Romans 3-4
I'm going to take a slight bit of liberty here and add to my original outline. :-) In this article, I will discuss Romans chapters 3 and 4, and explain how these chapters show us that saving faith includes belief in Jesus' substitutionary death (and acknowledgement of our sin by strong implication), as well as faith in Jesus apart from any works.
First, let's again get a brief overview of Paul's argument up to now. Paul is in the process of showing that all the world is guilty before God. In chapter 1 he shows that the Gentiles/heathens are guilty of sin. In chapter 2 he shows that the Jews are also guilty of sin. In chapter 3 he is concluding and reiterating that all the world stands guilty of sin before God and deserving of justice and punishment.
These 2 chapters are pretty clear regarding the need for faith in Jesus alone and apart from works. I will just list them here and provide any comment as needed, since this is not generally a point of contention in this "crossless" debate (although it is vital, thus I have included it in my series, and certainly if anyone has any challenges on this point, bring them up in the comments thread).
3:20 - "...because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin." Clearly works do not enable anyone to be justified.
3:21-22 - "But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe..." The righteousness of God (i.e. justification) comes apart from the Law and is through faith in Jesus.
3:24 - "...being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus..." - Justification is a gift, thus not something that could be earned or gained through works.
3:28 - "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law." - Self-evident.
4:2-5 - "For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? 'ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.' Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness..." - Lots of good stuff in this section. Paul uses the beloved and revered OT story of Abraham to show that he was justified NOT by works, but only by his faith in God. Paul also strongly rejects that works can possibly contribute to our salvation. He states that if you're counting on your works, then you'll get whatever they're worth (i.e. not much). But if you don't rely on your works, but instead simply believe in Jesus, your faith in Jesus results in His righteousness being transferred to your account, allowing God to remain just while justifying sinners.
There is more here, but I think that is sufficient to prove that salvation/justification is by faith alone in Jesus and completely apart from works.
Do we see any other content of saving faith here in these chapters? I believe so. Romans 3:25 says of Jesus, "God presented Him as a propitiation through faith in His blood, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His restraint God passed over the sins previously committed..." (HCSB) I have previously discussed this verse on my group blog. I have edited it and reproduced it here. This verse seems pretty clear that we are to have faith "in His blood". Here is an article by Zane Hodges in which he addresses this verse from the "crossless" perspective. In the article, Hodges notes that the word for "propitiation" here is "hilasterion", which refers to the mercy seat. However, I don't see how this makes a difference. My point is that Romans 3:25 clearly states that Jesus’ propitiation of our sin is applied through faith in the propitiation (the blood of Jesus). It seems to me that Hodges is claiming that “propitiation” is actually two steps, the first step being the actual payment of our sins (Jesus’ death), and the second step being where Jesus “introduces” us to God or mediates between us and God. He then seems to be claiming that the “propitiation” in Romans 3:25 ONLY refers to the “second step”, due to the use of the word for mercy seat (hilasterion), and that God said he would “meet” with his people at the mercy seat.
I first want to point out a quote by Hodges from that article:
“Without at all criticizing the choice of word order by NKJV and NASV, it nevertheless remains true that the Greek word order is significant. Paul is basically connecting the words 'through faith' with the word for mercy seat (hilasterion). That is to say, Jesus Christ becomes the New Covenant equivalent of the mercy seat through faith.”
This is important because Hodges here is acknowledging that Romans 3:25 clearly states that Jesus becomes our propitiation (or “mercy seat”) through faith. Which leads to the question, faith in what? The verse tells us plainly, faith in His blood. Hodges goes on to say that he thinks this refers to a specific aspect of propitiation (which I explain further below), but I will also refute that idea. The point to remember here is that even Hodges concedes that Romans 3:25 is clear in that whatever the verse means by “propitiation”, Jesus only becomes such propitiation by faith (and I would further say it is faith “in His blood”).
First, I don’t think such a bifurcation of propitiation is warranted. The separation seems artificial, and solely to bolster Hodges’ already-held view. I don’t think such a distinction would ever be set forth if the theology that requires it wasn’t already in place.
Second, I don’t see the focus of the mercy seat as the place where anyone is “introduced” to God. When Paul’s readers saw the word and thought of “mercy seat”, I don’t think they separated in their minds the payment (or passing over, as was the case in the OT) of their sins from the ability to meet with God. The mercy seat contained all of those aspects in one. The blood of the sacrifice was sprinkled on the mercy seat, at once covering their sins AND allowing God to meet with them. I just do not see how the use of the word for “mercy seat” somehow means ONLY God meeting with the believer and not ALSO the payment of sins.
Third, and I think this point is more pertinent, Hodges quotes Exodus 25 (although the article says “Exodus 5″), when God is giving instructions to Moses on how to build the tabernacle, what all should be in it, and how it all should be constructed. God tells Moses specifically, “There I will meet with you; and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim which are upon the ark of the testimony, I will speak to you about all that I will give you in commandment for the sons of Israel.” This seems to indicate a special, non-routine occurrence of God meeting with Moses specifically, in order to give him commandments for the nation of Israel. In contrast, when God prescribes the Law of Atonement, or sin offering, that the Israelites were to do each year (in Lev. 16), God says nothing at all about meeting the priest at the mercy seat. All that is said is the instructions on how to sprinkle the blood on the seat, the scapegoat, the cleaning up of the priest doing the killing, and what to do with the animal after the offering was made. There is NO indication that God “met with” the priest each and every year that he sprinkled the blood on the mercy seat. Comparing Scripture with Scripture, I think we see that the “meeting” God planned in Exodus 25 was a unique meeting with Moses specifically, in order to give him information that he was to pass on to Israel. Thus my second point above is further solidified, in that the readers of Romans, when they saw the word hilasterion (”mercy seat”), would have thought of the atonement in general. There is no evidence that the mercy seat was considered or even intended as some sort of annual meeting place between God and man. So it’s not just that Paul’s readers wouldn’t have separated the “meeting with God” aspect from the “atonement for sins” aspect, it’s that they never would have thought of a “meeting with God” aspect in the first place, because that’s simply not what happened at the mercy seat.
Now, it is true that a few translations render this verse, "in His blood, through faith", or "by His blood, through faith". But the vast majority of translations have it "through faith in his blood". I don't know Greek, but thankfully people who do have put together some wonderful tools so that I can still see what the original Greek was for this verse. Literally this reads, "through faith in this His blood". The strong consensus is that the verse does say "through faith in His blood".
One final thought on these chapters. As I stated earlier, in Romans 3 Paul is concluding his argument that the entire world stands guilty of sin before a just and holy God. Since Paul has just got done explaining in detail all about our sin problem and the fact that it separates us from God, it seems patently obvious that for someone to appropriate Christ's sacrifice and obtain forgiveness of sins, that that person must be aware of and acknowledge (i.e. agree with God about) their sins. If we are to have "faith in His blood", what would we be having such faith for? Why would Jesus need to die, and why do we need His blood to fix anything? It must be that we need forgiveness for our sins. Some will say that this is merely a psychological step rather than a salvific step. But I contend that it is actually a psychological requirement (and Scriptural too), rather than simply a "most likely" or "usually" or "pretty much all the time" step that most people will go through. When we consider the OT sacrifices were all done because of sin, and that Paul is writing these words about faith in the context of proving that all are guilty of sin (and remembering the high-context ANE society he is writing in), I think it becomes quite clear that a person must acknowledge their sin in order to put their faith for forgiveness of sins in the blood of Jesus. How could someone receive forgiveness of their sins if they don't even acknowledge their sins, and/or they don't believe in and accept the payment that Jesus made in order to forgive their sins? This is not merely psychological, it is salvific. You cannot receive forgiveness of your sins if you don't ask for it and accept the payment for your sins.
Romans chapters 3 and 4 teach very plainly that saving faith must be placed in Jesus Christ alone, apart from any works. But what does it mean to place your faith in Jesus? What must we believe in Him for? Chapter 3 makes it evident that we need to acknowledge our sin, and place our faith in Jesus and His substitutionary sacrifice - the blood that He shed to provide for our forgiveness.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
A Case for the Cross - Part 1
John 3
To start, let's get a quick overview of this chapter. In the previous chapter, 2 major events occurred. Jesus began his ministry by changing the water to wine at the wedding in Cana (sidenote here for the skeptical sort: this was NOT Jesus' own wedding because John 2:2 tells us that Jesus was invited to the wedding! kind of strange to invite yourself to your own wedding). Then we have the first Passover in John, where Jesus cleansed the temple of the money-changers, and also prophesied his own resurrection. We also see that "many" people believed in Jesus during this time.
This brings us to John chapter 3. The scene has Nicodemus approaching Jesus at nighttime, no doubt partially in fear of the other Pharisees seeing him with Jesus. Nick tells Jesus that he thinks Jesus has "come from God". Jesus tells him that he (and everyone) must be "born again". Nick doesn't understand and questions Jesus on that. Jesus then proceeds to give a lengthy explanation in vs. 5-21 of what is involved in being born again. The rest of chapter 3 (vs. 23-36) gives us John the Baptizer's last recorded testimony about Jesus during John's ministry. It is considered a transition from John's ministry to Jesus' ministry.
I want to focus here on Jesus' monologue in vs. 5-21, then look a little at vs. 23-36. What do we learn about saving faith in vs. 5-21? I see in these verses at least 3 of the requirements I listed in my introductory post: 1) acknowledgement of sin; 2) belief in Jesus' death on the cross; and 3) belief that Jesus is God.
John 3:16 is a popular verse in our culture, probably the most well-known verse of all time. But let's look at the near context of the words in John 3:16. In verses 14-15, Jesus says, "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life." Jesus is referencing an OT story found in Numbers 21:1-9. The Israelites had begun to complain against God and Moses, so God sent "fiery serpents" which bit the people and many of them died. Verse 7 says, "So the people came to Moses and said, 'We have sinned, because we have spoken against the LORD and you; intercede with the LORD, that He may remove the serpents from us.' " So Moses went to the Lord, and in verse 8 God told Moses what to do: "Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a standard; and it shall come about, that everyone who is bitten, when he looks at it, he will live." Moses obeyed, and from then on, anyone who was bit could simply look at the serpent, and his life was spared.
Numbers 21:7 is especially significant. The people clearly acknowledged their sin before the Lord, THEN God made a way for them to just look on the serpent and live. So when Jesus compares his death on the cross to the serpent in the wilderness with Moses, Nicodemus (and the original readers) would immediately have thought of the entire story. The story itself speaks of sin and judgment, as well as God delivering the people. It is almost a "mini" gospel story: it involves recognition of sin, reliance on God for deliverance, God providing the deliverance, and a response required on the part of the individual in order to receive God's deliverance.
Also, Jesus compares himself to the serpent which was "lifted up". I'm not sure if the "standard" from the Numbers story was definitely a cross, but it seems to be some kind of pole lifted up off the ground. This would most certainly bring forth the picture of crucifixion to the original readers. Jesus paints a word picture of himself "lifted up" off the earth (on something, most likely a cross in that culture) due to the sin of the people, and the sinful people avoiding death and being given life by "looking" to him ("believing" in him).
Then in the very next verse (16), it says that God "gave" His Son so that people could avoid death and be given life. The context of Jesus referencing the Numbers story of the serpent on a pole gives import to this meaning of "gave". Verse 16 says that God "gave" His Son in order that people could live eternally. What else could this be referring to except Jesus' substitutionary atonement? For as wonderful as the incarnation is, it alone does not have the ability to grant anyone eternal life. If Jesus had merely come to earth and lived a perfect life, it wouldn't have changed a thing spiritually for any of us. There is no other sense of God's "giving" of His Son that provides eternal life for sinful people who deserve death. John 3:16 is telling us that God "gave" His Son as a sacrifice for our sins when he died on the cross.
Let us now look at John 3:16 in its entirety (everyone together now): "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." Now remember, these words are in the context of the story from Numbers, which rings of sin, judgment, and deliverance. Jesus says that whoever believes in Him "shall not perish". In the Numbers story, why were the people perishing? Because of the bites of the serpents, which were sent as a result of their sin. So they perished as a result of their sin. But when they looked upon the serpent, the results of their sin (death) were erased, and they were given life instead.
The analogy Jesus is drawing here is manifestly evident. The people in Numbers acknowledged their sin, then believed in God's provision for deliverance from the resulting judgment of their sin. But of course we know that those people were only given "temporary" life, whereas belief in Jesus results in eternal life. So we can see from the full context of John 3:16 that "belief in Jesus" contemplates an acknowledgement of personal sin and the need for God to provide a way of deliverance from the results of our sin, as well as the realization that God has provided a way of deliverance, that is, Jesus' death on the cross.
But let's back up in verse 16 for a minute. Who is it that God "gave", the one in whom we are to "believe"? It is God's "only begotten Son". In fact, John 3:16 doesn't even mention the name "Jesus". It simply tells us that we are to believe in God's "only begotten Son", or another way to say it, the "Son of God". Clearly this is saying that we are to believe in Jesus as God, or we could say, part of the required content of saving faith ("belief") is the fact that Jesus is God ("Son of God"). How could someone believe "in" the Son of God if that person did not believe that anyone actually is the "Son of God"? If someone believes in a Jesus whom they deny is the Son of God, then obviously they are not believing in the "Son of God".
Now, I know some will claim that the term "Son of God" or "only begotten Son" does not actually refer to deity. I will address and refute that claim later in my outline (see my introductory article for the outline). But let's assume that claim is correct. Let's assume that "only begotten Son" (aka "Son of God") in John 3:16 is NOT a title for deity. What does this title mean then? What would this verse be saying if "only begotten Son" does not mean deity? A mere human? An angel? Some other being? Such an interpretation would have the lost believe in someone who is not God to give them eternal life! John 3:16 requires people to believe in God's "only begotten Son" in order to avoid perishing (the result of their sin) and to receive eternal life. If this term does not refer to deity, then John 3:16 requires everyone to believe in someone less than God (a mere human even! ) to give them eternal life! This is antithetical even to their own message, and is both impossible and unbiblical. But in actuality, this term does in fact refer to deity, as I will show later on in the series.
The rest of John 3 gives us more cause for including belief in Jesus' eternal deity in the required content of saving faith. John 3:18 says, "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." Again, no mention of believing in "Jesus", yet clearly the lost are required to believe in the "Son of God" (referring to deity).
To start, let's get a quick overview of this chapter. In the previous chapter, 2 major events occurred. Jesus began his ministry by changing the water to wine at the wedding in Cana (sidenote here for the skeptical sort: this was NOT Jesus' own wedding because John 2:2 tells us that Jesus was invited to the wedding! kind of strange to invite yourself to your own wedding). Then we have the first Passover in John, where Jesus cleansed the temple of the money-changers, and also prophesied his own resurrection. We also see that "many" people believed in Jesus during this time.
This brings us to John chapter 3. The scene has Nicodemus approaching Jesus at nighttime, no doubt partially in fear of the other Pharisees seeing him with Jesus. Nick tells Jesus that he thinks Jesus has "come from God". Jesus tells him that he (and everyone) must be "born again". Nick doesn't understand and questions Jesus on that. Jesus then proceeds to give a lengthy explanation in vs. 5-21 of what is involved in being born again. The rest of chapter 3 (vs. 23-36) gives us John the Baptizer's last recorded testimony about Jesus during John's ministry. It is considered a transition from John's ministry to Jesus' ministry.
I want to focus here on Jesus' monologue in vs. 5-21, then look a little at vs. 23-36. What do we learn about saving faith in vs. 5-21? I see in these verses at least 3 of the requirements I listed in my introductory post: 1) acknowledgement of sin; 2) belief in Jesus' death on the cross; and 3) belief that Jesus is God.
John 3:16 is a popular verse in our culture, probably the most well-known verse of all time. But let's look at the near context of the words in John 3:16. In verses 14-15, Jesus says, "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life." Jesus is referencing an OT story found in Numbers 21:1-9. The Israelites had begun to complain against God and Moses, so God sent "fiery serpents" which bit the people and many of them died. Verse 7 says, "So the people came to Moses and said, 'We have sinned, because we have spoken against the LORD and you; intercede with the LORD, that He may remove the serpents from us.' " So Moses went to the Lord, and in verse 8 God told Moses what to do: "Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a standard; and it shall come about, that everyone who is bitten, when he looks at it, he will live." Moses obeyed, and from then on, anyone who was bit could simply look at the serpent, and his life was spared.
Numbers 21:7 is especially significant. The people clearly acknowledged their sin before the Lord, THEN God made a way for them to just look on the serpent and live. So when Jesus compares his death on the cross to the serpent in the wilderness with Moses, Nicodemus (and the original readers) would immediately have thought of the entire story. The story itself speaks of sin and judgment, as well as God delivering the people. It is almost a "mini" gospel story: it involves recognition of sin, reliance on God for deliverance, God providing the deliverance, and a response required on the part of the individual in order to receive God's deliverance.
Also, Jesus compares himself to the serpent which was "lifted up". I'm not sure if the "standard" from the Numbers story was definitely a cross, but it seems to be some kind of pole lifted up off the ground. This would most certainly bring forth the picture of crucifixion to the original readers. Jesus paints a word picture of himself "lifted up" off the earth (on something, most likely a cross in that culture) due to the sin of the people, and the sinful people avoiding death and being given life by "looking" to him ("believing" in him).
Then in the very next verse (16), it says that God "gave" His Son so that people could avoid death and be given life. The context of Jesus referencing the Numbers story of the serpent on a pole gives import to this meaning of "gave". Verse 16 says that God "gave" His Son in order that people could live eternally. What else could this be referring to except Jesus' substitutionary atonement? For as wonderful as the incarnation is, it alone does not have the ability to grant anyone eternal life. If Jesus had merely come to earth and lived a perfect life, it wouldn't have changed a thing spiritually for any of us. There is no other sense of God's "giving" of His Son that provides eternal life for sinful people who deserve death. John 3:16 is telling us that God "gave" His Son as a sacrifice for our sins when he died on the cross.
Let us now look at John 3:16 in its entirety (everyone together now): "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." Now remember, these words are in the context of the story from Numbers, which rings of sin, judgment, and deliverance. Jesus says that whoever believes in Him "shall not perish". In the Numbers story, why were the people perishing? Because of the bites of the serpents, which were sent as a result of their sin. So they perished as a result of their sin. But when they looked upon the serpent, the results of their sin (death) were erased, and they were given life instead.
The analogy Jesus is drawing here is manifestly evident. The people in Numbers acknowledged their sin, then believed in God's provision for deliverance from the resulting judgment of their sin. But of course we know that those people were only given "temporary" life, whereas belief in Jesus results in eternal life. So we can see from the full context of John 3:16 that "belief in Jesus" contemplates an acknowledgement of personal sin and the need for God to provide a way of deliverance from the results of our sin, as well as the realization that God has provided a way of deliverance, that is, Jesus' death on the cross.
But let's back up in verse 16 for a minute. Who is it that God "gave", the one in whom we are to "believe"? It is God's "only begotten Son". In fact, John 3:16 doesn't even mention the name "Jesus". It simply tells us that we are to believe in God's "only begotten Son", or another way to say it, the "Son of God". Clearly this is saying that we are to believe in Jesus as God, or we could say, part of the required content of saving faith ("belief") is the fact that Jesus is God ("Son of God"). How could someone believe "in" the Son of God if that person did not believe that anyone actually is the "Son of God"? If someone believes in a Jesus whom they deny is the Son of God, then obviously they are not believing in the "Son of God".
Now, I know some will claim that the term "Son of God" or "only begotten Son" does not actually refer to deity. I will address and refute that claim later in my outline (see my introductory article for the outline). But let's assume that claim is correct. Let's assume that "only begotten Son" (aka "Son of God") in John 3:16 is NOT a title for deity. What does this title mean then? What would this verse be saying if "only begotten Son" does not mean deity? A mere human? An angel? Some other being? Such an interpretation would have the lost believe in someone who is not God to give them eternal life! John 3:16 requires people to believe in God's "only begotten Son" in order to avoid perishing (the result of their sin) and to receive eternal life. If this term does not refer to deity, then John 3:16 requires everyone to believe in someone less than God (a mere human even! ) to give them eternal life! This is antithetical even to their own message, and is both impossible and unbiblical. But in actuality, this term does in fact refer to deity, as I will show later on in the series.
The rest of John 3 gives us more cause for including belief in Jesus' eternal deity in the required content of saving faith. John 3:18 says, "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." Again, no mention of believing in "Jesus", yet clearly the lost are required to believe in the "Son of God" (referring to deity).
In vs. 27-36, John the Baptizer speaks to his disciples regarding more people beginning to follow Jesus than John. John refers to Jesus' deity in several ways ("the Christ", Jesus "comes from heaven", Jesus is "the Son" and God has "given all things into his hand"). Finally, in v. 38, John declares, "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." Once again, we have no mention of the name Jesus in a salvific text. What we do see is a requirement to believe in "the Son [of God]". If someone does not believe Jesus is the "Son of God", then even if they claim to believe in Jesus, as far as they are concerned they are not believing in the Son of God.
In summary, John 3 shows us at least 3 items in the required content of saving faith: acknowledgement of personal sin, belief in Jesus' death on the cross to pay for our sin, and belief that Jesus is God. The sin aspect is evident from Jesus' reference in vs. 14-15 to the story in Numbers. Belief in Jesus' substitutionary atonement on the cross is also evident from the story in Numbers, as well as the statement in v. 16 that God "gave" His Son for the purpose of making provision for people to avoid death and receive life. And we see that belief in the eternal deity of Jesus is required by noting the requirement to believe in the "Son of God" in vs. 16, 18, and 36.
I will discuss Romans 3 in the next article. Please feel free to interact with any of my points in this article at any time.
In summary, John 3 shows us at least 3 items in the required content of saving faith: acknowledgement of personal sin, belief in Jesus' death on the cross to pay for our sin, and belief that Jesus is God. The sin aspect is evident from Jesus' reference in vs. 14-15 to the story in Numbers. Belief in Jesus' substitutionary atonement on the cross is also evident from the story in Numbers, as well as the statement in v. 16 that God "gave" His Son for the purpose of making provision for people to avoid death and receive life. And we see that belief in the eternal deity of Jesus is required by noting the requirement to believe in the "Son of God" in vs. 16, 18, and 36.
I will discuss Romans 3 in the next article. Please feel free to interact with any of my points in this article at any time.
Monday, February 11, 2008
A Case For the Cross
We have seen much discussion in the last several months over the content of saving faith. Some hold to the view that the only content required for saving faith is belief that Jesus can and will give eternal life to all those who believe in Him alone.
I reject this view. I maintain that, in today's dispensation, the lost are required to believe that Jesus is God, that they are sinners, that Jesus died for their sins and rose again, and that the only way they can be forgiven of their sins and have eternal life is by trusting in Jesus alone.
As such, a major difference between my view and the other view is that my view requires belief in the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus. "The Cross" sort of sums up these requirements, therefore I have titled this series, "A Case For the Cross".
In this series I will be presenting arguments for my view, as well as arguments against the other view. Much of this is information that I have already presented at various blogs, but some of it will be new. And now it will all be together in one place.
Below is an outline of the points I will be addressing. I have been reading and participating in this general discussion for about 6 months now, and I feel I have a pretty good handle on all the major points coming from the other side. In fact, I have had personal email exchanges with Bob Wilkin, who told me that I understand his view well and he would make no correction of my understanding of this issue. I have also spent time reading articles and comments by the major proponents of the opposing view.
So, please feel free to interact and discuss any point you desire. And if you believe you have something that's not on my outline, let me know about it. If I agree that it is something not already covered that contributes to the discussion, I'll address it.
Outline for "A Case For the Cross":
I. Arguments For
a. John 3
b. Romans 3
c. "The Gospel"
d. 1 Corinthians 15
II. Arguments Against
a. Purpose of the Gospel of John
b. People in the NT were saved w/o believing these things
c. Saving faith is only "the right thing in the right object/historical person"
d. Meaning of the titles "the Christ" and "the Son of God"
e. John 11 (Martha)
f. John 4 (Samaritan woman)
g. 1 Timothy 1:16
h. Blind man in John 9
i. Paul's conversion
j. The jailer in Acts 16
k. Paul and Peter's presentation of Jesus throughout Acts
l. Miscellaneous verses
III. Pushbacks to "Arguments For"
a. No specific verse or explicit statement
b. "The Gospel" means more than just what is required for saving faith
c. 1 Corinthians 15 - the 500 witnesses should be required too
d. Too complex, too many subpoints, checklist evangelism, laundry list, etc.
e. Someone could believe these things and still not be saved
f. It's a moot point/theory because these doctrines are always presented by everyone anyway
I reject this view. I maintain that, in today's dispensation, the lost are required to believe that Jesus is God, that they are sinners, that Jesus died for their sins and rose again, and that the only way they can be forgiven of their sins and have eternal life is by trusting in Jesus alone.
As such, a major difference between my view and the other view is that my view requires belief in the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus. "The Cross" sort of sums up these requirements, therefore I have titled this series, "A Case For the Cross".
In this series I will be presenting arguments for my view, as well as arguments against the other view. Much of this is information that I have already presented at various blogs, but some of it will be new. And now it will all be together in one place.
Below is an outline of the points I will be addressing. I have been reading and participating in this general discussion for about 6 months now, and I feel I have a pretty good handle on all the major points coming from the other side. In fact, I have had personal email exchanges with Bob Wilkin, who told me that I understand his view well and he would make no correction of my understanding of this issue. I have also spent time reading articles and comments by the major proponents of the opposing view.
So, please feel free to interact and discuss any point you desire. And if you believe you have something that's not on my outline, let me know about it. If I agree that it is something not already covered that contributes to the discussion, I'll address it.
Outline for "A Case For the Cross":
I. Arguments For
a. John 3
b. Romans 3
c. "The Gospel"
d. 1 Corinthians 15
II. Arguments Against
a. Purpose of the Gospel of John
b. People in the NT were saved w/o believing these things
c. Saving faith is only "the right thing in the right object/historical person"
d. Meaning of the titles "the Christ" and "the Son of God"
e. John 11 (Martha)
f. John 4 (Samaritan woman)
g. 1 Timothy 1:16
h. Blind man in John 9
i. Paul's conversion
j. The jailer in Acts 16
k. Paul and Peter's presentation of Jesus throughout Acts
l. Miscellaneous verses
III. Pushbacks to "Arguments For"
a. No specific verse or explicit statement
b. "The Gospel" means more than just what is required for saving faith
c. 1 Corinthians 15 - the 500 witnesses should be required too
d. Too complex, too many subpoints, checklist evangelism, laundry list, etc.
e. Someone could believe these things and still not be saved
f. It's a moot point/theory because these doctrines are always presented by everyone anyway
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)