4 Comments

1. 

   Sarah October 24, 2013 Reply

   David,
   
   Perhaps I read this too fast, or perhaps I'm particularly sensitive to this due to my history, if either of these reasons are the cause for misunderstanding, I apologize.
   
   Given my read, however, it seems like you want to limit debate (argument in a formal sense rather than an antagonistic sense) and only discuss grace with others. When one has questions about other issues, or understand connections (that may or may not exist) between what they have been told about grace and something else, it seems that you would advocate a response of, "that's a red herring, let's stay on track and talk about grace. If you want to debate anything other that grace, I'm not interested, go find other people to play that game with you."
   
   I doubt this is what you intended to convey, so I'm curious if you think there is a place at all (and if so, what does it look like) for discussion/debate/wrestling through knotty questions that can come up?
   
   Perhaps there's a specific context you have in mind when advocating the tact that you do?
   
   Thanks for sharing.

   • 

     MatthewS October 24, 2013 Reply

     graciously asked, Sarah :-)
     
     With you, I'm guessing that there is an issue of context in the thinking behind this one. I value a healthy curiosity and I want to encourage people to actively pursue thinking along the lines of a proactive, curious, imaginative "what if?". But sometimes people use "but what about..." as a way to shut down discussion, not because they are pursuing a line of thinking but more as a control tactic.

   • 

     Dave October 26, 2013 Reply

     Sarah,
     
     This is a fair question and Matthew is right about context. In the Grace 101 series, I am writing to those who are new to the idea of grace, perhaps just testing the waters outside the legalistic background. My concern in this post is that they hear the truth of God's acceptance and love before they get bogged down by whether they fit more into the Calvinist or the Arminian camp. The grace community, those who have focused on the message of grace and seek to bring people into a love relationship with the Lord, are from a wide variety of backgrounds and sometimes those backgrounds become distractions from the message.
     
     For example, I know people who teach grace and insist that you can only understand grace if you speak in tongues. I see that as a distraction from the message. I am not against someone talking about tongues or using them, but they can so easily become just another legalistic requirement. The illustrations of this are numerous.
     
     One of the more foundational things I have taught is that we should always proceed from what we know into what we don't know. Once a person knows the overwhelming and consistent love of God, then he/she is free to move into questions about the Judgment, for example. But if we try to understand the Judgment apart from the undergirding of the love of God, we will get into trouble.
     
     So, once a solid foundation is laid, the mysteries of the Lord are fair game. I believe that He wants us to discuss and wonder about all kinds of things. But, at the end of the day, we settle back into the knowledge that He loves us and He loves others, even the ones with whom we disagree.
     
     One more thought: I would put the legalism of the Institute and so many others into the distraction category as well. New Christians come with open hearts to hear about the Lord and are confronted with things to do or to avoid. It isn't long before the focus of their faith is moved from the love of God in Jesus to the rules and standards they are supposed to keep. In the process, they forget about the love. That's what I mean, even though the post wasn't written in that context.
     
     Please feel free to ask if this doesn't answer your concern.
     
     Dave

2. 

   Sarah October 31, 2013 Reply

   Dave,
   
   Thanks for taking the time to respond. Given the context you were seeking to address, I would be saying very similar things. Too often, peripheral things get dragged in before a solid foundation is laid and confusion ensues. What is that saying? "The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing." I agree 100%