the process. God began the process, and we are involved in the process which is a race ending in the reward of final salvation.
Be sure of this: ALL church denominations represent differing beliefs on the proper way to run the race and thereby receive the reward of salvation. And granted, there are many Scripture texts that seem to say just that, but it is the contention of this series that those texts seem to say that due to the church’s narrow salvation-centered approach to the Bible. The aversion to a studied theology among the laity is therefore prevalent. It is a tradition and way of life. No person should become incredulous at the suggestion that theology is even disdained among the laity. Reason is nothing more than demonic musings, and blind faith pure as the wind-driven snow.
But what are the consequences? Is there danger in seeing salvation as a reward? Or is the danger in the freedom of once saved always saved (OSAS)? Is there some kind of guardrail that keeps Christians from wanton libertinism that is both gift and reward, or is the confusion due to the omittance of theological training among the church’s laity?
This series will approach these questions from the viewpoint of Scriptures that call for perseverance. These same texts are used by many to make the case for perseverance in salvation for the purpose of receiving the reward of final salvation.
One such biblical text is 1John 1:7-9. That is where we will start in part one.
A Lesson in Thinking for Church People Using Super Bowl 49
I am old enough to know that standing by your personal convictions will never yield more friends. This is a solid and reliable principle that will serve you well if you live by it. This principle has even worked very well for me in the realm of Christianity which offers the most formidable test for such a notion. This is because no other people group is comprised of a larger percentage of lazy thinkers who believe reason is some sort of works salvation.
And after Super Bowl 49 ended Sunday night, things were looking a lot like church. At the end of the game, the Seattle Seahawks, who have the best running back in the NFL (Marshawn Lynch), had the ball on the Patriots’ one-yard line with 26 seconds left on the clock and one timeout. As most know by now, Pete Carroll called a short pass play that was intercepted by undrafted rookie Malcolm Butler.
I Googled and Googled and Googled and could not find one advocate for the Carroll play call. While some stopped short of aping the consensus; i.e., “the worst play call in NFL history,” the assertion that it was actually a good call is nowhere to be found.
This always makes a thinker suspicious unless they are in church. Whatever is the consensus in church is usually wrong if not damning, so it’s really confirmation more than suspicion, but when a situation is immediately obvious to everyone in the secular realm, individual integrity should still be maintained. Often, everybody but the thinkers are doing it.
What are some basic principles of independent thinking? We have already mentioned one: stand by your convictions and let the chips fall where they may. In other words, don’t be ashamed of what you believe to be true. Majority rarely sides with truth. Secondly, evaluate the opinion/position by thinking about the words that make up what is being said. Before you agree/disagree with what’s being said, do you really understand what’s being said? Thirdly, does history support the position? This is just good old fashioned, grammatical historical interpretation that works in church or out of church.
Hence, let us consider: “One yard, and you don’t give the ball to the best running back in the league?!!” “There is doubt that the guy known as ‘beast mode’ wouldn’t gain a yard?!!” “Instead of beast mode, Carroll went least mode.”
Shockingly, this was virtually asserted by many former hall of fame players and the top sports commentators. Why is that shocking? Because when the ball is on the one-yard line, that’s the line of scrimmage and NOT the length of ground Lynch would have had to cover to make it into the end zone. As you can see from the picture below of the actual beginning of the play, Lynch needed to cover about six yards in the midst of a brawl of 300-plus-pound linemen.
But regardless, note the following placard and think…”But, it was NOT just one yard!”
And it’s far from being a sure thing anyway. In Super Bowl 16, the 49ers stopped the Bengals who had the ball on the one-yard line. They stuffed running back Pete Johnson, a human bowling ball, on the line of scrimmage. Johnson had a reputation for running directly at defenders and mowing them down. In addition, the Bengals also had the greatest offensive guard to ever play the game, Anthony Munoz. Johnson and Munoz from the one—a sure thing, right? Wrong, because when the line of scrimmage is the one, what you have is a six-yard war zone where anything can happen.
Granted, Lynch had averaged more than four yards per carry during the game (which is really about ten yards of ground covered), but that is not the same as red zone goal line running. In open field play, the offence is far less predictable because of the length of field in front of them. So, what is Lynch’s goal line running history? It’s abysmal. The following statistics are from sports writer Eric Goldschein:
On the other hand, there are also statistics for Lynch’s success from that distance all season, and they’re not pretty: He went a mere one of five from the one this year, succeeding only against the Giants (in three attempts). Whether teams know they’ll have to stop the run when Lynch gets in that close, or the offensive line simply isn’t as good up front when the box is stacked, Lynch is generally unsuccessful in the red zone unless there’s some ambiguity about the play call (he was 6 of 15 from the five).
Undoubtedly, these statistics weighed in on Carroll’s decision. If Lynch got stopped on the first try, Seattle is still on the one-yard line or farther with about 10-15 seconds left on the clock and no timeouts. That’s a bad situation. That leaves one do-or-die play.
Instead, according to Carroll, if the pass play didn’t work, they could have run at least two more plays including a running play because they still would have had a timeout left. Not only that, as you can see from the picture below, the play should have been an easy touchdown.
The fact is, the right call was made, but Butler executed a stellar defensive play on the ball. Butler had done his homework, recognized the formation, and did what is known as “jumping the route.”
I will close with a fourth principle: the thinker’s curse. Knowing that the call was actually the right call, you will have to endure constant rhetoric about “the dumbest call in NFL history,” and worse yet, from people who should know better. Regardless, never back down from being a thinker.
Is Pete Carroll a thinker? I am not sure, but he has a thinker’s attribute, viz, leadership. Ironically, in the national TV broadcast of the game, former Bengals wide receiver Chris Collinsworth who played in the aforementioned Super Bowl 16 also fustigated the call. Collinsworth (who apparently has some memory issues) argued that if Lynch could be stopped from the…here we go again, one yard-line, then so be it. In other words, Carroll could have insulated himself from criticism by calling a more conservative play. If they lost, no one would blame him.
But that’s not what a leader does. A leader makes the best call because it’s the best call. He/she does not make decisions based on Facebook friends list repercussions.
A thinker thinks and stands by their convictions formed by the thinking, and they define themselves by those convictions and let the chips fall where they may. And the results will ALWAYS be the same….
Their friends list will be grounded in quality, not quantity.
paul
The James MacDonald White Paper
Post 1 The James MacDonald White Paper: “2 or 3 Elders in Christ’s Name”; Post 1 of 20
Post 2 The James MacDonald White Paper: “Why Not Name the 13 Accusations?” Post 2 of 20
Post 3 The James MacDonald White Paper: Repost from the Elephants Debt .com; Post 3 of 20
Post 4 The James MacDonald White Paper: “Why This White Paper?” Post 4 of 20
Post 5 The James MacDonald White Paper: AUTHORITY, and the New Testament Church Model; Post 5 of 20
Post 6 The James MacDonald White Paper: “MacDonald’s State of Mind”; Post 6 of 20
Post 7 The James MacDonald White Paper: “How Would Jesus Preach?” Post 7 of 20
Post 8 The James MacDonald White Paper: Cult 101; Post 8 of 20
Post 9 Church Historian John Immel Weighs In on MacDonald’s “Vertical Church”; Post 9 of 20
Post 10 HBC Attempts to Expunge Infamous Church Discipline Video, Files Complaint Against PPT, Post 10 of 20
Post 11 HBC Attempts to Expunge Infamous Church Discipline Video, Files Complaint Against PPT, Post 11 of 20
Post 12 The James MacDonald White Paper: Hypocrisy on Steroids; Post 12 of 20
Post 13 Finally! The Full Dope on Counter Notification: Followup on Posts 10 and 11; Post 13 of 20
Post 14 The James MacDonald White Paper: To HBC Parishioners, “Does This Sound Familiar?”; Post 14 of 20
Post 15 The James MacDonald White Paper: The “Vertical Church ‘Experience'”; Post 15 of 20
Post 16 The James MacDonald White Paper: The New Calvinist Big Fat Lie; Post 16 of 20
Post 17 The James MacDonald White Paper: James MacDonald is Just a Symptom; Post 17 of 20
Post 18 The James MacDonald White Paper: Why JMac, Like All Authentic Calvinists, is a Liar; Post 18 of 20
Post 19 The James MacDonald White Paper: Question and Answer; Post 19 of 20
Post 20 The Elephant’s Debt .com: MacDonald the Gambling Man; Post 20 of 20
What’s Up with Third Day?
Look, I’m not into conspiracy theories or the stuff Bob Larson has made millions on, and I usually write posts to answer questions and not create them, so this post is totally out of character for me. Also, it’s probably the shortest post I have ever written. But I can’t help it, I must ask: what’s up with the contemporary Christian music group Third Day utilizing occultic symbolism? Their primary logo of late which appears to the left is an expression of the Ing Rune (moon god). True, the symbol usually doesn’t appear in a circle, but Third Day has displayed the same symbol elsewhere as a winged globe which is a fairly common occult symbol. What’s up with that? I have contacted them for an answer, but I am not holding my breath until I get one.
Apparently, the use of occultic symbolism among Christian music groups is not uncommon. Clearly, Michael W. Smith made it a point to use two letters from the Runic alphabet on one of his albums, a Christmas album no less.
Scratching head,
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
leave a comment