Is this an accurate, concise presentation of the Gospel of Salvation?
“God loves you so much that He sent His Son Jesus to this world long ago. The Bible promises that whoever believes in Jesus will live forever in heaven with Him.”
My question to your question would be, what is wrong with John 3:16?
If someone understood from the quoted material in the OP that they were eternally secure through their simple faith in Jesus, then yes, I would agree that it could do the trick.
But the main argument I have with such articulations, as with Lordship Salvation invitations, is the problem that they have with biblical language. Why not use the language of the Bible? What is wrong with the way that Jesus articulated the message of eternal life? The words that Jesus spoke were in the authority of the Father. Do we think, really, that we can improve on such articulation?
My answer to your question to my question is that the quoted material is not even John 3:16, it's a distortion of it at best. Namely, J3:16 doesn't say God "sent" his son, it says he "gave" his son. The bottom line is that J3:16 doesn't exist in a vacuum. I'll leave it at that for now, we can hash the details if you'd like.
I'd agree with you though that, at the very least, it isn't articulated well -- Though I'd go considerably further with it than that.
I'd also readily agree with your first statement, that we should use biblical language. There's nothing wrong with how Jesus articulated the message, of course, but isolated comparisons to Jesus (WWJD?) can only go so far as He was ontologically different than us. Yes, he was fully human (like us) but he was also fully divine (not like us).
Antonio, I'm truly interested in your thoughts -- would you care to be a bit more specific about what it is in the original quote that you think is not "biblical language?"
“God loves you so much that He sent His Son Jesus to this world long ago. The Bible promises that whoever believes in Jesus will live forever in heaven with Him.”
I am thinking of articulation. There are commendable attributes of this quote insofar as it resembles John 3:16, but there are innacuracies in it that using the Bible's articulation (as in quoting John 3:16) would have precluded.
Specifically I do not like the way you presented the result of believing in Jesus. If I remember right, you are a dispensationalist, no? God did not create mankind to live in heaven but to reside on earth. Furthermore, the gift that God offers is the present possession of eternal life, guaranteeing one's eternal destiny and protection from a future judgement determining such, not a reality only to be realized upon death.
One of the problems with not using the langauge of the Bible is the possiblity of imprecision and error. This is evident when Lordship Salvation people use invitation language like "submit" or "commit" or when wishy-washy, sincere but ambiguous grace oriented evangelicals say "make Jesus your savior" or "accept Jesus into your life" or any of the other non-biblical articulations.
The Gospel of John was written for evangelistic purposes. John primarily uses the words of Jesus Himself to give the saving message. Jesus' words came with the authority of the Father. Why would we want to articulate Christ's message in a significantly different way than He did, or use concepts such as "living forever with Jesus in heaven" as the gift that Jesus offers which can nevertheless be found on His lips?
I ask the LS and the FG... What is wrong with how Jesus presented the good news about eternal life?
Hopefully, in this mess of a post, I was able to sufficiently answer your question to your satisfaction.
the possiblity of error being spawned by not using bible language can produce confusion, lack of clarity, ambiguity, and the such, which can have detrimental effects upon evangelism.
Just read over my comments and wanted to share this thought :)
You said, "Specifically I do not like the way you presented the result of believing in Jesus."
Just to be clear, the gospel presentation I quoted and which you "do not like" is not mine, it's actually a quote of a GES presentation of the Gospel from a 2004 Grace in Focus article. I disagree with it entirely, and I'm a bit surprised that you do as well since, last I knew, you were pretty enamored with GES. That said, I completely agree with you -- the quoted "gospel" doesn't use biblical language (or context) which is exactly why I'm so opposed to both LS and the GES view of the gospel. Neither view accurately reflects what the Bible actually says.
You also asked, "What is wrong with how Jesus presented the good news about eternal life?", which I already answered earlier but perhaps you missed it. Basically, your question as-phrased is loaded... there's nothing "wrong" with Jesus' presentation, but that doesn't mean we can do it exactly like He did because, as already stated, Jesus was both fully-human and fully-divine which isn't a state you, I, or anyone else can even hope to attain. There's obviously nothing "wrong" with what Jesus did, but it's presumptuous, naive, and even arrogant to suggest that we can or even should do "exactly" the same as He did because, frankly, we aren't like Him. As Philippians 2:7 says, Jesus emptied himself to be like man, but it doesn't follow that we can fill ourselves to be like God. He could be like us, but we will never be like him. Plus, the whole "WWJD" mindeset that you are essentially espousing subtly elevates the "red letters" over the rest of scripture, and that's just not a healthy view of scripture.
Finally, I agree with you completely that "heaven" per se is not the goal, but rather the "new heaven and Earth" of Rev 21-22
I am both an advocate and member of the GES. This doesn't mean that I believe them to speak ex cathedra. I also give them the humanity of erring in articulation, as I often struggle with it myself.
In this comment thread I wrote: ---------- Furthermore, the gift that God offers is the present possession of eternal life, guaranteeing one's eternal destiny and protection from a future judgement determining such, not a reality only to be realized upon death. ---------- I am not happy with that articulation upon re-reading it. It is not exactly accurate. There is a sense in which believing in Christ does not guarantee our eternal destiny, nor protect us from a future judgement determining such. Certainly our destiny is the Kingdom of God, but our destiny within it is not guaranteed, and there will be a future judgement (the bema), based not on our faith but our faithfulness, which will determine it.
The GES is human, made up of several persons. I don't know who was the source of that quote, but I am sure that there will be some more accurate in their articulations than others in the GES. It is by no means perfect.
On another note, I do not disagree with the message entirely (as you seemed to imply), and I am surpised that you do.
I actually stated these 2 things:
If someone understood from the quoted material in the OP that they were eternally secure through their simple faith in Jesus, then yes, I would agree that it could do the trick.
and
There are commendable attributes of this quote insofar as it resembles John 3:16...
You write: ---------- but that doesn't mean we can do it exactly like He did ---------- Your reasoning why we can't does not make sense to me.
When I evangelize, I am merely reproducing the words of Jesus. Jesus' words were spirit, and they were life. They have the authority of the Father. I am telling people what Jesus said, and these words are not my own, neither is this done in my authority. The words of Jesus have the authority of Jesus and the Father. When I reproduce the words of Jesus in His gracious offer of eternal life to "whosoever," they (the words) are relating to the lost the will of the Father and message of the Son directed to them. I am merely an ambassador of Christ, and a heralder or His message, that comes in His authority.
I don't have to be divine to be a regency of the Divine Sovereign, a heralder of His message. The message doesn't have its authority vested in me but in the One in whose message it is.
You write: ---------- Plus, the whole "WWJD" mindeset that you are essentially espousing subtly elevates the "red letters" over the rest of scripture, and that's just not a healthy view of scripture. ---------- All Scripture is equally God's word, and all is profitable. But that is far from saying that all Scripture has the same profit and for the same reason.
If the profit for which I am seeking is consolation in distress, then the Psalms would have the greatest profit for that quest.
If the profit for which I am seeking is wisdom, the books of Solomon, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, would have the greatest profit for that quest.
If the profit for which I am seeking is the message of eternal life given by Jesus Christ, then the Gospel of John would have the greatest profit for that quest.
A "healthy view" of Scripture includes the understanding that not all Scripture was written with the same purposes, and recognizes that all Scripture is not profitable with regard to the same subject matter.
Hello Antonio, Largely I wanted you to know that it isn't "my" expression of the Gospel as it seemed you previously thought. I think we're clear on that now so glad to move on.
You said, "I do not disagree with the message entirely (as you seemed to imply), and I am surpised that you do."
Allow me to correct my own imprecision then as I did not mean to imply you "entirely" disagreed with it. Indeed, there are aspects of it I agree with as well. But, in the sense that it's ultimately either right or wrong, it is wrong because it is an incomplete, non-saving expression of the Gospel of Salvation. If presenting the Gospel of Salvatoin is the goal, then the quoted "gospel" is "entirely" insufficient and therefore "entirely" wrong -- that is the sense to which I was referring.
I agree with you very much on the usefulness of various scriptures for different purposes. I still disagree with you however on the unbalanced emphasis you give to the words of Jesus and I'll try to explain in another way. Building a doctrine on "the words of Jesus" is shaky because Jesus' time of direct ministry was a major transitional period theologically. It's also shaky to look a the 12 disciples as a normative baseline since they were also a part of the same transition. Just like building a major doctrine on events found only in Acts is shaky, so also is over-emphasizing Jesus' words over the words of later biblical authors on the same matter.. Those who wrote later (Paul, 1 Cor 1:22 for example) are more likley to be models for "us" than Jesus (so far as the Gospel of Salvation is concerned) since those writers wrote from the perspective of Jesus' work having been completed and final, whereas Jesus' own words were transitional, made at a time before his work was actually complete.
Wrote this in a bit of a hurry and could write more but will try to keep these relatively short and digestible. We'll tackle the details as they arise.
I am quoting Zane Hodges because he makes a very clear statement on the matter, from How to Lead People to Christ Pt 1:
---------- Let us think a moment. The events described in John’s Gospel occurred before the cross. But the entire book was written afterward. In my view, it was written before 70 AD, but if we prefer a later date in the 80s, my point will be even more forceful...
The Gospel of John is the only book in our New Testament canon that explicitly declares its purpose to be evangelistic. Of course, I am thinking of the famous theme statement found in John 20:30-31, where we read: “And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.” ...
The simple fact is that the whole Fourth Gospel is designed to show that its readers can get saved in the same way as the people who got saved in John’s narrative. To say anything other than this is to accept a fallacy. It is to mistakenly suppose that the Fourth Gospel presents the terms of salvation incompletely and inadequately. I sincerely hope no grace person would want to be stuck with a position like that. [emphasis mine] ---------- http://www.faithalone.org/journal/2000ii/Hodges.htm
The Gospel of John gives elaborate and certain testimony to the message of Christ guaranteeing eternal life to all who believe in Him. This is the witness of the Apostle John and his testimony in his gospel. He was writing years after the cross, by most people's estimation after the Apostle Paul's death.
If by this time the message of Christ expired (having only a 3 1/2 year shelf life), the book is worthless in respect to its purpose. With regards to the gospel's explicit, written intent, if the message of Christ is inadequate, John failed, for his presentation would be inadequate and insufficient.
Such an argument, though, is self-refuting. The Apostle John, writing, some say in the mid 80s (Paul died in 69), certainly knew the terms by which one comes to possess eternal life! If the message had changed, it would have not only been easy but essential for the Apostle to state that it had. But this he just does not do, but relied certainlu upon the testimony and words of Jesus Christ to fulfill the purpose of his evangelistic tract, leaving them to rest upon the authority of the Son of God and of the Father.
You are stuck with only 3 options, logically, concerning your view of the saving message in relation to the Gospel of John:
1) John purposefully omitted the new message for less than honorable reasons, and thus his gospel is deception
2) John overlooked or forgot to include the new message, and thus failed to fulfil the purpose statement for writing his gospel.
3) Christ's saving message has not changed, and John's treatise is complete and purpose fulfilled.
Again:
The simple fact is that the whole Fourth Gospel is designed to show that its readers can get saved in the same way as the people who got saved in John’s narrative.
The whole 4th gospel is designed around Christ's message of life. It is the theme, central message and purpose statement of the whole treatise.
I do not envy your position because it necessitates the view that the Gospel of John insufficiently presents the terms of eternal life, contra its purpose statement.
What you've presented is at worst a false trichotomy. At best it's simply inaccurate/incomplete/half true. I'm out now with only my phone so I'll have to elaborate later.
Something like that. Been debating Lordship Salvation and other related errors on several Facebook venues and, yeah, it's just been time-consuming.
One extensive discussion has been 1 John 5:1 and whether it supports the doctrine of regen before faith. Their view amounts to basic grammar, that "believes" is present tense whereas "born" is past tense, indicating to them an iron-clad argument that "being born" (past) takes place before one "believes" (present). I am/was having several different discussions (1 email and several facebook threads) that all stemmed from discussion of various aspects of this same passage and it's left me a bit weary by the end of the day.
No disrespect intended, but the error of Lordship Salvation seems more prevalent and "in my face" than GES' error so it's consumed my focus. Several of those other discussions appear to have finally run their course over the week, having culminated this weekend, so perhaps I can get back to this thread soon and resume our previous.
You wouldn't happen to be interested in sharing YOUR thoughts on 1 John 5:1 would ya, as it relates to regen before faith? No biggie if you'd rather not, it's just a passage and doctrine that has especially caught my attn lately and I like to work such things to completion if possible.
I would like to take a swing at 1 John 5:1a if I may. I am not really a great Bible scholar, but I will give it a shot.
I think that the argument that this necessitates a previously completed act is not supported simply be the tense. To back up my stance, I look to John 19:30. When Jesus declares TETELESTAI, the perfect, passive, indicative is used. This is the same usage as the begotten in 1 John 5.1. Meaning something completed in the past once and for all time.
Does this mean that the work of salvation was completed prior to Christ's death, yes and know. Rev. 13:8 and 1 Pet 1:20 indicate that Once it had been declared by God it was a certainty as if jesus actually had actually been "slain before the foundations of the world". Even though the actual event did not occur until a much later point in time.
The same could be said of the believer, and in Eph 1:4, it is. "Just as he chose us in Him before the foundations of the world". So before the world was even formed, our birth into Christ is just as certain as His substitutionary death.
Now, I do not pretend to understand how election or preordination or whatever you want to call it works. I do know that when God declares something to be so, it is as certain as if it has already happened, even if the actual event has not yet taken place in our time continuum. To me, at least, 1 John 5:1a is not an argument for prior birth, as much as it is for the certainty of our election in Christ.
In Christ's Service, FedEx, President, Men of Praise Motorcycle Ministry
If I may, let me respond to Antonio's comment in which he gave you three options in regards to interpreting John's Gospel. The answer is obviously option number three, and the key is to be found in thee three resurrection signs of the Savior. If I am not mistaken you have my paper " The Three Resurrection Signs of the Savior" featured in the documents section of your blog "Pursuit of Truth," do you not? I am in the process of updating and expanding that article, but the original makes the point well enough. The caveat to the argument, of course, is that the resurrection manifestations of Christ highlighted at the end of John's Gospel must be believed.
If you don't mind I'd like to ask Antonio a question about his position. Antonio, doesn't John 3:16 affirm the need to believe in Jesus' deity as "God['s]…Son"? How would you respond to this?
My question to your question would be, what is wrong with John 3:16?
ReplyDeleteIf someone understood from the quoted material in the OP that they were eternally secure through their simple faith in Jesus, then yes, I would agree that it could do the trick.
But the main argument I have with such articulations, as with Lordship Salvation invitations, is the problem that they have with biblical language. Why not use the language of the Bible? What is wrong with the way that Jesus articulated the message of eternal life? The words that Jesus spoke were in the authority of the Father. Do we think, really, that we can improve on such articulation?
Grace and peace,
Antonio da Rosa
My answer to your question to my question is that the quoted material is not even John 3:16, it's a distortion of it at best. Namely, J3:16 doesn't say God "sent" his son, it says he "gave" his son. The bottom line is that J3:16 doesn't exist in a vacuum. I'll leave it at that for now, we can hash the details if you'd like.
ReplyDeleteI'd agree with you though that, at the very least, it isn't articulated well -- Though I'd go considerably further with it than that.
I'd also readily agree with your first statement, that we should use biblical language. There's nothing wrong with how Jesus articulated the message, of course, but isolated comparisons to Jesus (WWJD?) can only go so far as He was ontologically different than us. Yes, he was fully human (like us) but he was also fully divine (not like us).
More later?
Antonio, I'm truly interested in your thoughts -- would you care to be a bit more specific about what it is in the original quote that you think is not "biblical language?"
ReplyDeleteThanks
Certainly.
ReplyDelete“God loves you so much that He sent His Son Jesus to this world long ago. The Bible promises that whoever believes in Jesus will live forever in heaven with Him.”
I am thinking of articulation. There are commendable attributes of this quote insofar as it resembles John 3:16, but there are innacuracies in it that using the Bible's articulation (as in quoting John 3:16) would have precluded.
Specifically I do not like the way you presented the result of believing in Jesus. If I remember right, you are a dispensationalist, no? God did not create mankind to live in heaven but to reside on earth. Furthermore, the gift that God offers is the present possession of eternal life, guaranteeing one's eternal destiny and protection from a future judgement determining such, not a reality only to be realized upon death.
One of the problems with not using the langauge of the Bible is the possiblity of imprecision and error. This is evident when Lordship Salvation people use invitation language like "submit" or "commit" or when wishy-washy, sincere but ambiguous grace oriented evangelicals say "make Jesus your savior" or "accept Jesus into your life" or any of the other non-biblical articulations.
The Gospel of John was written for evangelistic purposes. John primarily uses the words of Jesus Himself to give the saving message. Jesus' words came with the authority of the Father. Why would we want to articulate Christ's message in a significantly different way than He did, or use concepts such as "living forever with Jesus in heaven" as the gift that Jesus offers which can nevertheless be found on His lips?
I ask the LS and the FG... What is wrong with how Jesus presented the good news about eternal life?
Hopefully, in this mess of a post, I was able to sufficiently answer your question to your satisfaction.
Antonio da Rosa
that would be, "nevertheless NOT be found on his lips"
ReplyDeletemy error!
To develop more,
ReplyDeletethe possiblity of error being spawned by not using bible language can produce confusion, lack of clarity, ambiguity, and the such, which can have detrimental effects upon evangelism.
Just read over my comments and wanted to share this thought :)
Antonio
Antonio, thanks for your reply.
ReplyDeleteYou said, "Specifically I do not like the way you presented the result of believing in Jesus."
Just to be clear, the gospel presentation I quoted and which you "do not like" is not mine, it's actually a quote of a GES presentation of the Gospel from a 2004 Grace in Focus article. I disagree with it entirely, and I'm a bit surprised that you do as well since, last I knew, you were pretty enamored with GES. That said, I completely agree with you -- the quoted "gospel" doesn't use biblical language (or context) which is exactly why I'm so opposed to both LS and the GES view of the gospel. Neither view accurately reflects what the Bible actually says.
You also asked, "What is wrong with how Jesus presented the good news about eternal life?", which I already answered earlier but perhaps you missed it. Basically, your question as-phrased is loaded... there's nothing "wrong" with Jesus' presentation, but that doesn't mean we can do it exactly like He did because, as already stated, Jesus was both fully-human and fully-divine which isn't a state you, I, or anyone else can even hope to attain. There's obviously nothing "wrong" with what Jesus did, but it's presumptuous, naive, and even arrogant to suggest that we can or even should do "exactly" the same as He did because, frankly, we aren't like Him. As Philippians 2:7 says, Jesus emptied himself to be like man, but it doesn't follow that we can fill ourselves to be like God. He could be like us, but we will never be like him. Plus, the whole "WWJD" mindeset that you are essentially espousing subtly elevates the "red letters" over the rest of scripture, and that's just not a healthy view of scripture.
Finally, I agree with you completely that "heaven" per se is not the goal, but rather the "new heaven and Earth" of Rev 21-22
Regards
I am both an advocate and member of the GES. This doesn't mean that I believe them to speak ex cathedra. I also give them the humanity of erring in articulation, as I often struggle with it myself.
ReplyDeleteIn this comment thread I wrote:
----------
Furthermore, the gift that God offers is the present possession of eternal life, guaranteeing one's eternal destiny and protection from a future judgement determining such, not a reality only to be realized upon death.
----------
I am not happy with that articulation upon re-reading it. It is not exactly accurate. There is a sense in which believing in Christ does not guarantee our eternal destiny, nor protect us from a future judgement determining such. Certainly our destiny is the Kingdom of God, but our destiny within it is not guaranteed, and there will be a future judgement (the bema), based not on our faith but our faithfulness, which will determine it.
The GES is human, made up of several persons. I don't know who was the source of that quote, but I am sure that there will be some more accurate in their articulations than others in the GES. It is by no means perfect.
On another note, I do not disagree with the message entirely (as you seemed to imply), and I am surpised that you do.
I actually stated these 2 things:
If someone understood from the quoted material in the OP that they were eternally secure through their simple faith in Jesus, then yes, I would agree that it could do the trick.
and
There are commendable attributes of this quote insofar as it resembles John 3:16...
You write:
----------
but that doesn't mean we can do it exactly like He did
----------
Your reasoning why we can't does not make sense to me.
When I evangelize, I am merely reproducing the words of Jesus. Jesus' words were spirit, and they were life. They have the authority of the Father. I am telling people what Jesus said, and these words are not my own, neither is this done in my authority. The words of Jesus have the authority of Jesus and the Father. When I reproduce the words of Jesus in His gracious offer of eternal life to "whosoever," they (the words) are relating to the lost the will of the Father and message of the Son directed to them. I am merely an ambassador of Christ, and a heralder or His message, that comes in His authority.
I don't have to be divine to be a regency of the Divine Sovereign, a heralder of His message. The message doesn't have its authority vested in me but in the One in whose message it is.
You write:
----------
Plus, the whole "WWJD" mindeset that you are essentially espousing subtly elevates the "red letters" over the rest of scripture, and that's just not a healthy view of scripture.
----------
All Scripture is equally God's word, and all is profitable. But that is far from saying that all Scripture has the same profit and for the same reason.
If the profit for which I am seeking is consolation in distress, then the Psalms would have the greatest profit for that quest.
If the profit for which I am seeking is wisdom, the books of Solomon, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, would have the greatest profit for that quest.
If the profit for which I am seeking is the message of eternal life given by Jesus Christ, then the Gospel of John would have the greatest profit for that quest.
A "healthy view" of Scripture includes the understanding that not all Scripture was written with the same purposes, and recognizes that all Scripture is not profitable with regard to the same subject matter.
Grace and truth, brother,
Antonio
Hello Antonio, Largely I wanted you to know that it isn't "my" expression of the Gospel as it seemed you previously thought. I think we're clear on that now so glad to move on.
ReplyDeleteYou said, "I do not disagree with the message entirely (as you seemed to imply), and I am surpised that you do."
Allow me to correct my own imprecision then as I did not mean to imply you "entirely" disagreed with it. Indeed, there are aspects of it I agree with as well. But, in the sense that it's ultimately either right or wrong, it is wrong because it is an incomplete, non-saving expression of the Gospel of Salvation. If presenting the Gospel of Salvatoin is the goal, then the quoted "gospel" is "entirely" insufficient and therefore "entirely" wrong -- that is the sense to which I was referring.
I agree with you very much on the usefulness of various scriptures for different purposes. I still disagree with you however on the unbalanced emphasis you give to the words of Jesus and I'll try to explain in another way. Building a doctrine on "the words of Jesus" is shaky because Jesus' time of direct ministry was a major transitional period theologically. It's also shaky to look a the 12 disciples as a normative baseline since they were also a part of the same transition. Just like building a major doctrine on events found only in Acts is shaky, so also is over-emphasizing Jesus' words over the words of later biblical authors on the same matter.. Those who wrote later (Paul, 1 Cor 1:22 for example) are more likley to be models for "us" than Jesus (so far as the Gospel of Salvation is concerned) since those writers wrote from the perspective of Jesus' work having been completed and final, whereas Jesus' own words were transitional, made at a time before his work was actually complete.
Wrote this in a bit of a hurry and could write more but will try to keep these relatively short and digestible. We'll tackle the details as they arise.
Regards
I am quoting Zane Hodges because he makes a very clear statement on the matter, from How to Lead People to Christ Pt 1:
ReplyDelete----------
Let us think a moment. The events described in John’s Gospel occurred before the cross. But the entire book was written afterward. In my view, it was written before 70 AD, but if we prefer a later date in the 80s, my point will be even more forceful...
The Gospel of John is the only book in our New Testament canon that explicitly declares its purpose to be evangelistic. Of course, I am thinking of the famous theme statement found in John 20:30-31, where we read: “And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.” ...
The simple fact is that the whole Fourth Gospel is designed to show that its readers can get saved in the same way as the people who got saved in John’s narrative. To say anything other than this is to accept a fallacy. It is to mistakenly suppose that the Fourth Gospel presents the terms of salvation incompletely and inadequately. I sincerely hope no grace person would want to be stuck with a position like that. [emphasis mine]
----------
http://www.faithalone.org/journal/2000ii/Hodges.htm
The Gospel of John gives elaborate and certain testimony to the message of Christ guaranteeing eternal life to all who believe in Him. This is the witness of the Apostle John and his testimony in his gospel. He was writing years after the cross, by most people's estimation after the Apostle Paul's death.
If by this time the message of Christ expired (having only a 3 1/2 year shelf life), the book is worthless in respect to its purpose. With regards to the gospel's explicit, written intent, if the message of Christ is inadequate, John failed, for his presentation would be inadequate and insufficient.
Such an argument, though, is self-refuting. The Apostle John, writing, some say in the mid 80s (Paul died in 69), certainly knew the terms by which one comes to possess eternal life! If the message had changed, it would have not only been easy but essential for the Apostle to state that it had. But this he just does not do, but relied certainlu upon the testimony and words of Jesus Christ to fulfill the purpose of his evangelistic tract, leaving them to rest upon the authority of the Son of God and of the Father.
You are stuck with only 3 options, logically, concerning your view of the saving message in relation to the Gospel of John:
1) John purposefully omitted the new message for less than honorable reasons, and thus his gospel is deception
2) John overlooked or forgot to include the new message, and thus failed to fulfil the purpose statement for writing his gospel.
3) Christ's saving message has not changed, and John's treatise is complete and purpose fulfilled.
Again:
The simple fact is that the whole Fourth Gospel is designed to show that its readers can get saved in the same way as the people who got saved in John’s narrative.
The whole 4th gospel is designed around Christ's message of life. It is the theme, central message and purpose statement of the whole treatise.
I do not envy your position because it necessitates the view that the Gospel of John insufficiently presents the terms of eternal life, contra its purpose statement.
Grace and truth,
Antonio
What you've presented is at worst a false trichotomy. At best it's simply inaccurate/incomplete/half true. I'm out now with only my phone so I'll have to elaborate later.
ReplyDeleteRegards
I had checked back here several times to see if you have commented. I am left to suppose that you are simply too busy to respond to my last post.
ReplyDeleteblessings to you,
Antonio
Something like that. Been debating Lordship Salvation and other related errors on several Facebook venues and, yeah, it's just been time-consuming.
ReplyDeleteOne extensive discussion has been 1 John 5:1 and whether it supports the doctrine of regen before faith. Their view amounts to basic grammar, that "believes" is present tense whereas "born" is past tense, indicating to them an iron-clad argument that "being born" (past) takes place before one "believes" (present). I am/was having several different discussions (1 email and several facebook threads) that all stemmed from discussion of various aspects of this same passage and it's left me a bit weary by the end of the day.
No disrespect intended, but the error of Lordship Salvation seems more prevalent and "in my face" than GES' error so it's consumed my focus. Several of those other discussions appear to have finally run their course over the week, having culminated this weekend, so perhaps I can get back to this thread soon and resume our previous.
You wouldn't happen to be interested in sharing YOUR thoughts on 1 John 5:1 would ya, as it relates to regen before faith? No biggie if you'd rather not, it's just a passage and doctrine that has especially caught my attn lately and I like to work such things to completion if possible.
Charis,
Stephen
Stephen,
ReplyDeleteI would like to take a swing at 1 John 5:1a if I may. I am not really a great Bible scholar, but I will give it a shot.
I think that the argument that this necessitates a previously completed act is not supported simply be the tense. To back up my stance, I look to John 19:30. When Jesus declares TETELESTAI, the perfect, passive, indicative is used. This is the same usage as the begotten in 1 John 5.1. Meaning something completed in the past once and for all time.
Does this mean that the work of salvation was completed prior to Christ's death, yes and know. Rev. 13:8 and 1 Pet 1:20 indicate that Once it had been declared by God it was a certainty as if jesus actually had actually been "slain before the foundations of the world". Even though the actual event did not occur until a much later point in time.
The same could be said of the believer, and in Eph 1:4, it is. "Just as he chose us in Him before the foundations of the world". So before the world was even formed, our birth into Christ is just as certain as His substitutionary death.
Now, I do not pretend to understand how election or preordination or whatever you want to call it works. I do know that when God declares something to be so, it is as certain as if it has already happened, even if the actual event has not yet taken place in our time continuum. To me, at least, 1 John 5:1a is not an argument for prior birth, as much as it is for the certainty of our election in Christ.
In Christ's Service,
FedEx,
President,
Men of Praise Motorcycle Ministry
Hello Stephen,
ReplyDeleteI find this discussion to be very interesting.
JP
If I may, let me respond to Antonio's comment in which he gave you three options in regards to interpreting John's Gospel. The answer is obviously option number three, and the key is to be found in thee three resurrection signs of the Savior. If I am not mistaken you have my paper " The Three Resurrection Signs of the Savior" featured in the documents section of your blog "Pursuit of Truth," do you not? I am in the process of updating and expanding that article, but the original makes the point well enough. The caveat to the argument, of course, is that the resurrection manifestations of Christ highlighted at the end of John's Gospel must be believed.
ReplyDeleteThanks,
JP
Hi Stephen,
ReplyDeleteIf you don't mind I'd like to ask Antonio a question about his position. Antonio, doesn't John 3:16 affirm the need to believe in Jesus' deity as "God['s]…Son"? How would you respond to this?
Thanks,
JP