So, I want to invite Jim Reitman to reload this discussion. Here were my last words:
I really want to take the blame here in not framing things properly. Jim and I certainly have different views on some things, and different ways to express agreed upon things. Rather than getting into the minutiae of different aspects of whether or not hermeneutics has been damaged by being too rationalistic (though Jim agree that being rational is important), etc., I really just want to give Jim the opportunity to state what he really believes. Now, stating what he believes may take some explanation of his epistemology. I want to be patient with this as well. In other words, I’d like to give Jim a real opportunity to tell me / us what he believes it takes for one to be saved. In this way I can interact with him on the actual goal: hearing what he believes is the content of the gospel. Perhaps more accurately he will need to address what is the content-side of the gospel (Jim, I think, believes the gospel…here we mean what it takes to get saved from heaven to hell…involves more than faith in content).
So now, I’d rather Jim really lead the discussion. We are trying to get to the Content of Saving Faith from Jim’s perspective and understanding. I think Jim understands saving faith to have both propositional and nonpropositional components or aspects.
So, here we go:
Jim what do you really believe about the Content of Saving Faith? What does God require (if anything?) from an individual to be received into His Eternity?
What do we need to know first to understand before we hear your conclusions on the matter? Explain whatever you need to to get to the point of sharing what you believe is required to believe in (or do…or feel…etc.) order to be saved from hell to heaven.
Honestly, win me over!
God bless,
Fred Lybrand
P.S. Again, don’t post to this dialogue…instead please post your comments to The Content of Saving Faith (The Companion Discussion) (REDUX)
Introduction
Welcome back, campers. I have replied to Kev on the new companion thread with a post intended as an orientation to the following discussion for those who self-identify with one or another faction of the Free Grace (FG) movement. I consider myself a staunch FG advocate but do not self-identify with either side in this current debate. I would like to reiterate that some of my thinking here has not been published and is not available in written form anywhere else (at least not by me); therefore, it is provisional and subject to modification in my discussion with Fred. This is extraordinarily risky, as Kev pointed out, because anyone can cut-and-paste what I say forever-and-ever-amen, and it can spread like cancer, even if I subsequently modify what I say.
I would just appeal to everyone to be patient, and I promise not to knowingly “snow” anyone with too much epistemology after the following paragraph for Fred.
Thank you, Fred, for your graciousness in handling what has become a very explosive and contentious issue, and I deeply appreciate your re-framing the issue in terms that may be able to avoid the heavy-duty epistemology. (That said, it really is crucial to my approach to the text, and others who are new to this thread and interested in the epistemological issues may want to revisit the first go-round below.) What I hope to be able to do is weave my convictions on how we know truth into the basic argument, which will be from the so-called “salvation texts” in the Gospel of John.
I choose these texts because they graphically illustrate the importance of context, especially in narrative genre (and of the non-propositional truth thereby depicted), in “defining” the saving message of grace. This explains some of the dramatic differences throughout the NT in the so-called “message,” which in part depends on who is being addressed with that message. Yet, taken together, all these vignettes in the gospels and Acts, as well as the propositions in the epistles, still point to a common core “truth” about the gospel—that it is primarily a Person, of whom certain propositions are predicated to specify the nature of both the Person and of the gift of grace offered by that Person. From this point of view, the content of this saving message is more a description of the object of faith than the object of faith per se.
With that introduction, I will start a separate post and begin my argument with the “big kahuna,” 🙂 John 3:16.
Thanks Jim.
I’m probably going to simply ask a lot of questions as you share. My aim is to understand your view before I do anything else.
Fred
The Question.
Jim what do you really believe about the Content of Saving Faith? What does God require (if anything?) from an individual to be received into His Eternity?
What do we need to know first to understand before we hear your conclusions on the matter? Explain whatever you need to, to get to the point of sharing what you believe is required to believe in (or do…or feel…etc.) order to be saved from hell to heaven.
What We Need to Know First (before we can answer the first question stated above).
Salvation is a “transaction” of reconciliation between God and fallen mankind which is entered into (from a human perspective) through “saving faith.” This transaction consists of three ontological features, as described by the following three propositions:
• The subject/object of saving faith is the Person of Messiah (the promised “Seed”)
• The basis of salvation is the death and resurrection of Messiah, freely received as a free gift of God’s grace
• The result of salvation is a “three-dimensional” life after death, forever (“eternal life”)
Answer I (to “What do you really believe about the Content of Saving Faith?”) .
In being “saved,” a rational/sane person will have “some awareness” of the following “content” in all dispensations of salvation history. My present thinking is that this awareness can be propositional and/or intuitive and that it “resides” in our consciences. A non-rational/insane person may not require this awareness, because judgment is in accordance with “light received,” and they may not be capable of receiving that “light.”
• I am dead in trespasses and sin.
• God has promised me life after death.
• This life is in the promised human “Seed,” whom God provides as a ransom for sin.
• This Person is freely “received” by humans (at no cost whatsoever to each individual).
The available “detail” with which this content is “filled out” has increased with progressive revelation in every dispensation of salvation history.
Answer II (to “What does God require…from an individual to be received into His Eternity?”).
• Faith alone in the promised Messiah alone for God’s promised life after death
In the next several posts I will begin to lay out my argument for the above on the basis of John 3:16 by answering a series of questions about the implications of John 3:16 from the narratives of Scripture in both near (GJohn) and remote (OT, Gospels, epistles) context.
Jim,
Fair enough. There are a couple of clarifications I would find helpful:
1. Do you see ‘salvation’ as forensic justification (or something more / not at all / etc.)?
2. What do you mean by “This Person is freely “received” by humans”?
On question 2, I’m asking, “What does it mean to receive a person?
Thanks,
FRL
P.S. I’ll be at the Free Grace Alliance Conference from Sunday through Wednesday. I should be able to stay engage, but I may be a bit in-and-out.
Fred,
Thanks for the clear questions. I think this may serve well for the ensuing dialogue.
Answer 1. The salvation I am referencing is a three-dimensional deliverance, by which I mean:
(a) forensic justification (positional sanctification)—deliverance from guilt for personal sin and its corresponding penalty to a life after death in Him;
(b) progressive sanctification—deliverance from the power of sin and the corresponding temporal “death” that accrues from sin to a present reign in righteousness “through Christ” to eternal life;
c) glorification (prospective sanctification)—final deliverance from the presence of sin to ultimate vindication of present faithfulness in the form of shared glory at the Judgment Seat of Christ and shared reign in the ensuing physical culmination of His Kingdom)
The first dimension of salvation is secured once-for-all by freely “receiving” (or “appropriating”) by faith the free gift of God’s ransom for sin.
The second dimension of salvation is secured by ongoing appropriation of (1) Christ’s atoning blood to maintain cleansing from sin in this life; and (2) Christ’s resurrection power in the form of the Holy Spirit’s filling in this life. This dimension of salvation is therefore contingent on repeated or continuing appropriation of (1) and (2) by faith.
My present thinking on the third dimension of salvation is that (1) future deliverance from the presence of sin is secured once-for-all as a guarantee of our initial justification before God through our sealing by the Spirit; and (2) the degree of our future deliverance to a sharing of His future glory and reign is contingent on suffering for righteousness in this present life, which is empowered by repeated or continuing appropriation of His resurrection life in our bodies during this life by faith.
Answer 2. My present thinking is that humans “freely receive” Christ by accepting His ransom for sin and His gift of life after death. Since Christ-crucified is the ransom and Christ-resurrected is the gift of life, then the “act” of trusting Christ for His promise of life after death is precisely receiving the Person.
Thanks Jim. A couple of more things to help me get my head around your thoughts here:
1. Now, I’m still not clear on Forensic Justification. It seems that ‘positional sanctification’ is a pretty clear departure from the way the Reformers (especially) and most evangelicals have traditionally understood it. Even ‘deliverance from guilt’ is a different kind of phrasing than a declaration of righteousness / forgiveness. Do you mean the same or is this a nuance you are thinking through?
2. You said:
The available “detail” with which this content is “filled out” has increased with progressive revelation in every dispensation of salvation history.
I’m pretty sure you have said that the basic content is required; but, do you think the ‘increased content from progressive revelation’ is required in each dispensation? In other words, is the later ‘filled out’ content required to believe by those (and later ones) to whom it was given?
Thanks,
Fred
Thanks for the questions, Fred. I figured this would raise some age-old questions, but let me try to give you a snapshot of my evolving perspective, as I do not think we can continue using Reformed categories without question. As you know, the nature of the atonement is a huge topic of debate within evangelical circles. In the eyes of some, people like NT Wright have turned the discussion upside-down with “new” ways of articulating their concepts of the Biblical picture of righteousness and how the notion of justification fits in. (Let me hasten to add that while I believe Wright has initiated a badly needed re-evaluation of Reformed doctrine, I have not simply adopted wholesale either Wright’s terminology or his view of righteousness and justification.) My response to this whole thing has been to re-examine the forensic language of some notable Reformers like Luther in this area and in light of Biblical categories and then to try to “re-vision” the arguments on justification/sanctification in texts such as Romans (esp. 5:12-21) and Hebrews 10, in order to reconstruct the notion of salvation against the over-corrections and other excesses of the Reformers (think the two “ditches” on either side of truth).
Against that background, let me try to answer your questions. Please forgive the prolonged reply, which may take a bit of chewing but which I think most directly and accurately addresses your questions, at least from my vantage.
1. My position as provisionally stated above is re-framed in terms of 3-dimensional salvation, rather than forensic categories per se. This is because I am increasingly convinced that the Biblical authors did not always (or maybe even mostly) cleanly separate the components of justification, sanctification, and glorification. When I use a term like “deliverance,” it is because the NT notion of sozō has deep roots in OT notions of deliverance; so, when I try to peel apart the three components of salvation, I try to use semantic categories that “talk” to one another. The two I chose were “deliverance” and “sanctification.”
Deliverance: In God’s economy, there is a telos to salvation, so that we are delivered from something to something else that can contribute to God’s redemptive purposes in “salvation history.” If we stop at the “from” part, the sense of deliverance is still incomplete from a Biblical perspective.
The verb dikaioō signifies a spectrum of meaning, including “declare righteous,” “acquit” (i.e., declare “not guilty”), and “vindicate,” and I think it is used variably in the NT in all three ways. From the standpoint of my basic category of “deliverance,” being declared “not guilty” is tantamount to being “delivered from guilt,” which then would also imply a completed goal of deliverance from the penalty (“death”) for a guilty verdict. It then follows that deliverance from sin and its consequences in the other two categories of salvation are also with a view to God’s ultimate redemptive goals within salvation history (i.e., from some facet(s) of death to some facet(s) of life. Texts such as Rom 5:12-21 may well encompass more than one of component of “deliverance,” so forensic categories are often inadequate to encompass all the meaning in a given case.
Sanctification: My thinking of salvation in terms of sanctification began in seminary with Robert Lightner’s presentation of the doctrine of sanctification in the three categories I have outlined above. I wasn’t sure that was valid until I did a detailed exposition of Hebrews 10 the following year, and it has stuck with me; just plain makes more sense in three dimensions: What we have in the concept of sanctification is the “deliver to” aspect of salvation being worked out three-dimensionally as a people chosen by God is set apart as “holy” to Himself. This, then, has implications as to how “God’s righteousness” is actually “fleshed out” among His people. If the goal is “holiness to the Lord,” then this goal is complete only when people actually manifest His righteousness. That’s what I think the 3-D process of “sanctification” is all about. Again, forensic categories are simply not adequate to fill that out.
I will reply to your second question in a separate post.
Do you think the ‘increased content from progressive revelation’ is required in each dispensation? In other words, is the later ‘filled out’ content required to believe by those (and later ones) to whom it was given?
This is a simpler question to answer, but not likely to make some people very happy. As I intimated in my first reply, I am increasingly convinced that “judgment is according to light received.” As I hope to make clear in my exposition of John 3:16, I think people who receive the gospel in any dispensation are at least intuitively aware of three notions that make salvation rational:
• I am dead in trespasses and sin.
• God has promised me life after death.
• This life is in a promised human “Seed,” whom God provides as a ransom for sin.
To cut to the chase in the present dispensation, I believe that the “content” required to believe is no greater than what I have stated above. Some may object that many people wouldn’t have to understand the concept of a “ransom,” and I would totally agree, but there is nonetheless an intuitive awareness that God has provided someone to take care of the sin and death problem, and at the very least it is volitionally received as a free gift of God, which is what the ransom is, ontologically speaking.
In a sense, then, in the very process of evangelism and discipleship people are “led” through the dispensations of God’s revealed truth as the content they need to understand and believe (which is always predicated of the Person) is progressively filled out by the Word read or preached.
So, what if someone receives the promised Person with an intuitive awareness of the three components I have listed above, but dies before they fully understand the Cross or the Deity or the Resurrection? We may not be able to tell whether they really “received” the Person, but if they did “receive,” they are judged according to light received, and I believe their eternal destiny is secure.
What if someone purports to “receive” the promised Person but as soon as they hear the “content” revealed in this dispensation and promptly deny the Cross, Deity, or Resurrection, then we have every reason to doubt whether they ever really “received” the Person. However, this could be due to (1) a failure to understand the gospel (the “wrong” Jesus or the “wrong” promise of life), or (2) they can’t believe the truth predicated of that Person, in which case they can’t rationally receive a gift that is impossible without the Deity, Cross, and Resurrection that make that gift efficacious; in short, such a denial would be irrational. Further inquiry is then warranted into how that person could believe they can get life after death without the Cross, Deity, or Resurrection.
Jim,
I share your “3-D” perception of salvation with the exception of some semantics.
Regarding receiving Jesus I would say that we/ Ifirst receive Him when we/I obey the Gospel command to believe the word of God and trust that He is Christ the Lord, the Son of God our/my Savior and that we/I continue to receive Him as He is revealed through His word and we/I follow His command.
This leaves our salvation (even 3-D) contingent upon our faith in the revelation of Jesus Christ alone through the Word by the Spirit and through no knowledge or understanding of our own. In fact our knowledge is practically nil at the moment of conversion and all things become new.
Mr. Martuneac is correct.
Fred, KC has “inadvertently” exposed a problem in the way I articulated my “Answer 2” above that can easily create a misunderstanding . I am so grateful to you for accepting this as a “provisional” dialogue. 🙂
Answer 2. My present thinking is that humans “freely receive” Christ by trusting Christ for His promise of life after death. Since the Person of Christ-crucified is precisely the ransom for sin and Christ-resurrected is precisely the gift of life which are each appropriated by that “trust,” then the Person Himself is also “received” as the means (or basis) of salvation when a human freely accepts the offer of life after death…. IOW, when we trust the Person as the object of faith, he also enters us and we enter Him as the means of salvation, with the result: eternal life (see my first reply above).
Thank you, Jesus.
Consequently, when a human “receives” Christ as I have defined it, s/he may or may not have a fully propositional awareness of Christ’s Deity or the basis/means of their salvation (= Cross and Resurrection), but that is nonetheless precisely the “gift” they receive the moment they entrust their eternal destiny to Him. At best, they may only be intuitively aware that the Person is “taking care of” the sin problem that would otherwise lead to their death, forever. As part of this intuitive awareness, they would have to “accept” that there is something very special about this Person. The details of that “awareness” are filled out with varying efficiency (in the “content” of the Deity, Cross, and Resurrection), as Word and the Body of Christ tell them the “old, old story.”
If a human who says they have “believed” denies the Cross, Deity, or Resurrection in response to the gospel, then something is very wrong: My present thinking is that if they are rational, they haven’t understood the gospel message or trusted the Person for their eternal destiny; or, they have been dishonest or deceitful in feigning acceptance of Jesus’ offer of life.
Hey Guys,
We got flooded in San Antonio & I’ve been without internet. I’m now at the 2009 FGA Conference (www.freegracealliance.com) and have access.
The posts were in the wrong spot…so I’ve put them in ‘pending’…I can move them to the dialog if you wish…
Thanks,
FRL
Your house was flooded???
My last comment is Jim Reitman has provided enough info to really be appalled. He suggested that a person can be saved through an intuitive awareness (though these elements are not even necessary for everyone) that God provides life through a “Seed” who provides ransom for sin. This “intuitive awareness” need not involve any identifying information of Jesus Christ such as His Deity, death, or resurrection (and by implication, whether Christ was even a historical person). Rather, we are told that if a person has never believed in Christ’s Deity, death, resurrection (and by implication, whether Christ was even a historical person), AND if they reject His Deity, death, and resurrection when presented with it, we may have reason to doubt whether they have already been saved through intuitive awareness.
This is a false gospel which is not really a gospel. This is an example of the devastating theological consequences when people reject “the gospel” as the saving message (Gal. 1:6-9).
— Greg
Jim,
Sorry, I can’t quite get to a response with the Conference happening (I want to be thoughtful).
Our house was not flooded…but all the access roads were (I couldn’t get to church to preach!).
I also noticed some posts that landed here…they need to be on the companion blog. Sorry if this is confusing.
Thanks,
Fred
Hey, Fred. I hope the conference is going great.
I am in no hurry and have a new stack of hermeneutics assignments to grade, anyway, and some editing to do.
Have a safe trip home.
Hey Jim (and All),
Thanks for your patience.
As I’ve studied through what you’ve said so far, I do see some further questions I have…and, let me say up front; my goal is to ‘first understand’ (then be understood…even if I agree).
So, I’m really thinking I probably need you to share the basics of why / how John 3 supports your view. In the meantime, I still have these areas that aren’t clear (may get clear with the text).
* Intuitive awareness in the conscious(ness)
This is a bit weird and psychobably :-)…though it may be dead right. I’m not sure how we’d demonstrate it, so it seems highly speculative. I’m diminishing in my respect for speculation and hypotheticals (just to let you know); in fact, I have an entire chapter on this in Back To Faith.
I think what you are saying is that people can sort of ‘know'(enough) without being able to consciously articulate it. Others (Elliot Johnson) might refer to this as an implicit knowledge. I still need to understand how both understanding and not understanding fit.
* The subject/object and basis
It isn’t clear to me yet (exactly) if the ‘basis’ is something to believe or not (tuitively or intuitively — so to speak).
* On Forensic Justification
Even though you want more interplay in the dimensions (aspects?) of the topic…do you still believe that their is such a thing as Forensic Justification (even though it isn’t standing alone)?
* Answer 2 (above) says:
Answer 2. My present thinking is that humans “freely receive” Christ by accepting His ransom for sin and His gift of life after death. Since Christ-crucified is the ransom and Christ-resurrected is the gift of life, then the “act” of trusting Christ for His promise of life after death is precisely receiving the Person.
I’m unclear about what faith means here…it doesn’t look like ‘believe in’ would really be easily substituted (or interposed). This could turn out to be a problem couldn’t it?
* Dimensions
I’ll go ahead and clarify my question here. Dimensions can mean aspects of the same thing, or truly different things related under a ‘whole’. For example, my love for my wife has different dimensions (physical, leaderly, brother-in-Christly)…all of which make a whole (“my love for her”). Though you could speak of them separately, it is immediately incomplete without reference to the other aspects / dimensions.
On the other hand space is multidimensional, but each part can clearly be discussed in a separate way without needing reference to the others (e.g. dealing with points on a plane).
……
So, there you go. Honestly, as I think this through it seems so involved and complex that I’m having an increasing attraction to Ockham for a shave!
Nonetheless, I do want to understand your view…it is obviously not a GES Gospel (faith in Christ’s promise of eternal life…since you include ransom). Yet, it could turn that way if intuitive knowing turns out to be the same as not knowing! 🙂
Carry on,
FRL
OK, Fred, thanks for re-engaging and for your willingness to try to understand before being understood. That is (to me) a huge issue in the current debate: There are some who either “can’t hear” (due to limitations in language or understanding) or “won’t listen” (for any number of reasons), and I grieve over folks who could potentially contribute to such a dialogue but reach closure on a discussion of provisional views before either hearing or even listening, which often requires the kind of “cross-clarification” we are going through now.
Again, forgive the length of the response, but I don’t see how I could keep it much shorter and still do justice to each of your separate concerns:
* Intuitive awareness in the conscious(ness).
This is not my terminology; I said (initial response in this thread):
My present thinking is that this awareness can be propositional and/or intuitive and that it “resides” in our consciences.
When I use the terms “intuitive awareness” and “conscience” I am not equating that with “consciousness.” I am using it in the same sense as Romans 2:14-15 and Eccl. 3:11, 7:22 (please note the bold terms in the citations below).
For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them. [Rom 2:14-15, NASB, cf. also NRSV]
He has put eternity in their hearts, except that no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end. [Eccl 3:11, NKJV]
for indeed, many times your heart has known that even you have cursed others [Eccl 7:22, my translation from the MT, adapted from Unlocking Wisdom, p. 278, n. 314]
My point, Fred, in these three citations is to point out that our “instinctive” awareness of our guilt or law or “eternity” as it is revealed by God takes place within our consciences, whether we can express that awareness in the form of propositions or not, and perhaps not even “consciously” aware of these. It may just be an “emotional” conviction of truth that results in subconscious “pangs of conscience” or even physical symptoms that arise when the intuitive awareness of one’s own righteousness is matched against the righteousness that God has revealed (Rom 1:17ff). The question “What do I do with that?” is often more relevant than “What do I understand about that?” although both may eventually be involved in responding to this “instinctive” or “intuitive” awareness. I would therefore tend to resonate with Johnson’s construct of “implicit awareness” of:
(1) one’s own “death” in trespasses and sin;
(2) God’s provision (“ransom”) for that; and
(3) life after death, forever.
(My full exposition of Eccl 3:11 and 7:22 in Qohelet’s argument in its native context can be found in Unlocking Wisdom, 229-30 and 277-28. I would be more than happy to send you a complimentary copy, Fred, if you e-mail me your address. For others following this debate, the book is on Amazon or you can e-mail me, and I’ll send it to you cheaper.)
* The subject/object and basis.
I would reframe “belief in” these components as a volitional “acceptance” or “trust” more than conscious understanding. (Gary E. has helped me on this by citing Richard Christiansen’s concept [in his thesis] of “volitional assent.”] Hence, whether it is “tuitive” or “intuitive” makes less difference to me. (I would therefore submit, in passing, that Tim Nichol’s now infamous “I don’t care!” comment was made in light of such a “reframing” and thus actually makes a lot of sense).
* On Forensic Justification.
Yes—absolutely a forensic component, as I alluded to in my comments above on dikaioō. My concerns about the prevailing spin applied to this concept is the common reduction of the notion of forensic justification to a mere imputation of Christ’s righteousness. (If we have a chance later, I can demonstrate that in my exegesis of 2 Cor 5:17-21).
* Answer 2, on “faith”.
This goes back to our discussion in the previous thread What is faith? I do indeed take “believe in” to be appositional to “receive” or “accept” in John 1:12, so the question boils down to how we reconcile those two notions in order to converge on the precise connotation. As I alluded to above, I hold that this notion of “volitional assent” involves the whole person—intellect, emotion, and will—in some inscrutable way that cannot easily be reduced at the moment of salvation to clearly understood propositions.
* Dimensions.
We’re talking here about the notions of “salvation” and “eternal life.” Specific instances in Scripture may deal with positional, progressive, or prospective aspects of those two related concepts, or any combination of them all. My contention is that Scripture most often deals with those concepts without drawing the bright lines between these dimensions that we are so prone to draw. I’ll just give one example from 1 John 3:14-15:
We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love his brother abides in death. Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.
So, what does he mean by “has eternal life abiding in him”? Does he mean the forensic declaration of righteousness (or “acquittal”) with the assured promise of heaven? Or the forensic declaration without the assurance of heaven (Arminian)? Or the temporal quality of life that characterizes a believer who is walking in the Spirit, as Paul uses “life” in Romans 6-8? My take here is that John’s use presupposes all three dimensions in addressing the reader as “brother” but that it is the temporal aspect of quality of life that bears witness to a lack of leading by the Spirit (i.e., he is not acting out of his union with Christ) when such a brother manifests this kind of hatred in Body life.
When we then go back to the Gospel of John, I’m concerned that we are really being reductionistic in a number of instances in GJohn when we assume that “eternal life” is only to be understood by the reader as forensic. I hope to make this clearer in my exposition of John 3 in context.
Jim,
Thanks for these thoughts. I supposed I want you to go ahead and share your view on John 3…try to be appropriately-lengthy (I can’t interact with too much info)!
I do want to say that I see your hard work at putting a ‘theology of…” together. I am understanding where you are coming from; yet, I must confess I’m not really getting convinced so far.
The reason is pretty simple—the passages aren’t fitting with the issues for me. Speaking of the basis on which the Gentiles are condemned as relating to salvific ‘knowing’ doesn’t really address the nature of saving knowledge (maybe my view of depravity is leaking in here).
Also, using passages about ‘life’ rather than passages about ‘justification’ isn’t persuasive either since they are actually different things (even if related). It feels a little bait-and-switchy to me—not meaning anything about your integrity, but rather that the example won’t fit (explain) because it doesn’t fit (explain).
I’m still learning, so carry on!
Grace,
FRL
Fred,
I thought we were still clarifying terms—you asked me about several and I responded. Maybe I’m a little dense, but I really couldn’t figure out what you meant, since you didn’t specifically address any of my responses to the issues you brought up. My comments about Romans 2:14-15 were not meant to talk about the basis by which Gentiles are condemned—they were a direct response to your question about “conscious(ness)” and meant to clarify the realm within which “awareness” operates and to show from Scripture that this can’t be reduced to “understanding” alone. IOW, things occur within the “heart” or “conscience” that entail instinctive or even emotional “awareness” of sin, guilt, and death before God’s offer of “life” through Christ makes any sense.
Again, you say I’m trying to build a theology, and that is correct, but I haven’t yet started to expand on my initial case for the dynamics of salvation, which I hope to build directly from Scripture. We’re still at the “throat-clearing” stage, aren’t we? On the bait-and-switch feeling you have, Fred, has it not been entirely clear from the get-go that I believe the concept “Content of Saving Faith” is a misnomer? I thought I had already laid out my basic starting position that “saving knowledge” doesn’t really “save”—it simply orients people to our need for salvation and to the Person who does the saving. Moreover, when Jesus offers “eternal life” or “salvation,” he’s not just talking about justification, especially in GJohn. Where’s the “bait-and-switch”?
I don’t deny that “knowledge” or “awareness” plays a role in salvation, as I hope I’ve made abundantly clear (?apparently not). But if our dialogue is contingent on my defining a list of propositions that one has to believe to be saved, I’m not going to be able to produce that, because I don’t think Scripture does. I believe Scripture depicts a Person and gives us enough information to specify the nature and work of that Person to enable us to trust Him for eternal life, if we we are willing.
But I’m willing to go wherever you want to go, Fred. Is there any particular element of what I’ve said so far that you want to focus on? Are we done with the questions you asked? Did I fail to answer them? Wanna do a “redirect”? What do you mean by “appropriately lengthy”?
Jim,
Sorry I must have been too cryptic. I’m simply attempting to let you know that I am trying to grasp what you mean…which I find to be no easy task.
It may just be that you are simply beyond where I live and the language I understand (c.f. Wittgenstein). Or that your concepts are simply not built on information I accept as valid. Some of the challenge is just learning your vocabulary (I struggled with this concerning impeccability with Geisler’s son, David, and grader, Ron Brooks…had to learn about the WHO and the two WHATs before I could finally ask if the human WHAT sinned would the WHO be guilty?…no answer there so the debate ended and I state satisfied that Jesus could not have sinned).
My point about the Gentiles was that using the example of some intuitive or instinctive ‘knowing’ of the ‘law’ as a basis of condemning them does not match (in my way of thinking) the nature of ’saving faith’ in the content (information) needed for such an application of God’s grace to the life. It doesn’t demonstrate to me that this instinctive knowing is a part of faith at all (since they—the Gentiles— actually aren’t exercising faith). That they have such a ‘knowing’ doesn’t really show much of anything about saving faith. It seems more like speculative theological conjecture. Sorry, I’m just shooting straight. By way of example scripturally:
” Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds. They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart.” (Ephesians 4:17-18, ESV)
They live in a darkened and futile mind marked by ‘ignorance’ and a lack of ‘understanding’. In this case we can see both their ignorance and salvation in view; and yet, it is contingent on their understanding and minds becoming un-futilized! Their mind must be enlightened (content) so they can believe and be saved. Of course, the life of God is in view, but neither you nor I believe they are regenerated first and sometime later believe.
On the ‘bait-and-switch’…all I meant was that you are using a passage about ‘life’ to speak about ‘justification’. Assuming the terms are equated, or even tell something about one another, is a stretch (well, it at least hasn’t been demonstrated yet).
Let me hone in on something here where you said,
But if our dialogue is contingent on my defining a list of propositions that one has to believe to be saved, I’m not going to be able to produce that, because I don’t think Scripture does. I believe Scripture depicts a Person and gives us enough information to specify the nature and work of that Person to enable us to trust Him for eternal life, if we we are willing.
It is clear that you believe there is some kind of information (I say ‘content’) necessary to believe in order to be saved. The key, for you, is that we exercise faith in a specific Person who can give us eternal life if we trust Him for it. The faith, of course, is dependent on adequate information to ’specify the nature and work of that Person’.
So, there is content (information) that must be adequate to at least identify the Person we must trust to give us the eternal life He promised to those who trust Him for it.
So, what is this content (information) we must believe in order to know we are trusting the right Person and His promise? Where is this information expressed in the text? Why is that then “all” the information we need? What would be too little information? What would be too much?
Finally, it is not clear that you DON’T or DO believe in content.
You said,
“Content of Saving Faith” is a misnomer? I thought I had already laid out my basic starting position that “saving knowledge” doesn’t really “save”—it simply orients people to our need for salvation and to the Person who does the saving.
So the information gives an ‘orientation’ to trust a Person who saves (which can be known in an other-than-conscious way).
Yet, you also said,
I don’t deny that “knowledge” or “awareness” plays a role in salvation, as I hope I’ve made abundantly clear (?apparently not). But if our dialogue is contingent on my defining a list of propositions that one has to believe to be saved, I’m not going to be able to produce that, because I don’t think Scripture does.
So, a certain knowledge is needed…but the lack of that knowledge (or, I’m sure, faith in that knowledge) would be damaging to its role in salvation. And, this knowlege cannot be described in any meaningful way (as in ‘can’t be listed as propositions on has to believe’); though, this can’t-be-listed knowledge is nonetheless plays a role in salvation.
Also you said,
If a human who says they have “believed” denies the Cross, Deity, or Resurrection in response to the gospel, then something is very wrong: My present thinking is that if they are rational, they haven’t understood the gospel message or trusted the Person for their eternal destiny
How do you know something is very wrong? How do you know the Cross, Deity, and Resurrection are important information for the ‘orientation’ of salvation? Aren’t you getting dangerously close to having propositions one must believe (because they sure can’t deny them). And, of course, in your present thinking…if one is rational he must:
1. Understand the gospel message
2. Trust the Person for his eternal destiny
So, Jim…what is the gospel message one is to understand? Is it OK to understand it and not believe it? You see, at this point you really sound like you believe what most of us believe—THERE IS AN UNDERSTANDABLE GOSPEL MESSAGE. I think that if you would go ahead and tell us what this (even again) is we’d all be fine (I’m pretty sure I would!).
It would look like this: “The Gospel Message is _________________________, and it must be believed to be saved.”
From there I think believing in the Person, etc., is fine (assuming that is part of The Gospel Message to be believed).
Thanks bro,
FRL
Fred,
Thanks for taking the time and making the effort to re-phrase your latest response. I’m trying to edit a foreign student’s 63 page nightmare thesis with a Monday night deadline, so I’m a little short on time to respond and also a bit frustrated by that, and I hope you can bear with me. I will try to cut to the chase for now and then hope I can go into more detail when I come up for air (if you are still willing):
I would still frame the issue differently than you have. For now I will try to answer your last question by saying this:
“The Gospel Message is ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved,’ and that Person must be trusted to be saved.” (As I have already said in other ways, this “trust” process involves the whole person—especially their “conscience”—and not just their propositional understanding. I believe specific Scriptural narratives and the individual verses I cited as examples in my last reply all bear this out.)
Now again, of course, my above answer begs the question of what the Scriptures mean by “believe on,” “the Lord Jesus Christ,” and to “be saved,” and I contend that our modernistic way of framing these concepts colors the way we understand the message.
Bottom line: Beyond the basic message (above) the “content” people need to understand depends on what light they’ve already received. Therefore, the additional “content” we give them depends on finding out what they already believe in order to offer them the additional Scriptural truth they need to understand who they must believe for eternal life. That’s exactly what Jesus did. Thus, the rest of the “message” depends on where Jesus (and we, as His agents) find them when we address them. That’s exactly what happens repeatedly in GJohn and Acts, and that’s why the scenarios seem (to some of us) to be all over the map.
Anyone who has been involved in evangelism knows that they run into various kinds of “roadblocks” in trying to get the above (boldface) message across. That’s because people receive light in different ways and under different circumstances, so how can a single formula address all their issues? The rest of the message works itself out in the ensuing clarification of where they are in “the futility of their minds,” and their response depends on more than just “understanding” what the Scripture says—they have to yield the hardness of their hearts (?consciences) to the drawing of the Spirit in both propositional and non-propositional ways.
Jim,
This is sort of where I think we get stuck having to go our separate ways. I think you are the one actually being modernistic in your linguistic and hermeneutical approach (see how easy that is to say? :-)).
I went through this kind of thing in Eschatology with Craig Blaising…we read an article that stated we couldn’t read the Bible right and see the obvious fact of ‘annihilationism’…and all because we were stuck in the Greek-world assumptions about Platonic dualism. How can you argue against that? It’s basically an unfalsifiable position.
Jim, it is really an easy thing to simply assert one person is modernistic (hence corrupt) and that you have the keys to the ancient-and-true meaning. Honestly, and I’m going to sound really rude here, but you seem to consistently gravitate back to somewhat of an intellectual holier-than-thou disposition. I may be defensive or obtuse, but it really doesn’t help with the discussion.
Here’s how you sound to me, “You are wrong and I am right. The reason I am right is that I understand the complicated intellectual issues that manipulate your mind to completely misread God’s Word. If you only understood the vast complexities of faith as it relates to the trans-temporal nature of non-propositional truth of a Person reached though, but not adequately by, facts regarding the propositions within the language of the Bible that are sustained by the intuitive nature of knowing what is not necessarily cognitively understood; at that point you would appreciate that your way of asking the question and thinking about the topic is to be set aside…now, let me demonstrate the real way to think of the issue and show you the proper way to ask the question.”
Whew…that really will never be convincing to the rank-and-file folks who just read the Bible for what it says. Bro, in all honesty if feels like you have absolutely no respect for the layperson or for the ability for plain meaning to be read from the text. Even without all the background, linguistics, and hermeneutics training…them layfolk can luck out and get the point from time to time.
I am so sorry, but it is very hard for me to find patience for this sort of thing. Bill Webb (we used to hang out at the pool together) argues this way with many others who look at the passages regarding husbands and wives to explain about ‘trajectories’ parallels with slavery, and the ‘truth’ that husbands and wives are subject to no instruction from God about roles in marriage…all in the same way that says the layperson cannot read the meaning of the text.
My goodness…you won’t answer my simple question even though you admit that there are some propositions that must be believed. You will answer it if you re-frame it (of course, that ACTUALLY makes it a different question than the one I asked). Jim, nobody except you and a handful of folks can spend this kind of cognitive energy not talking in simple and plan ways.
Let me ask this one thing, though I suppose you will clarify for me that I am again asking the wrong question— “What propositional content must be believed in order to be saved?…or…What propositional content must be believed in order to exercise faith in the non-propositional content?”
You might just want to say, “We can’t know,” if that’s what you believe.
When you speak this way—
The rest of the message works itself out in the ensuing clarification of where they are in “the futility of their minds,” and their response depends on more than just “understanding” what the Scripture says—they have to yield the hardness of their hearts (?consciences) to the drawing of the Spirit in both propositional and non-propositional ways.
…you sound like you’ve said something so powerful that we should overlook the the very first part of the statement. So what if ‘their response depends on more than just ‘understanding’ what the Scripture says?
Really, so what? The fact remains that they also must understand (and believe) something PRIOR to any yielding of the hardness of the heart (or trust in the non-propositional person of Christ).
As to the heart of the issue on content: “Is it necessary to believe in the cross / death of Christ, even as one piece/dimension/component/aspect/part/etc. (of course on the propositional side) of being saved from hell to heaven?
That turns out to be a yes or no? To say that the issue is clouded by the nature of non-propositional truth and intuitive knowing, really isn’t convincing or helpful, unless at least one of three things is true:
1. I am intellectually incapable of understanding your point(s)
2. It is necessary to believe, but only in an instinctive and not-necessarily-consciously-apprehended way
3. It is unknowable what content is necessary.
I genuinely am sorry if I am coming across more intense than is called for, but I am beginning to understand why it feels so frustrating to talk about this kind of thing with you.
Jim, I beg you to go back through this discussion and see if you can notice that you really don’t answer the question. I have been thinking that the reason you haven’t answered is because you have been unfairly vilified and accosted by others. And, while that may be true, I think you really can’t answer it.
Here’s what I think your answer is—
“I don’t really know if the cross is necessary to believe; it may be, but because we all come from different angles, experiences, and needs I’m sure God takes care of that for each of us. There is a kind of knowing that we intuitively have from God that makes sense of the propositions necessary to believe in order to do the real business of salvation; volitionally trusting the Person of Jesus to take care of our eternity because He promised He would if we trusted Him for it.”
Bro, that would at least be an answer…rather than the problem being that I am so caught up in a modernistic distortion (deception?) that I can’t read the text for what it REALLY says.
I know the GES Gospel folks would just say, “NO,” if they were at a place of admitting what they believe it openly.
I don’t see how we can go anywhere from here. I suppose you could try to help me understand why my question,
“The Gospel Message is _________________________, and it must be believed to be saved.”
…is completely invalid and/or inappropriate to the conversation about the gospel.
That would be really hard to do. If you’d like to, just give a response and let’s go on with our lives. It is surely clear by now that I am pretty incapable of understanding why such a question about propositional content should never (ever) come up in a conversation about the nature of saving faith.
On the other hand, if you would like to tell me what propositional content is necessary (even for faith working toward the non-propositional content), then we could continue on. Remember the title of this dialogue.
God’s best to you,
Fred Lybrand
Jim,
After a night’s sleep I have another relevant question:
Is there any scenario where you would not share the death and resurrection of Christ when you explain the gospel?
Many thanks Bro,
FRL
Fred,
(Thanks, Fred, I want to answer this last question first, but do you still want me to also respond to your previous post?)
That is a really good question that I think gets to the core issue. As I think through my last evangelistic encounter, it becomes clearer to me what the main concern is and how Christ’s death and resurrection fits in the Gospel message.
He was a drunk cocaine addict named “Rich” who was reduced to tears at a local rescue mission as he listened to live Christian rock music being played while he tried to eat his lunch between sobs. I was giving the gospel to the guy sitting on my other side, a homeless guy who answered that indeed he had already believed in Jesus, had belonged to a really good, Bible-believing fellowship in Nebraska, but was just trying to get his life back together again with a new start in Colorado Springs after a really bad falling out with his family. I asked him what he needed, and he said “A sleeping bag would really be nice.”
As God would have it, there was also a Christian guy there from my Saturday morning men’s group. He was an ex-sex offender, and I knew he was a member of a local motorcycle gang that regularly reaches out to the homeless in Colorado Springs and when I asked him about the sleeping bag, he just “happened” to have one in his pickup truck and gave it to the homeless guy.
During the 30 mins of conversation with the homeless guy, I had my eye on the drunk cocaine addict sitting on my other side, trying to get a clue to where his heart was and why he was quietly sobbing in response to Christian rock. I finally excused myself from the homeless guy and turned to fully face Rich and acknowledged that things really seemed rough for him. He said, “It’s all good, man,” but then he told me his story, and it was anything but “good.” He told me that his tears were tears of joy that someone had pointed him to the rescue mission and a hot meal with beautiful Christian music. He said he believed that “good karma” had rewarded him and would “take care of him” for being a basically good person who never intentionally hurt anyone else.
When I told him that he was dead in sin, and that his addictions were going to kill him even sooner, he didn’t deny that, but still felt that his “karma” would come through for him. When I told him that God loves him and sent Jesus to save him from his sin, he was not willing to go there, so giving him more detail about the Cross and Resurrection did not seem as appropriate as what I did:
As he got up to leave, I grabbed him with his drunk breath and all and pulled him very close to the point that we were nose-to-nose. I looked at him with love, smiled, and said, “Rich, when you hit bottom with your cocaine and alcohol and there’s no other place for you to look but up, just remember what Jim Reitman told you today: ‘Jesus loves you, man, and only he can save you from your sin.'”
I have thought about this many times since that encounter (which occurred this year), and I don’t think I’d do anything different. If people are not willing to come to Jesus when they hear the offer of life, and the Holy Spirit does not draw them, it seems a waste of time to proceed with further specifying propositions to “close the deal.” I can only be confident that I planted the seed and that God will bring someone else to water and bear the fruit. Personally, I find that very freeing.
And now that I am reflecting on the Gospel of John, I am even more convinced that this is exactly what the narratives of John from chaps. 1-12 are illustrating. I don’t want to frustrate you any more, Fred, and am still willing to do my John 3:16 thing; but it’s your blog, and I’ll let you be the judge of whether we should keep going, even if I’m not addressing the question you want addressed.
Jim,
What you shared is both an interesting and touching story. Thank you for sharing it. Honestly, I hope that God will use it to continue to draw this man to Himself.
The concern I have with your story is that you seem to be saying that you shared the gospel with this guy. However, it also seems you don’t believe you really shared the gospel either. You definitely planted the seed, and in that regard, I would say you were involved in some really good ‘evangelism’ (pre-evangelism?). However, your statement that, “I can only be confident that I planted the seed and that God will bring someone else to water and bear the fruit,” seems to suggest that he needed something more. Why would he need anything more? Why wouldn’t just believing what you said be enough? Why didn’t you write, “I can only be confident that I planted the seed and that God will bring it to bear the fruit?”
Actually, I didn’t ask you the question you answered. Apparently you thought I asked,
Is there any scenario where you would not share the death and resurrection of Christ?
I too could think of many situations where I might not be able (or possible willing) to share the ‘whole’ message. Yet, I also wouldn’t think I had shared the gospel either. I would simply think I had helped move him closer to the hole (golfing analogy)…sometimes I get ‘tap-ins’!
The truth is that my question was,
Is there any scenario where you would not share the death and resurrection of Christ when you explain the gospel?
Bro, if you think you shared enough with that fellow to believe and make it to heaven (if he believe it), then I really am concerned. Here’s what you said,
When I told him that God loves him and sent Jesus to save him from his sin
AND
Jesus loves you, man, and only he can save you from your sin
Clearly there is no gospel here (even the GES folks would agree…I think), especially because this guy would be thinking about being ‘delivered from his problems (sin)’…not about going to heaven or eternal life. Now, I don’t know the whole conversation, but I do know what you shared & it wasn’t the gospel.
So, again I’m wondering,
Is there any scenario where you would not share the death and resurrection of Christ when you explain the gospel?
Now, what I really mean is when you explain the gospel because they want to know it and go to heaven / get eternal life.
Thanks,
FRL
P.S. I’ll respond to you other post here very soon.
Jim,
Yep…a response to the previous post would be great.
Thanks,
FRL
Fred,
Again, I’m thinking that the frustration quotient has gone so high at this point that productive dialogue may have to wait awhile. But I will honor your request and I do admire your tenacity; you can’t be doing this because it’s all that much fun.
I did go back through the entire dialogue and I do agree that I have not answered your question as you have framed it. My understanding of the invitation for the Redux discussion was for me to “try to convince” you of my perspective on the gospel. I’ve been praying and searching my conscience all morning and don’t see where I have departed from that enterprise.
If I have seemed intellectually arrogant to you, all I can tell you is what I feel going on inside of me: You stated at the outset that you would likely ask a bunch of questions in response to my proposal, starting on about Oct. 3. You were faithful to do that, and I tried the best I could to give as specific and supported an answer to each concern or question you raised. I do think that you have partly gotten where I’m coming from, but there are still some serious “disconnects,” at least from my vantage.
You felt that my responses could never be understood by what you call “rank-and-file folks.” Yet this would not likely be the conversation I would have, because I don’t imagine that they would bring what you bring to the table in this debate. This is a provisional discussion by mutual agreement. So far, I’m simply responding to you as best I can from the body of Scriptural truth as I understand it—which increasingly includes a narrative approach to that truth. That will mean I cannot in good conscience answer a question that is framed in a way I believe is trumped by Scripture. If you feel that I’m showing a lack of integrity in not answering your question, then you need to decide if we’re done here, and we can indeed go our separate ways—hopefully graciously. For myself, I would feel a lack of integrity if I went ahead and answered your question exactly as you have framed it; I believe (provisionally) that the stories in John help a lot to reframe the question Scripturally.
As to whether the fear of being unfairly vilified has played any role, I guess my real concern has been the serious tendency for this to distract people who are really intent on hearing a clear presentation of our respective positions. If those intent on vilifying me really believe that I and some good friends of mine are sending people to hell, then I can understand why they might react to me that way, but it is not Scriptural. That indeed is a matter for the local Body, but the Internet complicates that, which is why it is so important for Christian blog administrators to take a strong stand on how far the discussions go before they intervene. (For the record, I think you are doing admirably.)
As to your speculation on what—in the end—it sounds like I’m trying to say, I’ll try to answer that one with a little more specificity. I will respond in italics to each element of what you said you think I’m trying to say:
“I don’t really know if the cross is necessary to believe;…
I would say: The cross is absolutely necessary for salvation; if someone is willing to consider Jesus’s offer of life, the Cross and Resurrection are essential to make any real sense out of that offer today.
…it may be [necessary to believe], but because we all come from different angles, experiences, and needs I’m sure God takes care of that for each of us.
I would (provisionally) say: Most people who survive early childhood (irrational/insane people may be an exception) live long enough to know they are broken and eventually ask the important question, “What will happen to me when I die?” The only meaningful “difference” among them is the light they have received. We are all sinners and will all die; God will hold us accountable only for the light we have received in our conscience, starting with natural revelation.
There is a kind of knowing that we intuitively have from God that makes sense of the propositions necessary to believe in order to do the real business of salvation;…
I agree with this up to the point of “in order to…”; I would say “…in order to adequately understand and freely receive Jesus’ offer of life; salvation continues throughout our lives from the moment of initial faith in Christ, for as long as we are led by the Spirit of Christ in paths of righteousness.”
…volitionally trusting the Person of Jesus to take care of our eternity because He promised He would if we trusted Him for it.”
volitionally receiving Jesus’ gift of grace, because He died for our sins to remove the death penalty and rose again that we might have eternal life in Him.
Jim,
Thanks for your serene response in the midst of the ‘frustration’ that circulates in the air around (and within) our discussion. I am quite sure in is difficult to be vilified as you attempt to share you view (I know the feeling). The struggle I have in all of this is really getting at what you believe. Even when I think I’ve got it, you seem to feel a ‘not quite’…but without really just telling what you think.
My experience in communicating suggests that the issue in our conversation is that you may be thinking ‘understand’ = ‘agree with’. Perhaps I am mistaken, but it feels like our disagreement would go away if I just ‘got it’. Actually, I could ‘get it’ and still disagree.
Of course, I am at a disadvantage because you know my view; faith alone in Christ alone as has been traditionally meant. It includes the basics of the Person AND Work of the Son of Man, Jesus Christ, the Messiah.
I would say that Moyer’s ‘bad news / good news’ adequately explains the gospel. I believe someone can readily get saved if he believe it. Oddly, I bet you would be fine with that too…even the GES Gospel folks would be (except they don’t like the ‘chair’ illustration).
What stumps me is why you can’t explain things in a way the rank-and-file can understand. I grasp the importance of prior understanding and the nature of specialized vocabulary. But, basically, all of us can get the relationship between matter and the speed of light…or how T-cells relate to AIDS…or why the earth moves ‘up’ when a ball falls ‘down’— at least, we can get it in some rudimentary way.
Here’s an example, of the challenge in this conversation…you said,
“I don’t really know if the cross is necessary to believe;…(me)
(you)I would say: The cross is absolutely necessary for salvation;
if someone is willing to consider Jesus’s offer of life,
the Cross and Resurrection are essential to make any real sense out of that offer today.
It would have been easy for you to say, “I would say: The cross is absolutely necessary to believe for salvation…” But, you didn’t say that…and yet, you do kind of sound like one must believe if it is ‘essential to make any real sense’. Bro, this is just simple unclear in your use of language. If you are doing it intentionally, then what’s up with that? If it is unintentional…just straighten it out now. Tell me straight up that the cross is absolutely necessary to believe for salvation.
What is so difficult, especially when you know my old fashioned view, with simply explaining the basics of your view?
I can only come up with these options:
1. We are not smart enough to understand your view
2. You are not clear on your own view, so you can’t explain it
3. You are too afraid of how people will respond to your view
Jim, I would love to have the conversation, but I personally don’t think you yet clearly understand your view. It may be that you are afraid or that I am indeed a dunderhead; however, I don’t think you really are subject to numbers 1 and 3 above (please correct me if I’m wrong). I know this may sound a bit rude, but as it is (provisional thinking) I suspect you are still working out your view. Personally, it seems you are trying to mediate something between Zane’s view and Dr. Ryrie / Chafer’s view. I want to offer you the best of luck, and as you sort it out (or get it into a form we all can understand), let’s re-address this topic. If you come up with a scriptural way to clearly make ‘both sides happy’, then I’ll be quite joyful. Yet, I must confess that I have a huge bias in the area of Soteriolgy. I really can’t see a new and historically unsupportable understanding of how people get saved coming to light as the truth. It is just all but unthinkable that God would have kept the gospel hidden for all these years when it is of supreme value in the history of mankind forever.
Now, I may still misunderstand and you are simply stating a very ancient and historically sound view of the gospel…if this is true, then I can’t follow it yet. You are welcome to try again if you’d like; but I need something much clearer and much more succinct…I am sort of looking like a bit of a dunderhead aren’t I!
I do appreciate you and hope we can find common ground in the theological landscape.
God bless,
FRL
P.S. I would appreciate a response to my question about the gospel and the cross if possible. Thanks.
Jim,
Thanks for your serene response in the midst of the ‘frustration’ that circulates in the air around (and within) our discussion. I am quite sure in is difficult to be vilified as you attempt to share you view (I know the feeling). The struggle I have in all of this is really getting at what you believe. Even when I think I’ve got it, you seem to feel a ‘not quite’…but without really just telling what you think.
My experience in communicating suggests that the issue in our conversation is that you may be thinking ‘understand’ = ‘agree with’. Perhaps I am mistaken, but it feels like our disagreement would go away if I just ‘got it’. Actually, I could ‘get it’ and still disagree.
Of course, I am at a disadvantage because you know my view; faith alone in Christ alone as has been traditionally meant. It includes the basics of the Person AND Work of the Son of Man, Jesus Christ, the Messiah.
I would say that Moyer’s ‘bad news / good news’ adequately explains the gospel. I believe someone can readily get saved if he believe it. Oddly, I bet you would be fine with that too…even the GES Gospel folks would be (except they don’t like the ‘chair’ illustration).
What stumps me is why you can’t explain things in a way the rank-and-file can understand. I grasp the importance of prior understanding and the nature of specialized vocabulary. But, basically, all of us can get the relationship between matter and the speed of light…or how T-cells relate to AIDS…or why the earth moves ‘up’ when a ball falls ‘down’— at least, we can get it in some rudimentary way.
Here’s an example, of the challenge in this conversation…you said,
“I don’t really know if the cross is necessary to believe;…(me)
(you)I would say: The cross is absolutely necessary for salvation;
if someone is willing to consider Jesus’s offer of life, the Cross and Resurrection are essential to make any real sense out of that offer today.
It would have been easy for you to say, “I would say: The cross is absolutely necessary to believe for salvation…” But, you didn’t say that…and yet, you do kind of sound like one must believe if it is ‘essential to make any real sense’. Bro, this is just simple unclear in your use of language. If you are doing it intentionally, then what’s up with that? If it is unintentional…just straighten it out now. Tell me straight up that the cross is absolutely necessary to believe for salvation.
What is so difficult, especially when you know my old fashioned view, with simply explaining the basics of your view?
I can only come up with these options:
1. We are not smart enough to understand your view
2. You are not clear on your own view, so you can’t explain it
3. You are too afraid of how people will respond to your view
Jim, I would love to have the conversation, but I personally don’t think you yet clearly understand your view. It may be that you are afraid or that I am indeed a dunderhead; however, I don’t think you really are subject to numbers 1 and 3 above (please correct me if I’m wrong). I know this may sound a bit rude, but as it is (provisional thinking) I suspect you are still working out your view. Personally, it seems you are trying to mediate something between Zane’s view and Dr. Ryrie / Chafer’s view. I want to offer you the best of luck, and as you sort it out (or get it into a form we all can understand), let’s re-address this topic. If you come up with a scriptural way to clearly make ‘both sides happy’, then I’ll be quite joyful. Yet, I must confess that I have a huge bias in the area of Soteriolgy. I really can’t see a new and historically unsupportable understanding of how people get saved coming to light as the truth. It is just all but unthinkable that God would have kept the gospel hidden for all these years when it is of supreme value in the history of mankind forever.
Now, I may still misunderstand and you are simply stating a very ancient and historically sound view of the gospel…if this is true, then I can’t follow it yet. You are welcome to try again if you’d like; but I need something much clearer and much more succinct…I am sort of looking like a bit of a dunderhead aren’t I!
I do appreciate you and hope we can find common ground in the theological landscape.
God bless,
FRL
P.S. I would appreciate a response to my question about the gospel and the cross if possible. Thanks.
Point of clarification as I reread the next to last comment above, which might be read by some as leaving the door open to “losing our salvation” (in the positional sense):
“salvation continues throughout our lives from the moment of initial faith in Christ, when our eternal destiny is secure, and is being enriched whenever we are led by the Spirit of Christ in paths of righteousness
Jim has written me a private email as a sum…I’ll either post something to conclude or he will…stay tuned.
FRL