Posts
My blog has been honored by "H K Flynn" as a purist blog in the Free Grace/Purist debate. :) For those of you wondering what this means and why, I will explain briefly. My life in the blogosphere is not restricted to my blogs. I have participated in some theological debates on Jonathan Moorhead's blog, including a few on the Free Grace position. I don't generally post much here on anything that attempts to take a position on any theological system, so the honor is less about this blog than it is about what I have said elsewhere, but in honor of the hyperlink I will do just that.
My point of contention is this related to the question of whether the Gospel of John is sufficient (complete) for an understanding of what I call "saving faith." This Free Grace assertion is based on John 20:31: "but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name." My observation (and I claim to be no expert on their position!) is that they would take this to mean that John's gospel must therefore include all necessary doctrine of salvation. For the uninitiated, what is at stake in the bigger picture of the argument is whether or not repentance is necessary for salvation (I say yes, because of several NT passages; they say no, because it is not explicitly stated in John). My challenge to the Free Gracers out there is to put the verse a little bit more into context. The context of chapter 20 is the post-resurrection appearance of Jesus to Mary Magdalene and then twice to the disciples. Both appearances to the disciples in the chapter involve Jesus entering a locked room, and it is at the second appearance that he says to Thomas, in verse 29, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed." Then John writes in the next two verses, "Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name." I think John is trying to say that he wrote about the things Christ said and did, particularly the post-resurrection appearances that were miraculous in nature and proved that He conquered death, to provide evidence that Jesus is the Messiah in whom we, who did not see these things for ourselves, must believe to be saved. I think he answers the who more than the how. This is Jesus, believe in Him. This is the object of our faith. On this I am sure most of us on either part of the debate would agree. John's gospel is sufficient (complete) to prove through the life, miracles, death and resurrection of Jesus that He is who and what He said He is. THAT is John's claim. I don't think he is trying at all to say that he offers a sufficient (complete) doctrine of faith (and salvation). So there's my chosen point of contention, probably not well argued, but I think it is a significant difference underlying how we understand faith leading to salvation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Is there a single text in the New Testament that offers a complete explanation of what one must do to be saved?
If I believe in Jesus in the same way that Thomas believed in Jesus, will I have eternal life?
Matthew,
Thanks for visiting :)
A simplistic answer is Romans 10:9-10: "if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved; for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation." This is to believe in the resurrection of Jesus, and to acknowledge Him as Lord. Accepting someone as Lord means submitting yourself to their commands - in my simple layman's understanding of it, I call that repentance because you follow the law of the One whom you call Lord and no longer serve as a slave to sin.
As for believing as Thomas did, I think that we don't really have the option of believing because we see the physical body of the resurrected Christ. His confession of faith in verse 28, however, is telling: "My Lord and my God!" He believed that Jesus was raised from the dead, and confessed Him not just as Lord but also as God. He believed according to the Romans model mentioned above, but the difference between his faith and ours is that he had to see it to believe it, while you and I take John's eyewitness account on faith and say with the centurion in Matthew 27, "Truly this was the Son of God!" Are you going to try to argue that if Thomas' confession is sufficient for his salvation that John contains a sufficient representation of what we must do to be saved? I won't argue with that, because it is consistent with other passages that speak to the issue of what we must do to be saved. I think the issue for me is less whether John is "complete" in this respect than why a Free Grace proponent would argue that. Do you understand what I mean by that?
I understand what you are saying.
With regard to Thomas, I think a contrast is drwan between Thomas believing by looking upon the risen Lord and the believer who looks at the written word and believes. Through this simple faith he receives eternal life.
I think a difficulty is that there is evidence that John's gospel has an evangelistic purpose. Hence, we should expect it to be clear about the offer of eternal life.
Secondly, John deals with eternal life more than any other New Testament book.
Do you think confessing is a work? In some countries you can be put in prison for confessing Christ.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
I understand what you say about John, evangelism and eternal life. John is very clear on who Jesus is, and I think that faith in Jesus Christ is what saves us. John's point is to take people to the One who can save them. Is that not the best way to evangelize?
I do not think that God requires perfect theology for salvation and that most new believers probably don't have developed ideas about a lot of the points we like to argue as integral parts of Christian life. I think there are some basic truths that we must communicate when we share the gospel, certainly. After all, faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.
Your question about whether confessing Christ is a work is interesting and I have struggled with how to answer it. Jesus said (Matt 10:32), "Everyone therefore who shall confess Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven." Paul includes it in the verses in Romans I mentioned before, saying "with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation." Paul also writes that "He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5). Romans is full of references to salvation through by grace through faith and not by works. I tread carefully on the issue here, trying to express what I think the Bible teaches. Mere confession unaccompanied by faith cannot save. It is not the magic "work" that we can do to earn salvation. (Earning salvation is I think the point of the scriptural emphasis on faith over works - see Romans 11:6.) However, the authoritative word of God seems to link confession of Christ accompanied by faith with salvation. This is not works-based salvation. You cannot be saved without faith. To challenge my own background and common evangelistic approaches, is saying a prayer necessary for salvation? Is a prayer then a work? If someone puts their faith in God and is unable to "confess" Christ because of some physical impediment or if they are alone and die before they see anyone to tell, are they still saved? I know this raises questions, but I cannot explain away Romans 10:9-10. The Bible says it and I don't think it is inconsistent with the rest of Scriptures.
Yes, saying a prayer is not the way that we appropriate eternal life. We receive eternal life purely by faith.
Confession is never identified as a condition of receiving eternal life. To make it so is to make Paul strive with Paul.
Matt 10:32 deals with rewards in the Kingdom rather than receipt of eternal life. Those who served Christ faithfully will be confessed by Christ to His father and will recieve a position of privilege. This will be denied to those who have failed to confess Christ.
Salvation in Romans 10:10 concerns more than just eternal life.
It must be connected to the salvation and restoration of Israel from judgment, which is the theme of this chapter and the next. This will involve Israel's confession of the messiah, enabling their restoration. Understanding the context of this passage in God's prophetic programme is vital.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
Here's the context, taking Romans 9:30-10:17
30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith;
31 but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law.
32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone,
33 just as it is written,
"BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE,
AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED."
1 Brethren, my heart's desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation.
2 For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge.
3 For not knowing about God's righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God.
4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
5 For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on law shall live by that righteousness.
6 But the righteousness based on faith speaks as follows: "DO NOT SAY IN YOUR HEART, 'WHO WILL ASCEND INTO HEAVEN?' (that is, to bring Christ down),
7 or 'WHO WILL DESCEND INTO THE ABYSS?' (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead)."
8 But what does it say? "THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART"--that is, the word of faith which we are preaching,
9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.
11 For the Scripture says, "WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED."
12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him;
13 for "WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED."
14 How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?
15 How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, "HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE WHO BRING GOOD NEWS OF GOOD THINGS!"
16 However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, "LORD, WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT?"
17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.
While he is addressing his desire for the salvation of Israel and why they as a corporate body have not been saved, he claims that there is no distinction between Jew and Greek. If there is no distinction, why are there special qualifications whereby only it is only to Jews that this word of faith is being preached that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved?
Paul says over and over again that works of righteousness cannot save. Consider Galatians 2:21: "I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly." This is why there is no salvation by works - we can't be good enough. To say that confession is required of some and not others is to say that some are saved by "faith that is alone" and that some are saved by faith that must be accompanied by this confession - in other words, in your terms, some are saved by faith and others by a work. That is, in my mind, much more contrary to the Pauline soteriology than to say that all must confess according to the word of faith which he preached.
I understand the prophetic nature of Paul's discussion of Israel in Romans. I am no adherent to "replacement theology", yet I believe that their terms of salvation and mine are the same. The context of these words in a passage that discusses the unbelief of Israel does not mean that they do not apply to me. Should I reject the truth that "the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable" in my own life because Paul says that in Romans 11? No!
What is the fundamental difference (since you seem to see one) between eternal life and salvation?
Indeed, all receive eternal life on the condition of faith.
The reference to confession is in connection with the deliverance of Israel, which involves more than just individual reception of eternal life, but the restoration and national life and spiritual privilege.
Salvation involves many things-
eternal life, justification, indwelling, sanctification, glorification, deliverance from trial and temptation, deliverance from physical danger or physical death, deliverance from sickness and recption to a postion of privilege and inheritance in the Kingdom.
We need to be clear about which aspects we are talking about.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
"The reference to confession is in connection with the deliverance of Israel, which involves more than just individual reception of eternal life, but the restoration and national life and spiritual privilege." Interesting thought, and I agree with the second half of it. I still think that when he says "with the heart man believes...and with the mouth he confesses," he is talking about individual reception. He uses "they" in so many other places in the passage that I cannot see why he changes here unless it is because he is no longer talking about national Israel.
I agree that we should define our terms, else we may argue ourselves in circles and miscommunicate the entire time. When I say salvation I mean a package deal that includes eternal life, justification, regeneration, restoration of fellowship with God and probably a few other things that I am unable to articulate right now.
I apologize for not giving much of a response now; I am quite tired and that tends to affect my ability to think clearly (and give a proper definition of what I mean by salvation, apparently). Fancy that. Unfortunately I probably will not have much opportunity to continue this discussion at least until Tuesday since I have a lot of reading for school (I think 5 rather long books due by Monday afternoon) that I must get done! I do want to continue, honestly!
I do not view salvation as a complete package deal.
Some apsects of it are conditonal.
Do not forget that 1 Timothy says women are saved by childbirth. An interesting use of the word 'saved' and one that is open to a number of interepretations.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
The childbirth verse has always puzzled me. I have yet to hear a good explanation of what it means.
I would not include in "salvation" all of the possible meanings that you listed at first. I think glorification and sanctification are their own processes, guaranteed, if you will, by salvation/justification/regeneration.
I cannot dismiss your view on this completely, even if I do not fully agree with what I think you are saying. 1 Peter 1:5 says that we are "protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time." Ready to be revealed? It's talking about our resurrection and heavenly inheritance earlier in the sentence, so I gather that this is a reference to the realization of eternal life and glorification. The way it is stated is why I can't write off your views.
Angie, I have been quite delighted by the reasonable tone you have taken in this discussion.
I am not sure I that I have dealt with this controversial issue in such a polite manner as you have graciously shown.
As regards sanctification, yes, the completion of this process is eschatological.
However, as all Christians affirm, there is an active sanctification that occurrs in the life of a believer that results from the work of the indwelling Holy Spirit.
Both the Calvinist and the Free Gracer maintain that sanctification does not enable the believer to avoid sin totally in this life. The key difference is over extent. The Calvinist holds that sanctification results in a progressive walk of holiness and perserverance. The Free Gracer and some Moderate Calvinists and Dispensational Non-Calvinists who do not accept the Free Grace label, would maintain the possibility of the Christian falling into a state of moral ruin or apostasy that would result in chastening and loss of rewards, but not loss of salvation.
Some bring the issue of free will up, arguing that this denies the sovereignty of God. However, that is a side issue. A moderate Calvinist could hold that God sovereignly permits a believers moral ruin in the same way that the more orthodox Calvinist holds that God sovereignly permits a believer to fall into sin or even temporary apostasy.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
Matthew,
I thank you for your compliment. I can certainly discuss points of disagreement with very little grace. I think that my respect for you has grown over the past few days of discussion, here and on your blog(s). After all, I now know that you are cute, nice and a gentleman ;). Seriously, though, you are more of a "blogging friend" than you are "that free grace guy" as you once were. I think you know your own position better than I know mine, and while I try not to let the "PhD student in theology" scare me (meaning your education, you as a person I don't think I have any cause to fear), I have to debate knowing that I don't have answers to all of the questions either of us raise. We also do not disagree on all things and I think our excange is profitable for both of us!
I am not entirely sure where I fit on the Calvinist scale, although I agree in principle with the basic doctrine. I think the Bible is quite clear on unequal rewards in heaven based upon our earthly actions, although eternal life in heaven and the opportunity to stand purified before the Holy God are guaranteed to all who believe. If one denied that, what place does the parable of the talents or "store up for yourselves treasures in heaven" have in the teachings of Christ?
My idea of "free will" is that we all choose our actions and are responsible for those choices. A true Christian can certainly sin and fall into a pattern of sin. One teacher once said (and I can't remember how this was said exactly and I just assume that it was a Calvinist of some variety who said it since I think most of my teachers have been) that God protects those whom He has called and justified from committing the much debated "unpardonable sin." Our fellowship with God and other believers is jeopardized by continued and unconfessed sin and it may be necessary for the truly saved to be removed from the fellowship of the church because of continued sin issues. I don't think that "excommunication" results in a lost salvation, nor do I think that only the unsaved are told to leave. Even with the security of salvation, however, in our own lives I am sure that both you and I strive to grow and run the race with endurance, understanding that we will fall! Antinomianism has been presented as a logical conclusion to election and security, and I think it is a good example of what a single doctrine can be turned into when taken out of the context of the whole of Scripture.
To completely change the subject (and perhaps I should post this on your shoes off blog instead), I can offer a little commentary on shoes, coats & health here in New York. I have only lived here since August and grew up on the other side of the country with a much different climate, so I can offer my comments from a point of comparison. Southern California has a very warm climate and it really only gets much rain to speak of for about three months out of the year - that's what we called winter. A few friends had shoeless homes but most wore their shoes anywhere and everywhere. Usually shoes were only removed around people with whom we were very comfortable. Honestly when my dad did not wear shoes when we had a Bible study meeting at our home I thought it was rude, since all of the guests were wearing theirs. The general cultural attitude there is that feet are disgusting and ought to be kept shod. Here in New York it rains or snows regularly, so there is a much bigger issue with tracking in mud. I find that among my church friends (they are really the only "social" contacts I have now with one exception from school) it is customary to take off shoes when entering a house as a guest. The concept of having a place to store coats was quite foreign to me. After all, there was no need wear a heavy coat back home. My church here has rods with hangers lining the sides of the foyer, and I find that it is very convenient to leave the coat there and not have to carry it around and find a place to put it. We do not, however, remove or change our shoes at church. Reading your connection between maintaining more sanitary conditions and removing shoes was quite interesting to me. In leave-your-shoes-on-PLEASE California, you cannot enter a public restroom without finding toilet seat covers. Here, where removing shoes is rather normal, you cannot find a toilet seat cover to save your life! Perhaps if I went to a larger city (this area has no more than 250,000 people, and that is within an hour radius) I might find things different.
Thanks for your thoughts on my pet hobby horse.
Post a Comment