tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859222.post114228111403175337..comments2023-07-06T14:46:27.373+01:00Comments on John Camp: The Peter Principle (by Simeon Zahl)Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859222.post-1143693651122253292006-03-30T05:40:00.000+01:002006-03-30T05:40:00.000+01:00First, Hello.Second, Simeon, where did you preach ...First, Hello.<BR/>Second, Simeon, where did you preach this? <BR/>Third, Jeff wrote, "Here's my problem: You're right. No matter how hard I try, I don't become holier."<BR/><BR/>Well, there it is. Let that sink in.<BR/><BR/>Fourth, he went on to say, "But I'm not convinced that the Bible doesn't demand that I do."<BR/><BR/>Since coming to seminary, I've given up on sanctification (as anything I do) and gotten on board with the Gospel (as explained in Simeon's sermon). As a result, I've thought a lot about the scriptural exhortations to holiness. I'm still working it out. But the way I understand it now is as follows: <BR/>1. The Bible tells us to be holy. <BR/>2. The record of both the OT (look at Abraham, David, Samson, etc.) and the NT (a la Simeon's Peter) show our own utter inability to do so (as non-Christians and Christians). <BR/>3. The Bible then tells us that Jesus has saved us from this wretched state of affairs by giving us the righteousness of God. Our sins are wiped away through his death and we are declared holy. <BR/>4. The Christian life is one of continually acknowleding this fact. There is simply nothing left for us to do. Striving is over. Any positive change in "Sanctification" earns us nothing. In light of our justification, any decrease in "santification" is meaningless. <BR/><BR/>We are righteous in Christ. For Christ has done it all. Only by realizing this, by receiving this word of grace, will we ever actually begin to live as the Law demands. And we will likely not even notice. <BR/><BR/>-AZAaron M. G. Zimmermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04780985725016537350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859222.post-1142679231770534492006-03-18T10:53:00.000+00:002006-03-18T10:53:00.000+00:00How can anyone say then, that God is Love?If God's...How can anyone say then, that God is Love?<BR/><BR/>If God's love is for sinners and for all man kind, and yet he demands holiness, how can he be Love to those who cannot make measurable progress towards holiness?<BR/><BR/>If faith is believing in what is unseen, and if I do not see my holiness as a Christian, does it not require faith to believe that though it is hidden from me, I am holy? <BR/><BR/>That is why I think we both need to have a very, very low view of ourselves, a very, very dark view of our sin, and a very, very high view of God's love -- a love that is so great, in fact, that it makes us holy even as we do not feel holy and even as our strivings causes us to despair.bpzahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00095199722369727263noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859222.post-1142645157309604242006-03-18T01:25:00.000+00:002006-03-18T01:25:00.000+00:00Bonnie,Here's my problem: You're right. No matter ...Bonnie,<BR/><BR/>Here's my problem: You're right. No matter how hard I try, I don't become holier.<BR/><BR/>But I'm not convinced that the Bible doesn't demand that I do.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859222.post-1142636987021215192006-03-17T23:09:00.000+00:002006-03-17T23:09:00.000+00:00Dear Jeff and everyone,Please do not take this que...Dear Jeff and everyone,<BR/><BR/>Please do not take this question the wrong way, but I want to ask: have you ever succeeded in your conscious effort to strive for holiness and found it satisfying and rewarding? <BR/><BR/>I have. I remember vividly all the discipleship training I have had in which I felt like I was making progress towards God, living out my faith in third world countries and bringing the gospel to as many nations as I could get to, growing in the wisdom and knowledge of Jesus Christ. My life felt 100% different to before I was saved. It was the most satisfying and rewarding (but not without its difficulties) time. <BR/><BR/>That works for people: the exhortations to holiness, the progressive growth of the Christian, the instructions in the Word - they do guide. But they also do cause despair. <BR/><BR/>I have had the hardest 5 months of my entire Christian life and I *feel* that it has wiped away every trace of holiness that I had ever attained in my 6 years of being a real Christian.<BR/><BR/>Faith in Christ alone means faith in Him to save, and faith in Him to sanctify. It is a matter of what is of primary importance, and for me, I am not even at the place where I can start talking about sanctification. Am I doubting my salvation? No. Is my faith weak? Yes. Am I at a hard place in my life? Definitely. Am I certain of how God feels about me? Absolutely, because if I weren't, I would fall apart. <BR/><BR/>When Paul exhorts you to be holy, go for it. If you feel like it is a real call to you, if any of his exhortations ring true to you, go for it. That's great! But what about those who can't? Has not God given them enough grace? Isn't his grace sufficient? If so, why isn't it helping me? What's the problem with me? <BR/><BR/>That question KILLS the faith that justifies us. If the exhortation to holiness causes a person to question their salvation (in a way that causes them to despair), it is a stumbling block. Therefore it cannot be something of primary importance, it cannot be the primary narrative of our salvation history.<BR/><BR/>God came to save us from ourselves, and from our efforts to help ourselves. The Bible is not a self-help book.bpzahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00095199722369727263noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859222.post-1142625548166872352006-03-17T19:59:00.000+00:002006-03-17T19:59:00.000+00:00Simeon,I just don't see that position as faithful ...Simeon,<BR/><BR/>I just don't see that position as faithful to the scriptural record. <BR/><BR/>Why are people exhorted to holiness? By none other than Paul?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859222.post-1142462112406301012006-03-15T22:35:00.000+00:002006-03-15T22:35:00.000+00:00Dude, you're having trouble seeing sanctification ...Dude, you're having trouble seeing sanctification around you? Check out Cosin Court #21, just down the hall from you. Yes, I am that awesome.<BR/><BR/>Kevin "Elbow-Drop" T.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859222.post-1142423648723110912006-03-15T11:54:00.000+00:002006-03-15T11:54:00.000+00:00A final thought: reading Forde's "The Captivation ...A final thought: reading Forde's "The Captivation of the Will" recently, I was struck by Luther's emphasis on the immovable promises of God being the bedrock of faith. He believed that Erasmus, with his concept of a free will, had made God's promises into mere conditions that would follow from right behavior-- in other words, not promises at all!<BR/><BR/>The point is-- and I found this ministering to me profoundly-- that our hope, as Gospel Christians, is in the unshakable promises of God. For instance Romans 8:28, or Jeremiah 29:10-14. Our hope is not in ourselves or in anything that may/ could/ might happen in us through the power of the Holy Spirit in this life. Our promise and our hope instead is that every tear will be wiped away, and every wrong made right, including in our deepest heart of hearts. Our promise is that there is nothing we can do to escape God's promises to us! Whatever it is that we fear in this life is a chimera. We believe the Devil's lies, that these specific issues or behaviors matter, that they bear ultimate significance. But the truth is that they do not. God's grace to us in Christ is now written in the very DNA of the universe-- the Deeper Magic from Before the Dawn of Time. <BR/><BR/>If God is for us, there is nothing that can be against us. And there is no condemnation. Such are the unshakable promises of the Almighty God to us. It is in these that we should set our hope, not in ourselves or our day-to-day behaviors, thoughts, or feelings.<BR/><BR/>To go back to Peter, do you think his hope was in himself, after all his failures? No, his hope was in the grace of God in Christ, which he himself reminded us: <BR/><BR/>"According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God's power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time" (1 Peter 1:3-5)SZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05158761526245274631noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859222.post-1142422802839581522006-03-15T11:40:00.000+00:002006-03-15T11:40:00.000+00:00I do indeed have some thoughts, Jeff!Looking over ...I do indeed have some thoughts, Jeff!<BR/><BR/>Looking over it again, I fear I may have overemphasized the reality of "sanctified behavior" in my last post. The truth is that I see it as a possibility a lot more in Scripture than in my own life or the lives of those around me. Your "obvious answer" that people who seem to be doing well are in fact in denial should not be glossed over so quickly! Denial runs very very deep. The subconscious is real. We are very very bad at knowing what is actually going on even with others, not to mention ourselves! There have been powerful examples close to me in recent months, including in my own life, of seeming rock faces turning out to be crumbling facades, and the darker realities resurfacing, stronger than ever.<BR/><BR/>So my commitment to sanctification at any level as a category worth talking about is minimal, and has more to do with Scripture than with what I usually seem to experience. Sanctification in life is difficult to pin down, and more often than not turns out to be the opposite of what it purports to be. Cataclysmic recidivism, on the other hand, seems to rear its ugly head everywhere.<BR/><BR/>But your question about Blumhardt is important. Blumhardt was, more or less, a theologian of Hope. For Blumhardt, hope in the ultimate restoration of all things, including in ourselves, was of utmost importance. He called this the Kingdom, and saw glimpses of it here and there in the world. But he also saw the chief enemies of this restoration, and its chief obstacles, to be us-- specifically, Christian people. His chief motto in the middle period of his life was "Die, so that Jesus may live!" Restoration is brought about and granted space by nothing short of our spiritual crucifixion and death. The idea here is similar to the Forde quote JZ just put up. The chief obstacle to sanctification is the immovable fact that we don't want to be sanctified.<BR/><BR/>So Blumhardt had profound hope for restoration, and in this world, not just the next. In fact, he preached about hardly anything else. But he would say that the chief obstacle to that restoration is the very fact that we think it is important for us to become sanctified! He thought outward piety was hypocrisy almost from root to stem. He would say, "Stop worrying about yourself, even about your own relationship to God! God himself is all that matters! The only useful thing you can do is to die, so that Jesus may live!" <BR/><BR/>And it is precisely this preaching, he believed, that would bring about the Kingdom; not only ultimately but here and now, on Earth, today, in your life and mine.SZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05158761526245274631noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859222.post-1142377700898306432006-03-14T23:08:00.000+00:002006-03-14T23:08:00.000+00:00Simeon,I know from previous conversations that you...Simeon,<BR/><BR/>I know from previous conversations that your hard line on sanctification is more a didactic device than a pronouncement, but I would nevertheless like to see that line softened just a bit. Your response to Kevin Taylor reflects a greater openness to spiritual growth than in the original sermon. I find this willingness helpful as I struggle to make sense of my Christian mentors who do seem to be growing in their faith. For me to focus on my failure and my inability--even if those are presented to me as good news in light of what the cross means for them--creates a type of spiritual nihilism: "She is getting better, but Simeon and I just aren't and neither was Peter. What are the three of us doing wrong that she isn't?" (The obvious answer is that she is faking it, but the obvious answer is sometimes elusive). <BR/><BR/>Long story short: some people need to know that grace means more than just forgiveness--it also means restoration, even if that restoration is punctuated by cataclysmic recidivism. <BR/><BR/><BR/>I would also look forward to hearing what your work with Blumhardt has meant for your understanding of the role of the Holy Spirit in this process. Specifically, as one raised in a Wesleyian Holiness tradition, I was taught that Peter received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, making him able to do all things necessary for the expansion of the Gospel. When Peter sinned, however, he lost the the Spirit and needed to repent and "rededicate" his life to Christ. <BR/><BR/>(The obvious chicken-and-egg question still baffles me. I believe, however, that the Holy Spirit is understood to provide abundant positive power to do good works, but no negating influence over sins. Thus, the Spirit cannot help you to keep from losing the Spirit.)<BR/><BR/>Do you have thoughts on these mid-thesis ramblings of mine?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859222.post-1142360455427962172006-03-14T18:20:00.000+00:002006-03-14T18:20:00.000+00:00Simeon...I forget who sent this to me a few months...Simeon...I forget who sent this to me a few months ago, but I found it to be very freeing. Also, Dad Zahl writes in his new book that according to legend, Peter, fearing for his life, flees Rome during a time of persecution when Christ appeared to him. Peter asks "Domine, quo vadis?" (Lord, where are you going?) to which Christ said, "To my people in Rome." Peter turned around and was later crucified upside down. Ostensibly, even after he had written his epistle(s), he still failed to climb the ladder of glory.dpotterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13194312453721741900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859222.post-1142359429833142682006-03-14T18:03:00.000+00:002006-03-14T18:03:00.000+00:00Yeah, I can live with that. Certainly sanctificati...Yeah, I can live with that. Certainly sanctification is a result of grace, not of willpower (I know I can, I know I can). Though there is an element of participation and free will here, as a response to grace's initiative; I choose to avail myself of the means of grace God has provided (frequently failing more than doing so). Yet, as some smart dude once said, the first step of the spiritual life is showing up--if we don't show up, if we don't pray, then we definitely don't get anywhere.<BR/><BR/>I do think there is a place to figuring out how to follow the law in today's world. Done as a response to grace, as grateful response, and often it's not done that way. Will Willimon said that the unofficial theology of the United Methodist Church is, God is nice, we ought to be nice too, and that's just horrible. But figuring out how to live as a Christian requires a lot of thought and interchange, and I appreciate hearing how people grapple with it. So I would want to make a place for your point (a), but hopefully avoiding the errors of this path when it is taken out of its context of grace justifying us, with our actions only as a response to grace's prevenient acts. It certainly doesn't protect us from error and sin, as Peter proves. Sorry, Mr. Pope Man!<BR/><BR/>Wesley as an Arminian tried to hew a way between Calvin and Pelagius, you can argue whether he succeeds or not, but he does want to say grace is the initiator, but there is a response. Part of this is saying God is working in everyone. This is problematic, but it does sit better than double predestination or decisionism, at least for me.<BR/><BR/>PS Does this count towards my thesis, Mr. Supervisor?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859222.post-1142352586637523112006-03-14T16:09:00.000+00:002006-03-14T16:09:00.000+00:00Kevin (Koover, T-Rex, Kevino, etc.),You make a goo...Kevin (Koover, T-Rex, Kevino, etc.),<BR/><BR/>You make a good point about Acts 1:15, etc. The transformation of Peter into a leader is indeed striking (Notice, O John Camp readers, that Jesus' unstinting grace for Peter in his sin at the end of John led precisely to sanctified behavior, rather than license or antinomianism. But it was Grace, not Law, that produced the behavior).<BR/><BR/>My point I suppose would be to caution against making too much of Peter's transformation early in Acts. First of all, the Galatians 2 scenario in Jerusalem is a reversion every bit as striking as the transformation into this inspired leader. It also must have been all the more bitter for Peter in light of the fact that the Jerusalem fiasco took place _after_ his apparent "transformation".<BR/><BR/>Secondly, the gospel record on Peter is way overlooked. He has a HORRIBLE track record in the Gospels, as I pointed out in the talk. Much worse than most people believe. And I think this is good news for us. But you do not disagree with me on this one.<BR/><BR/>Third, I do not deny the real possibility of more sanctified behavior in this life for Christians. But too often the conclusion is drawn in theology and in pastoral practice that therefore we should make overt, prescriptive efforts and strategies in our ministry to increase the "sanctification quotient" of the congregation. Too often we draw the conclusion from the descriptive reality of sanctified behavior that we should: <BR/><BR/>a) Emphasize in sermons telling people how to be good Christians and how to follow the Law;<BR/><BR/>b) Exhort sinning individuals in one-on-one pastoral contexts to simply stop sinning;<BR/><BR/>c) "Speak the truth in love" to any sheep that appears to us be going astray.<BR/><BR/>To draw these conclusions from the descriptive fact about sanctified behavior is to make a mega-assumption about the freedom of the human (Christian) will. It is to assume:<BR/><BR/>a) That Christians respond to the Law in sermons differently from non-Christians, specifically in terms of finding it helpful and freeing instead of just defeating and depressing;<BR/><BR/>b) That sinning individuals have the ability in a given scenario not to sin, and therefore the only reason they have not stopped sinning is either lack of knowledge that it is a sin or lack of appropriate exhortation from someone else;<BR/><BR/>c) That the straying individual is not fully aware of the fact that they are straying, not to mention the specific details of their transgressions.<BR/><BR/>Because I believe that the will is bound, including for Christians, I must reject all three conclusions as based on a false assumption. I believe in sanctification, more or less; I just do not believe that anything but the utterly unmerited Grace of God can produce it. I also do not believe that sanctification is necessary in any way for salvation, because otherwise the Atonement was not complete.<BR/><BR/>I realize your post did not endorse the practices I just mentioned, or make any claim about free will either way (though the same cannot be said of Wesley, no?). In fact, I agree 100% with everything you said. So really at this point I am just using this post as a soapbox to talk about the assumption people often make on the basis of your point. <BR/><BR/>So to continue my soapbox that has nothing to do anymore with Kevin's post:<BR/><BR/>When Christianity becomes a religion of exhortation to moral improvement, it has not just lost touch with the Gospel, it is actually anti-Gospel. It becomes obsessed with specific sins (e.g. pre-marital sex, drinking, sodomy, etc.), and focuses its whole energies either on avoiding and condemning evil things from the culture, or on spiritual cheerleading and self-congratulation. The underside of these consequences is that it becomes depressing and frustrating for the individual believer, it causes people to hide their sin and put on a "Christian face", it makes them think God's love for them depends on their moral behavior, and, finally, it results in massive rebellion and waves of people running screaming from Church.<BR/><BR/>All this is to say that Christianity is in big trouble when it loses touch with the gospel of grace for sinners, and the idea that God's strength is made perfect in weakness. Sanctification exists, but it can very easily be made to supplant the gospel, with which it is by definition in tension. We are sanctified by Grace, not by Law. And it is Peter who is the premier example of this. <BR/><BR/>It is imperative that the Church not put sanctification at the center of its mission. The gospel alone deserves to be there, and it is the gospel alone that produces sanctified behavior anyway!SZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05158761526245274631noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859222.post-1142331223537841602006-03-14T10:13:00.000+00:002006-03-14T10:13:00.000+00:00Peterhouse thanks you for your loyalty and support...Peterhouse thanks you for your loyalty and support. What you write is sure and worthy of full acceptance. We must truly marvel at the Bible's amazing preservation of its heroes' sins, from David to Peter. It is a frighteningly honest canon.<BR/><BR/>Within that honesty, though, is the tension between a saint's sin and his/her saintliness (here comes a Wesleyan smack-down). Isn't Peter's transformation into a leader in Acts 1:15 striking? Especially after in Luke we leave Peter with his betrayal (22:61; 24:12 is lacking in some manuscripts). Peter then takes charge in Acts, until Paul is transformed and becomes the lead character, under the acts of the Holy Spirit.<BR/><BR/>What I'm trying to do is make room for grace, not merely as justifying, but sanctifying. Peter is fallible and sinful, but still capable of change and greatness, and so are we.<BR/><BR/>Kevin "The Outsider" T-Rex TaylorAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com