Can You Be a Christian and Not Love Jesus?
October 2nd, 2006
(By Nathan Busenitz)
Note: Beginning tomorrow, we will take a short break from the lordship discussion, returning to this important topic on Monday, October 9.
At its heart, I believe the lordship debate can be boiled down to this one question: Can a person truly be a member of God’s family and yet not be characterized by a love for Christ? Or to put it more directly, Can you be a Christian and not love Jesus?
The Free Grace advocate, in order to be consistent with the non-lordship system, must answer “yes” to this question. Accordingly, in his book Absolutely Free!, Zane Hodges vehemently rejects the belief “that no true Christian fails to love God” (p. 130), accusing those who hold this belief as teaching a form of works-salvation. In the words of Hodges, “The scriptural revelation knows nothing of a doctrine in which Christian love for God is guaranteed by the mere fact that one is a Christian” (p. 131).
In other words, according to Free Grace, you can be a Christian and not love Jesus.
The lordship view, on the other hand, answers a resounding “no” to this question. As we have noted earlier, repentance rightly defined is a change of allegiance (from self to Christ) that takes place at the moment of salvation. It is not a human work, but is the work of the Holy Spirit in regenerating the sinner’s heart (and thus transforming the sinner into a new creature with new desires and aspirations). Repentance is a turning of the mind, the will, and the affections, such that those who have been saved are given a divinely-implanted love for God.
Thus, a Reformed soteriology asserts that you cannot be a Christian if you do not love Jesus. You can give intellectual assent to the facts of the gospel, but if your life is not characterized by love for Christ, you are still lost in your sins.
There are many places in Scripture where the Reformed answer to this question can be demonstrated and defended. Of these, one of the most straightforward is John 8:42. In this passage Jesus Himself makes the issue unmistakably clear.
Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me.
The weight of our Lord’s words settles the issue: Those who do not love Christ are not part of the family of God.
And how can we know if we love Christ? Later in the gospel of John, our Lord answers this question as well.
John 14:15: “If you love me you will keep My commandments.”
And also John 15:14: “You are My friends if you do what I command you.”
According to the lordship view, repentance is a divinely-initiated, divinely-empowered, divinely-bestowed change of heart, a turning from love for sin and self to love for Christ. If this change of heart has not occurred, than neither has regeneration. But if regeneration has occurred, then the heart has also been transformed. And if the heart has been changed, it will evidence itself in a life of obedience (the “fruits of repentance”—cf. Luke 3:8; Acts 26:20).
If there is no obedience, Jesus says that it betrays a lack of love for Him (John 14:15). If you have no love for Him, Jesus says that God cannot be your Father (John 8:42). And if God is not your Father, then you are not saved. In fact, if God is not your Father, your father is the devil, as Jesus makes clear just a couple verses later in John 8:44.
Those truths form the basis and essence of lordship salvation. It is interesting, by the way, that they come straight from the gospel of John (the favored gospel of Free Grace advocates).
As the apostle John wrote elsewhere, in 1 John 2:3-6:
By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.
Great post. Let me add one other verse:
1 Cor. 16:22 “If anyone has no love for the Lord, let him be accursed. Our Lord, come!” (ESV)
You should read Romans 11 1-32. Because I believe in reading scripture in context and not just taking a little piece of scripture out to make my point. But, for time and space, I will leave you with this…
Romans 11:29.The gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. The word gifts here in the greek means: the economy of divine grace, by which the pardon of sin and eternal salvation is appointed to sinners in consideration of the merits of Christ laid hold of by faith.
THE MERITS OF CHRIST.
LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE. What’s love got to do with it?? You are adding to the finished work of CHRIST!!!!!!
I am not saying that it won’t be very fun for a Christian in heaven who has not LOVED Christ and obeyed Him in this life.
But people you are confusing the PRIZE and THE GIFT!!!!
Their are REWARDS for faithful Christians. God says many times in Scripture that He is coming and his Reward/payment with Him. And we must all stand before Him at the Judgement seat and whatever we have done deeds in the body with be burned up wood hay and staw. Precious gems gold will remain. All of that. Your confusing losing your salvation with rewards.
Your lessening what CHRIST DID ON THE CROSS!!!!!!!
The word irrevocable in the greek strongs number 3338 means: not repentant of, unregretted
Websters meaning: Impossible to retract or revoke: an irrevocable decision.
You CANT take it back. That means you CANT give it back even if you wanted to give it back to God. I don’t think God could be more clear in this passage.
ROMANS 11:29 The GIFTS (salvation) and calling of God are IRREVOCABLE(greek not repentant of, unregretted ) huh? thats funny.. not repentant of? look up the greek!! Read the whole chapter because it gets better.
Amy asked, what has love got to do with it? Love appears 513 times in the NIV and 54 times in the gospel of John and his epistles. I would recommend that Amy do a word search, read some of those passages and then report back to this site her findings.
Sorry, you must have known this would be a hot button issue.
Not all saints walk with the same degree of faithfulness and worthiness before the Father. Their reward will therefore be different. The apostle Paul tells us that each man’s work will be tested with fire. The quality, or worthiness, of each man’s work will be revealed.
10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building upon it. But let each man be careful how he builds upon it.
11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12 Now if any man builds upon the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw,
13 each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it, because it is to be revealed with fire; and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work.
14 If any man’s work which he has built upon it remains, he shall receive a reward.
15 If any man’s work is burned up, he shall suffer loss; BUT HE HIMSELF SHALL BE SAVED, YET SO AS THROUGH FIRE. 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 HE CANNOT LOSE HIS SALVATION!!!!! HE IS NOT ACCURSED JUST BECAUSE HE DOES NOT LOVE JESUS RIGHT-WORKS WORKS WORKS!! HE WILL BE SAVED BUT JUST BARELY!!!!!!
Whether one lives his whole life in obedience to Christ, or whether one comes to trust Him while on his death bed, the pay is the same. Salvation belongs to the Lord and He can dispense it as He wishes. There is no basis for complaint concerning this.
8 For by GRACE you have been saved through faith; and THAT NOT OF YOURSELVES ie(MY LOVE ME,ME,ME FOCUSED !!!!!!), it is the gift of God;
9 not as a result of works(MY LOVE!!!), that no one should boast ie(I LOVE JESUS MORE THAN YOU DO!!!!!). Ephesians 2:8-9
Love is never associated with LOSING OUR SALVATION. I would suggest you do the word search.
Amy,
If you claim there is a reward greater than the salvation that Christ bought for me, then it is you who are lessening the work Christ did. You are placing a reward of some kind above that which Christ has given by his sacrifice. Is there a greater prize than Christ Himself?
I have just one response to that. God himself has stated it
And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him. (Hebrews 11:6)
Paul placed an upward call in Christ Jesus. A reward to be had. Something that he had not attained to. If you read Phillipians 3 all of it. He refers to a Resurrection that he had not obtained to as of yet. In the greek it is called the “out-resurrection” Exanastasis. This is an upward call. Read Phillipians 3. Paul had not attained the prize! But was striving and buffeting his body to get it!! There is a difference between the prize and the gift.
Amy,
Good quote. If I seek Him by faith, then He will reward me…with Him!
The irony here is that in order to seek Him, I have to repent.
Romans3:9-10
For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God.
If I don’t naturally seek for God, don’t I have to change to one who does seek for God? That change is called repentance. Lordship Salvation does not require repentance before you are saved, but it does require when you are saved, otherwise you cannot be saved. If you don’t change from one who seeks after God to one who does, then how can God reward you?
Another good quote.
Paul says in Phil. 3:8-11
Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ
and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith— that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.
Paul counts EVERYTHING as loss because knowing Christ is WORTH MORE than that. He counts ALL THINGS as rubbish so that he might do two things: gain Christ AND be found in Him. He isn’t looking for something else that God will give him. The upward call is for this exact thing Paul describes.
Why can’t I get to “Amy’s” site from here? A pseudonym? I suspect I know who it is…
Spurgeon explains regeneration and its effects (repentance, faith, love to Christ) the best when he looks to Ezekiel 37 and the valley of dry bones. Ezekiel was told to prophesy to the bones (like preaching to the unsaved – James 1:18, 1 Peter 1:23, Romans 10:17). As Ezekiel prophesied bones started coming together, sinews and flesh came upon them. Then Ezekiel was told to prophesy to the breath. He did, and the breath came into them and there was life. GOD DID THE WORK. And so it is with unregenerate man. We “prophesy” to them and God brings bone to bone, sinew and flesh upon those bones and breathes into them life. God gets the glory for taking that unregenerate God-hater and turning him into a God-lover. It is the work of God in regeneration.
not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith— that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.
Yes, I totally agree with you. Not having a righteousness of MY OWN!!! Your Lordship SALVATION places the righteousness squarely on the PERSON!!!! It places the onus on the PERSON. MY LOVE MY GOODNESS. How can you measure a persons love. How do you know if I love Christ good enought to have my Salvation. How can you measure that!!! How dare you even begin to presume. Only God can do that!! By my works. By my outwardness. There is a place for all of that. And God has set it before us with the PRIZE OF THE UPWARD CALL. There are numerous types in the Bible of this. Ruth, Esther. The Brides are all CALLED OUT. Many are called few are chosen. You are confusing the FREE GIFT AND THE PRIZE.
I agree that my own Righteousness has no place with faith from Christ. God gets the glory for EVERYTHING IN MY LIFE. And even my rewards that I work for I will Cast my Crowns back at HIS Throne. But, You are saying that my salvation is dependant on my love for Him. That is letting the tail wag the dog.
by the way in Phillipians 3:10 that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death;
this word resurrection: anastasia in the greek means a raising up, rising (e.g. from a seat)
a rising from the dead
Then look at Phillipians 3:11
in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.
This word resurrections: exanastasia in the greek means Exanstasia a rising up, a rising AGAIN
resurrection
Put it all together…
that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; 11 in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.
12 NOT THAT I HAVE ALREADY ATTAINED it or have already become perfect, BUT I PRESS ON so that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus.
Oh, and I will end it with this…I know that we must repent first I get that, but God makes this very clear…
For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. 8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that WHILE WE WERE YET SINNERS (no repentance on our part!!!), Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be SAVED from the wrath of God through Him. 10 For if WHILE WE WERE ENEMIES we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be SAVED by His life.
Mark, I’m sorry, I really am an Amy. I just don’t have a website. I stumbled upon this website from Albert Mohler’s. I did not suspect he was a Calvinist though. Bummer… I was going to go see him speak. Not now. *grins*
Amy,
Thank you for your original comment about today’s post. Allow me to respond to several of your statements:
Amy said: You should read Romans 11:1-32.
Okay, I did. I love that passage. It speaks of the temporal hardening of Israel so that the gospel might go the Gentiles. And (as a dispensationalist) I believe it promises the future restoration of Israel at a time when the nation returns to belief in God. It is this promise (in verse 26, that “all Israel will be saved”) that Paul underscores in verse 29 by saying “for the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable.” In other words, the covenant God made with Abraham and David cannot be revoked, even though the nation of Israel has fallen into apostasy. The context of Romans 11 notes that the salvation God promised to Israel in the past will yet occur in the future because the calling of God is irrevocable. (For others who are reading this, I realize that some of my covenantal brothers will not agree with my understanding of this passage. I would ask, however, that this thread not get sidetracked by the dispensational/covenantal debate.)
It’s interesting that you bring up Romans 11. I am curious what you do with verses 22-23, where Paul writes:
What does Paul mean when he warns the Roman believers that they must continue in God’s goodness or be cut off? I am curious as to the Free Grace understanding of that verse.
Amy said: Because I believe in reading scripture in context and not just taking a little piece of scripture out to make my point.
I do too. The context of Scripture is one of the most important hermeneutical principles Bible interpreters should use.
But I would like to know how I took John 8:42 out of context, or John 14:15 for that matter. When our Lord says, “If God were your Father, you would love Me,” the verse seems very straightforward. When He later says, “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments” the point again seems very clear.
I am curious as to how the Free Grace position reinterprets the straightforward reading of these verses. On this particular thread, I would prefer that we stick with the issues discussed in the article, rather than redirecting the conversation to Romans. (Of course, I would be happy to discuss Romans on another occasion [or any other biblical book], since the lordship position is equally clear throughout the entire epistle of Romans, and the NT as a whole.)
Amy said: … the pardon of sin and eternal salvation is appointed to sinners in consideration of the merits of Christ laid hold of by faith. THE MERITS OF CHRIST. LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE. What’s love got to do with it?? You are adding to the finished work of CHRIST!!!!!!
No I am not. I thought that I emphasized this in the original article, but it is helpful to clarify this again.
The ability to love God is a supernatural, divinely-bestowed endowment of God. He is the one who cleanses the heart. He is the one who transforms the mind. He is the one who breaks the will. He is the one who gives new desires, new attitudes, new aspirations, and new affections. He is the one who makes us into new creations. He replaces our heart of stone, and gives us a heart of flesh… a heart that loves Him.
The believer’s love for Christ then is a reflection of the supernatural transformation that God wrought in him or her at the moment of regeneration. It adds no more human merit to salvation than the sinner’s ability to accept the facts of Christ’s death and resurrection, or the sinner’s ability to trust in those facts. It is all a work of God!
When God saves us from hell, He also saves us from sin!If we are still slaves to sin, it shows that we have not been saved. As Paul said in Romans 8:1 – 2:
When God adopts us into His family, He imparts to us a supernatural love both for Him and for our spiritual brethren (Rom. 8:15–17; 1 John 3:14). If that love is absent in a person’s heart, it indicates that he or she is not yet part of the family (cf. John 8:44).
Thanks again for your comment.
NB
Amy,
I have not presummed anything. I have not said that salvation is dependant on my love for Him. Where have I said that in the posts I have made?
Why do you not quote the rest of the verse as emphatically?
“not having a righteousness of my own THAT COMES FROM THE LAW”
The keeping of the sabbath, the keeping of temple practices, the keeping of dietary customs can not save. They are not obtainable.
But repentance is necessary to call Jesus “Lord” (see Romans 10) because no one seeks Him on his or her own (see Romans 3). Repentance is not a work but a part of faith.
You do not have faith in a chair until you sit in it. You do not have faith in God if you will not submit to Jesus’ Lordship. It’s really that simple.
@ Amy.
So far you have avoided responding to the verses such as 1 Corin. 16:22 and the ones Nathan Busenitz has has listed in John. Obviously, if you ignore those quotes you can have your “free grace.”
I can see that your argument really rests on the fact that love is some kind of “work,” than why is your “faith” not some kind of work.
[Not being sarcastic] To my knowledge you have to at least acknowledge Jesus right as your savior right? Is that acknowledgement a work? If I am totally unable to love Jesus, acknowledge Him, nor believe Him before salvation –> obviously when I do accept Him as my saviour and Lord He did all the work.
The perfect analogy is in medicine. You know how to find out if somebody has a disease –> The manifestations!!!! If somebody has kaposi sarcoma, cytomegalovirus, and low CD4 T cell count you know this person has AIDS. It’s the same w/ salvation – the process manifests itself in the fruit of the spirit (in different degrees of course, but nonetheless expressed).
If one day Richard Dawkins (prominent Atheist and Evolutionist) turned around and said “I accept Jesus as my savior today” what part of that is his work? NONE.
Its incredible to think that with Salvation and regeneration there would be no fruit. Look at the rich young ruler and the call to take up your cross daily, and the example of Zaccheus.
1) young ruler acknowledged God, but couldnt make it in b/c of LORDSHIP.
2) Daily take up your cross = LORDSHIP
3) Zaccheus – Jesus knew he was saved via his works not his words.
See even in your Phil 3 exegesis you talk about knowing Him “oh oh” that is work! Or is knowing Jesus a fruit of salvation [just like faith and love]?
PS All Bible verses you can quote fit nicely within the system of Lordship Salvation (think natural results of salvation) whereas many of the verses here CANNOT AND DO NOT and thus you are forced to continously ignore them or drift way way fromt the meaning
I have no argument with working out my salvation with fear and trembling. None at all. And yes, of course I acknowledge Jesus as my Lord. And repentance should come naturally after that. And that is of course a work of the Holy Spirit and not of ourselves! Your argument, ironically, places EVERYTHING squarely on the believer FOR SALVATION. My argument is for the prize. Not the GIFT My works Come in for the PRIZE. SALVATION OF THE SOUL>
My problem comes when you start telling me that my salvation is dependant upon my love for Jesus. You start mixing in me working for my salvation. The free gift God has bestowed upon me.
Your confusing the Prize and the Free Gift.
Jim A
Does not this whole topic of LORDSHIP SALVATION rest on the premise that Can you Be a Christian and Still be Saved?? That is what I thought was being discussed.
Hence that is where I got my information
“I have not said that salvation is dependant on my love for Him. Where have I said that in the posts I have made?”
I never said you in particular, I am sorry for inferring that. I just meant that this whole topic is in reference to losing ones salvation based on works.
YOU CAN LOSE REWARDS, NOT SALVATION.
The modus operandi of the free grace advocate is to spin and divert attention from their unsound theology with volumes of verbiage when passages clearly refute their position. They resort to false accusations such as “LOSING OUR SALVATION”.
Amy is obviously a master of this technique. I think their error is a result of a severly flawed understanding of regeneration.
W.H.
So then if it isn’t Losing your salvation what is it? And if I stop putting the word “free” in front of gift would that stop making it “free”?? A gift is a gift. You can make it whatever you want. If I decided to give you a pretty new car no stings attached would you call it free? I don’t have to tell you its free do I?
Like my old Sunday School teacher use to say. YOu can plant lemon seeds and say its an apple tree. But when you see a Lemon sprout up there aint no mistaking the fruit.
You can pretty up your doctrine all you want by sayin you don’t LOSE YOUR SALVATION. BUT That is exactly what your SAYING.
@ Amy
“Your argument, ironically, places EVERYTHING squarely on the believer FOR SALVATION… My problem comes when you start telling me that my salvation is dependant upon my love for Jesus. You start mixing in me working for my salvation. The free gift God has bestowed upon me.”
Well, I guess there is some confusion hehe.
I agree that we cannot lose our salvation and that our salvation is NOT dependent on our love for Jesus.
In my defense, I do not place everything squarely on the believer. I want to say that Christians always sin in the flesh and that love for Christ will not always be manifested in our lives. However, to have the ability to love Christ comes solely from God and whenever I am loving Christ and acting in the Spirit it is God working through me. It is something that God has freely given me.
All I was saying is that the ability to love is a Gift from God and that this along w/ other fruit are manifestations of His Salvation/Prize that are def. NOT FROM US.
Sounds like you wouldn’t be too opposed to that
AMEN BROTHER JOHN. I could not have expressed that better myself. *big grin*
I guess today’s post is like the Stephen Sonheim lyrics that cry out, “Today is for Amy!”
Amy you’re doing a wonderful job of clearly describing an understanding of the New Testament that doesn’t loop all themes together into a clumsy ball that only a kitten would love. Hope you visit my friends and I over at the Unashamed of Grace Blog too.
But I have to admit that Nathan also has done a great job with his post.
Nathan, your post is accurate, substantive and elegant. I’m eager to work on interacting wtih it.
I love that it is all on CHRIST!! All the Glory and Honor to Him.
My love to Him comes from Him
My Motivation to be with Him comes from Him
My works and my fruit that I bear in my life comes from HIM!!
But, I don’t get to heaven that way!
I get to Heaven based solely on the FINISHED WORK AT CALVARY. The Blood shed. He said IT IS FINISHED>
Amy, Please give me the quote in this thread where I mentioned one of God’s elect losing their salvation. Please show me any quote on my entire blog where I ever said such a thing. Try to find one comment that I have ever made on any blog where I suggested that one can lose their salvation. These kind of accusations make you look out of control. QUOTE ME SHOW ME ONE!
Lordship Salvation does not teach that we must work in order to be saved. Lordship Salvation does not teach that you can lose your salvation.
You can tell a tree by its fruit, and you can tell a Christian by his or her love, at least according to Jesus.
Your salvation is not dependant upon your love for Christ, rather it is your love for Christ that is dependant upon your salvation. This does mean that if you do not love Jesus, there is a very good chance you are not saved. Stated more correctly: if you do not currently love Jesus, then you do not presently exhibit the fruit of salvation.
While salvation is something you cannot lose, it can be something you never had.
Amy,
“You can pretty up your doctrine all you want by saying you don’t LOSE YOUR SALVATION. BUT That is exactly what your SAYING.”
I think the main point that you are missing in the argument is not that Nathan is saying that once you are saved and then, if you don’t evidence a Love for Christ, your salvation is revoked.
I think that Nathan is saying and what I would say that scripture teaches, and please correct me if I’m wrong, that those whose life is typified by a love of this world and an attitude of rebellion and sin, especially displayed in outright unbelief, those people were NEVER SAVED TO BEGIN WITH.
The Lordship position is not one of revoked salvations, but one of pointing out false conversions. If His sheep will hear His voice and follow Him, then it follows that those sheep that have departed are not now, and never were, of His flock.
At least that’s how I understand it.
Much agreed, Jazzy Cat, all I see in much of their comments are just “straw man” arguments. They continually acuse us of saying things that we are clearly not saying. One thing I love about blogs is that this kind of empty argumentation becomes painfully clear because it’s all recorded…
There is a problem with the concept of free grace theology as presented and defended here.
If free means no requirements and grace means unmerited favor, then they would be forced to affirm that there are no requirements upon grace. This would mean everyone is saved. Neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian would hold to this.
A Calvinist would say the requirement is that God has chosen you. An Arminian would say the requirement is that you choose God (and continue to choose him, some would say). But just because there are requirements, it does not mean that it isn’t grace.
Unmerited is not the same as unconditional.
The problem is the definition of faith. We all agree that it is by grace we are saved. What we are not in agreement on is what is defined by the term ‘faith’.
The Lordship claim is that ‘faith’ is more than an easy belief. (See Hebrews 11)
It is the GIFT OF GOD. SO THAT NONE MAY BOAST.
“rather it is your love for Christ that is dependant upon your salvation”
Yes, once you get saved keep working and working to keep being saved!!!! That sounds like a great system of doctrine to me.
Who are you all to sit as judge and jury to the people who have been converted out there? False conversions, blah blah blah all this christian jargon. You have been churched for a very long time.
So, instead of God, who is to say who’s conversion is right and wrong?? Is my fruit any good? What if my outward experience looks great?
I’ll quote John again, because I’m sure Jesus would be very glad to hear this??
“rather it is your love for Christ that is dependant upon your salvation” hmmmm? I thought it was the BLOOD OF THE LAMB that was dependant upon my SALVATION!
I guess I would err on the side of working to keep your salvation and losing it is all the same to me.
I grew up Catholic. And, although believed wholeheartedly in Jesus Christ as my Lord of lords, and loved Him, I thought I was going straight to Hell. Why, you ask?? Because I COULD NOT BE GOOD ENOUGH AND WORK HARD ENOUGH TO GET TO HEAVEN. I COULD NOT LOVE HIM HARD ENOUGH HIGH ENOUGH LONG PASSIONATELY ENOUGH. I COULDNT DO WHAT MOTHER THERESA DID. And I sinned a lot.
Your confusing the Prize and the GIFT!
@ Amy (Your friend remember
)
I don’t think anyone who advocates Lordship Salvation here would disagree with your statement:
Who are you all to sit as judge and jury to the people who have been converted out there? False conversions, blah blah blah all this christian jargon. You have been churched for a very long time.
So, instead of God, who is to say who’s conversion is right and wrong?? Is my fruit any good? What if my outward experience looks great?
I don’t think we for most cases of Churched ppl we can ever definitely say “Hey you, you confess Christ, but you really ain’t saved.” However, when someone like the BTK killer says he is a Christian I have my doubts.
You have to admit though, there are a lot of people who are just confessing Christ without being saved right? I mean if we can’t say who is saved, you must admit we will have some difficulty saying who ISN’T SAVED. Since we can tell a tree by its fruit, God is giving us way to discern who is and is not saved.
When we see ppl who confess Christ and they don’t show any of the fruit is not appropriate for us to share the Gospel with them? And how can we pick out these so-called Christians? Its b/c they’re lives don’t reflect their confession and that they acutally don’t know Christ. Yes, some may just be backsliding but the point is some are actually not saved.
The danger I see with the free grace movement is letting a lot of these ppl slip through the cracks and that there is a premature designation of salvation on someone who isnt – isn’t this just as judgmental as saying someone “is not?”
Seems like you and I don’t disagree on God’s perspective too much (Calvinism aside) ie that it is perfectly clear to Him who is saved or not. God don’t need to look at fruit. But you have a wrong interpretation of Lordship salvation and how it looks at fruit for evidence NOT THAT THE FRUIT ARE THE JUSTIFICATION THEMSELVES.
Amy,
Here’s good news! You don’t have to be good enough! If have you accepted Him as Lord, then that is enough. It is the Holy Spirit within you that produces the fruit (Fruit of the Spirit), not you! When you stumble and sin, then there is the blood of Christ to cover you. The love you have for Jesus is born of the Holy Spirit. It is an evidence, to you first and to others secondarily, that you are saved!
No one is judging anyone’s salvation, but the bible, particularly in Hebrews warns Christians about neglecting salvation, having an evil heart, falling away, etc. Because Hebrews issues these warnings, then it is safe grounds for us as Christians to make sure FOR OURSELVES that we are saved. This turns back to the evidence. Note the evidence does not save us, but it is evidence that we are indeed saved.
Those who ultimately do not have this evidence are not saved. Ironically, they most likely aren’t looking for it anyway. It isn’t our place to judge them, but to lift up Christ in their midst.
As for working to keep your salvation, that is not true either. It is God who will sanctify you. He will inact a change within you so that you grow in grace. This is not, however, a one-sided process. It takes discipline and effort, but you have the Holy Spirit to assist you.
THIS IS MY PICTURE OF WORKING OUT MY SALVATION: Through Jesus Christ. Not on my own merits, Not on my own Love for Him. But BY HIM
Doesn’t this all go back to a wrong view of sin? We are radically depraived.
Jim!
Yes, my friend. I do know the good news. I fell on my face when my friend Jill had me read Ephesians 2:8. But, me being me. I also knew there was more to the story. I knew there was more than what I call “free grace”. But, never added to what Jesus Christ finished on Calvary.
I am working out my salvation with fear and tremling. I believe in loss of rewards. I believe that you can have a tremendous Loss at “the judgment seat of Christ”. So, I know you on this web site all just shrivel back in disgust whenever I mention “free grace” OH NO, NEVER JUST ON THE MERITS OF CHRIST!! NEVER JUST BY THE BLOOD OF THE LAMB. IT HAS TO BE MORE. But, I am here to tell you. I don’t believe you can live any way you want after that. Dont worry. Jesus says in Revelation.
“Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done. (Revelation 22:12)
And also…
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.
But, that doesn’t mean that when a person accepts Christ based solely on His shed blood, just because said person chooses not to follow him and becomes an unfaithful servant doesn’t mean he revokes his right to his citizenship? The parables are all over the place.
The wheat and the tares. These are both believers. And look what happens to them. They are both growing amongst one another. Look and see why–
“But he said, `No; for while you are gathering up the tares, you may uproot the wheat with them. (Matthew 13:29)
`Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn.”"‘
So, even the unfaithful believers grow with the faithful believers. We could go round and round but mommy has to make dinner. I think we all did kind of a great job of explaining each others view points without getting out of hand and mean. You guys are awesome. I really hope I didn’t get offensive and rude, and if I did I really apologize. I love all of my brothers and sisters in Christ.
Nathan,
Agreed that at its core, “the lordship debate can be boiled down to this one question: Can a person truly be a member of God’s family and yet not be characterized by a love for Christ?”
We make a point that the absence of the word repent from the Gospel of John is meaningful. But the command to love is very much not absent. This strengthens instead of weakens the FG case.
If the command to do the works of the disciple were absent from John, an argument could legitimately be made that there was in fact a synoptic problem, that John was writing something that contradicts the other gospel writers. Instead, his carefully laid out offer of eternal life is grounded within a context of the Lord’s teaching on disciple making. Disciple making is the purpose of the offer of eternal life. Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.(Jn 17:3)
Believers are called to know God through loving Him and obeying Him, but in the FG view all mankind is also called, not just regenerate people. The sharp teaching on discipleship in the Gospel of John is taught to the casual, the committed and adversaries. It supports the (by faith and not by works) offer of eternal life by showing that this important call is never woven into the free offer! Jesus never includes it as a part of His offer, and its presence in John shows its rapport with Christ’s free offer. The offer is treated as different from the command.
In Jn 8:42, Jesus is teaching what is consistent throughout the NT. That if a person does the will of the Father, he is a son of Him. If he does his own will, he is really doing the devil’s work and is a son of the devil. This is true for both the regenerate and the unregenerate.
The greatest mistake the Reformed thinkers make is its gilding of the redeemed. This unwarranted extrapolation of the NT teaching of God’s blessings on the redeemed causes them to misconstrue all else in the NT as a dumping on the unregenerate and a buffing of the shine on redeemed people.
In truth, the NT contrasts sin with obedience. The one who loves and obeys is the child of the Father and the one who sins is of the Devil. There is nothing in Chapter 8 that contradicts this NT teaching. The perfect example of this contrast is found in Matthew 16:
15He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven…”
21 …From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. 22And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, “Far be it from you, Lord![e] This shall never happen to you.” 23But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance[f] to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”
This is universal truth is a constant, as true for unbelievers as for believers. The reality of the miracle of new birth in Peter’s life didn’t free him from the absolutes of here and now moral parentage. Had he been “expressing” the miracle of new birth (Christ in him) he wouldn’t have had his mind set on the things of man.
You seem to think in very broad terms when you fully equate Jesus’ discussion of being of the Father in Jn 8 with belonging to the family of God through new birth. You say:
Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me.”
The weight of our Lord’s words settles the issue: Those who do not love Christ are not part of the family of God.
With this kind of broad logic you are chunking terms together as if there had been a strict NT Bible Code for NT authors, which insisted that all figurative discussion of sons, fathers and children must relate to God’s regenerate family. In this way of thinking the sons of thunder was part of the chunk of thematic content, and so did the Apostles’ renaming of generous young Joseph in Acts as Bar-Nabas, son of compassion (or “son of Compassion”, to indicate God the Father is being referenced). The NT writers used language the way we all use language, drawing from its subtle versatility without even giving it a moments thought.
This big plus of understanding the NT this way is that you don’t have to torture the term love to make it not a deed or repentance to make it a work of God not of man. The commands of Christ can be taken at face value:
John 14:15: “If you love me you will keep My commandments.”
John 15:14: “You are My friends if you do what I command you.”
The one who has received the gift of eternal life and who has been freed from the unimaginable torments of the Lake of Fire is called to get busy earning the friendship of the Savior. If you think you love me prove it. The NT doesn’t give us assurance that we are Christ’s disciples. That assurance must be earned the way Paul and the others earned it.
We can never show ourselves worthy of the atoning work of the second Person of the Trinity! That is outrageous. But we can show ourselves worthy of the Kingdom. That’s about discipleship and is a very different prospect.
I’ll end with the lovely passage you ended your thought-provoking Post with:
By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. [see Jn 14:9 Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? ] The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.
Jodie!
“We can never show ourselves worthy of the atoning work of the second Person of the Trinity! That is outrageous. But we can show ourselves worthy of the Kingdom. That’s about discipleship and is a very different prospect.”
Very beautiful, very eloquently written.
Great post, Nathan.
How anyone can read the Scriptures and draw the conclusion that you can be saved and not love Jesus in umimaginable. I know those in the “free grace” camp would deny the charge, but you did an excellent job showing how they would be inconsistent if they did. Thanks!
Amy,
Concerning the parable of the Wheat and Tares, if you continue reading down to Matt 13:36-43, the Lord explains the meaning of the parable. I trust that we can conclude that both wheat and tares are not two kinds of believers.
@ Nathan,
ohmigoodness I didn’t even see this post! I was looking all over for you Nathan! I’m sorry!!
“Otherwise you also will be cut off. And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.”
Like I kept saying, Your confusing the prize and the gift. The rewards and Salvation. The parable of the Wedding Feast. The kingdom of Heaven is compared to this!! Remember they are ALL IN THE KINGDOM! if you read Matthew 22. But, the ones who weren’t DRESSED FOR THE FEAST got thrown into outer darkness. The unfaithfull servants. The ones who didn’t obey if you will. Who didn’t LOVE.
“Those slaves went out into the streets and gathered together all they found, both evil and good; and the wedding hall was filled with dinner guests. 11 “But when the king came in to look over the dinner guests, he saw a man there who was not dressed in wedding clothes, 12 and he said to him, `Friend, how did you come in here without wedding clothes?’ And the man was speechless. 13 “Then the king said to the servants, `Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ 14 “For many are called, but few are chosen.”
MANY ARE CALLED!!!! Salvation. Few Are Chosen. The Prize. Being the ones chosen to actually bask in HIS Presence during the 1,000 Millenial Reign.
That is how I would explain that. Being cutoff. As a free grace person.
“If you love ME, you will keep my commandments” is very straight forward. You can’t get any more straight forward than that. I believe the text says what it says. I know what it DOESNT say. It DOESNT SAY. IF you don’t love me and DONT keep my commandments your not a child of mine. Your a child of satan.
Nathan,
When God saves us from hell, He also saves us from sin!If we are still slaves to sin, it shows that we have not been saved. As Paul said in Romans 8:1 – 2:
Huh?
That’s funny cuz Paul struggled in Romans only right before that with sin.
So now, no R321 longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; R322 for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. 19 For the R323 good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. 20 But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I R324 am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.
21 I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. 22 For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, 23 but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.
Was Paul a Christian? Because sounds to me like he was having a heck of a struggle here with sin? What? EVIL WAS PRESENT IN HIM> Oh no! You Lordship people would think that grounds for banishment. (I’m sorry that was too sarcastic). BUt, actually that raises a good question. Where is the watermark for when you stop being a Christian in your theology of this? Like, when do you actually stop being one then. There is the problem with your theology. Where is the watermark. What do I have to do stop being a Christian in your world?
Paul,
Concerning the parable of the Wheat and Tares, if you continue reading down to Matt 13:36-43, the Lord explains the meaning of the parable. I trust that we can conclude that both wheat and tares are not two kinds of believers.
yes, oopsy. We can conclude this. That would be a bad thing.
@ Amy
“Was Paul a Christian? Because sounds to me like he was having a heck of a struggle here with sin? What? EVIL WAS PRESENT IN HIM> Oh no! You Lordship people would think that grounds for banishment. (I’m sorry that was too sarcastic). BUt, actually that raises a good question. Where is the watermark for when you stop being a Christian in your theology of this? Like, when do you actually stop being one then. There is the problem with your theology. Where is the watermark. What do I have to do stop being a Christian in your world?”
I think many ppl have responded to this here
I’ll do it again.
Here are things you cannot blame LS ppl for believing (b/c we dont
1) We are never divorced from our sin here on earth. The more accurately we see ourselves the more we will cry out like Paul.
2) Paul also does good right? How so? B/c he is saved and also has Christ as His Lord. When Paul is bemoaning his sinfulness that’s just a manifestation of his salvation.
3) With that said, salvation enables us ie gives us the ability we didn’t have to please God. Hebrews 11:6 “Without faith it is impossible to please God.” THIS DOES NOT MEAN WE WILL NEVER STUMBLE HECKS NO!!!!! All it does is basically enable us to repent when we do.
4) We receive salvation freely and live our lives and do good works b/c we want to please him not to earn anything. If you see me on the street and do any good I don’t want any credit, b/c its Christ in me that does it.
5) Here’s the watermark:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/pmurray/exchristian/Stories/0354.html
This guy says he was a believer for 8 years guess what he wasn’t!!! Eventually the truth will come out. If you fight and battle your sin everyday by taking up your cross and asking for forgiveness as you fail thats just part of Christian life/your salvation (cf. 1 John 1:9). But as John says a little later in 1 John 2:19, this guy went out from us to show he wasn’t of us.
Now sounds like you believe in that you can’t lose your salvation, but this guy here you nor I could prb tell him apart from a Christian while he was faithfully attending church. But now we can confidently say he never was saved in the first place, not that he lost his salvation.
~What do FG say to that?
So please do not associate the LS movement w/ sinlessness and a belief in losing salvation PLeASE!!!
The real question is if someone does not have the love of Christ are they a Christian??? NOT IF IT MAKES YOU A CHRISTIAN OR PROOVES YOU’RE SALVATION.
Also other religions say “I believe in faith alone that Jesus is my savior.” How can you tell if they’re not hmm? There fruit, i’d knew you see things my way ;p
PS You’re not so far out as like Zane Hodges and as I read your quotes I’m starting to doubt if we really have very very signicant differences like i would w/ brother Hodges.
Jim
No, I am with Zane Hodges at all. You are right. If you have ever heard of Robert Govett, Kenneth Dodson or R.E. Neighbor, I am more in their camp. But definately on in the Zane Hodges!!
And I like what I have read too from you! Thanks!
Just with past experience I get very cautious when it comes to judging a christians walk with the Lord. But, it certainly does not end with Salvation like so many believers think!! No, it only STARTS their!
Correction, I am NOT with Zane Hodges…
Jim
This guy says he was a believer for 8 years guess what he wasn’t!!! Eventually the truth will come out. If you fight and battle your sin everyday by taking up your cross and asking for forgiveness as you fail thats just part of Christian life/your salvation (cf. 1 John 1:9). But as John says a little later in 1 John 2:19, this guy went out from us to show he wasn’t of us.
I feel very sorry for this man. But, I believe in my heart of hearts he was a believer. Who are you to say he wasn’t. He fell away. There are people that do that. Who are you or me to say they were never believers in the first place?? If this guy says he was a believer, who are we to say he wasn’t. Look, you saw his story. HE came from a broken home. He jumped ship. He left the faith of his fathers. Read Ezekiel 18. Or God is not mocked you reap what you sow. If you sow to the flesh you will reap to the flesh If you sow to the spirit you will reap to the spirit. That guy obviously sowed to the flesh expectecting to reap spiritual results and when he didn’t get what he wanted he jumped ship and blamed GOD!!! HE was a believer and now he is whining and moaning. boohoo… BUT, he was a believer. And he even said it. And I believe he was too. And doom on him for it will be even worse on him at Judgement Day because you cannot trample the Son of Man a second time. (It says that somewhere doesn’t it)?? *big grin*
Jodie,
Thank you for your comment, and for your eagerness to work through John 8:42 exegetically and contextually. I appreciate your desire to be contextually sensitive to the use of the word “Father.” And, along those lines, I believe it is the context of John 8 itself that shows Jesus’ use of the term was indeed soteriological.
In verse 31, John writes, “Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him….” It is important to note that everything from verse 31 to verse 47 (at least) is grammatically connected to and thus directed toward “those Jews who believed Him” (v. 31). The “they” of vv. 33, 39, 41 all point back to these “believing” Jews as the antecedent.
So, Jesus tells those “Jews who believed Him” that
1) They must abide in His Word if they are to truly be considered His disciples (v. 32)
2) They are slaves to sin if they remain in sin. But through Christ they can be set free from sin (vv. 34–36). Also, in v. 35 Christ notes that if they remain as slaves they will not abide in the house forever. They must become sons (of the Father) if they are to abide forever. (That, to me, sounds very soteriological; it cannot be simply explained away as a kingdom analogy.)
3) They seek to kill Him, meaning that His word has no place in them (v. 37).
4) They are not Abraham’s spiritual children because they do not do the works of Abraham, but instead want to kill their Messiah (vv. 39–41). (Again, the fact that they are not spiritual descendants of Abraham is a soteriological statement.)
5) They do not love Christ, therefore God is not their Father (v. 42). (In the same way that they are not the spiritual descendants of Abraham, they are not the spiritual descendants of God. This is evidenced in their lack of love for the Son of God.)
6) They cannot understand Christ’s teaching, because they are not able to listen to His word (v. 43).
7) They are of their father the devil, which Jesus elaborates on as meaning that they are murderers who do not stand in the truth. They are liars like their father (v. 44).
Leon Morris comments on this passage: “This section of discourse is addressed to those who believe, and yet do not believe. Clearly they were inclined to think that what Jesus said was true. But they were not prepared to yield him the far-reaching allegiance that real trust in him implies” (The Gospel According to John, NICNT, p. 454).
9) They are not of God (v. 47).
Contextually and exegetically, I see no other option than to assert that, when Jesus said, “If God were your Father,” He was speaking in a soteriological sense. The whole context is about Christ being a light in the darkness (v. 12); about knowing both Him and the Father (v. 19); about the danger of dying in sin (vv. 21, 24); about Christ being lifted up on the cross (v. 28); about being made free from sin (vv. 32, 34–36); about abiding in the house (of the Father) forever (v. 35); about being spiritual descendants of Abraham (v. 39); about being true children of God (v. 42); about truly believing Christ (vv. 45–46); about being of God (v. 47); and about never seeing death (v. 51).
The fact that this passage introduces unbelieving believers (contrast vv. 30–31 with vv. 45–46) also presents a major difficulty for the Free Grace view.
I should also add that Jesus later says that the Jews claimed that His Father was their God (v. 54). Again (as in v. 35), the father-son relationship portrayed in this passage is soteriological. Despite their claim (in v. 54), they did not know Him or His Son.
Thanks again for your comment.
NB
Amy,
… BUT, he was a believer. And he even said it. And I believe he was too. And doom on him for it will be even worse on him at Judgement Day because you cannot trample the Son of Man a second time.
Could you clarify this a little more? Are you saying that a person can be a genuine believer and then become a non-believer, facing eternal judgment? That he could be one of the elect, have his sins forgiven, paid in full by the atonement of Christ, adopted into God’s family, then change his mind and reverse his eternal position?
Wooohoooo! I thought I’d never get to the bottom of the comments on this one. Looks like alot of discussion. I pray it was fruitful. Blessings to all.
Nate,
Thanks for the reply. It seems like your saying that the pronoun rules in Greek concerning the antecedent are far more strict than in English.
All through the back and forth Jesus is talking to a group, and yet your saying that starting at v31 he switches his discussion to the smaller group who believed.
I want to think through that, it’s a strong idea. Please let me know if I understand you right and if you have a quote about the pronoun/antecedent issue from a Greek scholar it would help.
God bless.
Jodie
Jodie,
Could you clarify what you think Jesus meant when He said to the unbelievers: “If God were your Father, you would love Me” (John 8:42)?
@ Amy
I also would love it if you could clarify what you mean by “believe.” B/c just a second ago you were very adamant about not being able to lose one’s salvation. BTW you addressed stuff to Jim but quoted me –> John ~ I’m all confused !!
Also if you could, if someone tells you “I used to go to church but I no longer believe in Jesus and deny Him and everything He stand for.” Do you still say hmmm… I dunno. It’s pretty clear you share the Gospel with him. In fact John the Baptist called the Pharisess a brood of vipers when they came to him!
To a point I would agree w/ you. I did say that during the time that poor man went to church we cannot judge his salvation for sure, but we can guess by his fruit. Now too, we can’t say for sure what God has for him down the line and we must hope and pray for him, however, if someone flat out denies and is malicious to Christianity you can safely say to him, “if you cont. on this path you will be forever doomed. Turn to Christ!”
I can even say that someone might be saved and be backsliding or going through a terrible ordeal and say he doesn’t believe(but I dont know about rank slander…) in a moment of weakness of frustration only to regret and repent of it soon after.
But its hard to say where you stand b/c you do say that guy believed + you don’t believe in losing of one’s salvation + you say he’s doomed.
In keeping with this topic – I was sent this email which quotes Thomas Brooks. It is from the Grace Gems website.
“The terms upon which Christ is offered in the gospel are
these: that we shall accept of a whole Christ with a
whole heart. Now, mark–a whole Christ includes all
His offices; and a whole heart includes all our faculties.
Christ as mediator is prophet, priest, and king.
Christ as a prophet instructs us.
Christ as a priest redeems us and intercedes for us.
Christ as a king sanctifies and rules us.
A hypocrite may be willing to embrace Christ as a priest
to save him from wrath, from the curse, from hell, from
everlasting burning–but he is never sincerely willing to
embrace Christ as a prophet to teach and instruct him,
and as a king to rule and reign over him. Many hypocrites
are willing to embrace a saving Christ–but they are not
willing to embrace a ruling Christ, a commanding Christ.
“But those enemies of Mine who did not want Me to be
king over them–bring them here and kill them in front
of Me!’” Luke 19:27
Hypocrites love to share with Christ in His happiness–but
they don’t love to share with Christ in His holiness. They
are willing to be redeemed by Christ–but they are not
cordially willing to submit to the laws and government of
Christ. They are willing to be saved by His blood–but they are not willing to submit to His scepter.
But a true Christian receives Christ in all His offices. He accepts Him, not only as a saving Jesus–but also as a Lord Jesus. He embraces Him, not only as a saving Christ–but also as a ruling Christ. He received Christ as a king upon His throne, as well as an atoning sacrifice upon His cross.
A hypocrite is all for a saving Christ, for a sin-pardoning Christ, for a soul-saving Christ–but has no regard for a ruling Christ, a reigning Christ, a commanding Christ, a sanctifying Christ; and this at last will prove his damning sin.”
A major argument from FG seems to be the Gospel of John not having the world “repent” in it. But Jesus’ first sermon was, “Repent and believe.” (Mark 1:15) How do FGs harmonize this?
BUT, he was a believer.
Key word WAS. Look, If HE HIMSELF is Denying the CHRIST. Turning his Back on his Faith. If he were to die today yes, he would be doomed eternally.
But, who is to say that that this man
http://www.users.bigpond.com/pmurray/exchristian/Stories/0354.html
cannot again come back to his faith. Am I?? No, Can he repent and get his salvation back. I don’t know. Has he lost it forever? If I were to ask you all, I think you would say yes. Even if he were to repent and say he wanted to return. And he were to die tommorow thinking his sins were forgiven and made full repentance I would think he were going to heaven albeit not a very good experience for him ie THE PRIZE AND THE GIFT.
You guys are saying this man is eternally doomed even if he died tommorow and he came back to his faith. I don’t buy it.
I would also like to say, I do not follow the free grace camp where there is no repentance for sins!!! my goodness. That is such a bad rap to lay on free grace. Please if you really care about being educated more on this go to http://www.schoettlepublishing.com/ The early church fathers, I mean EARLY before Martin Luther wrote about the Millenial Reign of Christ. THe Prize and Rewards or Loss at the Judgement seat of Christ.(I wont get off on a rabbit trail here, I promise), but, free grace has gotten a bad rap.
I believe in repentance more so than some of you. I believe it matters how you live. I buffet my body for the UPWARD CALL IN CHRIST JESUS. I am going for it. There is more to it than you think.
Hi Nate,
You made 2 arguments, one, that the grammar proves that the discussion after v. 31 is directed toward those Jews who believed in Him and two, that the discussion is soteriological.
The idea that the grammar proves that the discussion after v. 31 is directed toward those Jews who believed in Him seems like a stretch to me. Maybe you could give me more information about that.
In my opinion going back to chapter 5 is helpful. In v 17 and 18 Jesus makes himself one with God and the Jews decide they had an argument to have Him executed.
17″My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working.” 18For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
Then in Chapter 8 Jesus reveals He is talking to these same people by telling them they are trying to kill Him. Nate, these people can’t be the same who believed in him in verse 37:
28 Then Jesus said to them, “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and that I do nothing of Myself; …
30 As He spoke these words, many believed in Him.
31 Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed.
32 And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
33 They answered Him, “We are Abraham’s descendants, and have never been in bondage to anyone. How can You say, ‘You will be made free’?”
34 Jesus answered them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin.
35 And a slave does not abide in the house forever, but a son abides forever.
36 Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed.
37 “I know that you are Abraham’s descendants, but you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you.
38 I speak what I have seen with My Father, and you do what you have seen with[l] your father.”
If John wanted us to understand the “they” to consistently be those “many” who believed in Him he could have clarified the pronoun by saying just that. Since Jesus was speaking to a group no one but he and the ones who had believed knew that they had done that. So Jesus could have addressed them discreetly by saying, You who have believed in me… of even, Anyone who believes in me…
But by not seeing anything in the text that confirms your argument it seems unlikely.
(You bring up v 45 “But because I tell the truth, you do not believe Me.” I don’t agree with Leon Morris that Jesus is insisting that their belief isn’t authentic. That’s going too far in my view. Jesus is saying that those He is addressing simply don’t believe, while John narrates in v 30 that “many” believed in Him. I checked F. F. Bruce who as you know isn’t a FG advocate. He writes, “The charge that those whom he is addressing are still looking for an opportunity to put him to death rules out the possibility that they are the Jews who had believed in Him.” [The Gospel of John, F. F. Bruce, p 198] Aside from Bruce’s reputation as an authority I think what he is saying has merit.)
About whether this is all soteriological, it seems more natural to me that the theme of the passage is found at the end of the incident with the woman caught in adultery in v. 12: I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.”
The theme seems to be repeated several times:
V 31 If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
v. 42 If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me.
v. 47 He who is of God hears God’s words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God.”
So the nine points you raise would be things I agree with except that you see them all in a soteriological light. (And that goes as well for list of reasons for seeing it soteriologically.) I don’t, I see them in a moral light. Jesus is saying if you come under my authority morally you will be free of sin and Satan’s unseen authority and God will be your Father. This is true of believers and unbelievers. Of course unbelievers need to be divinely guided to faith in Christ, as well!
Elsewhere, the Lord has said in John that doing the will of the Father means believing in Him: For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” 6:40. So The Lords and the Father’s moral command is that we believe.
God Bless.
Jodie
Matt,
About v 42 “If God were your Father, you would love Me”. (John 8:42) I’ll quote Bruce again not because his opinion as authority shows that he is likely right, but simply because he is better at articulating what I see in the whole discussion.
He writes:
Jesus insists on using the terms ‘father’ and ‘children’ in an ethical sense: the children are those who reproduce the father’s qualities.”
It is a moral issue of doing the Father’s will or not that has effects in the unseen spiritual world, where Satan has to take steps back from those people, even unbelievers, who have begun to apply God’s will in their lives. When Peter advised Jesus not to go to the cross, he was taking steps away from God’s ethics and will, so Satan jumped in and took the foothold Peter had offered. Satan was, ethically speaking, the Father of Peter at that moment.
I hope that helps to clarify.
God bless.
Jodie
Amy, I wanted to respond to what you had shared. Let’s make a switch in our thinking for a moment. Let’s take a look at this subject from God’s perspective, considering a short list of things HE has done in procuring one of His people in salvation. Better yet, for now let’s look at just one thing that He has done, and than based upon your response, if you care to we will look at some even more profound things.
The sealing of the Holy Spirit.
Eph. 1:13,14 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.
Eph. 4:30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.
2Cor. 1:21,22 Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and has anointed us is God,
who also has sealed us and given us the Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.
The teaching in these verses is quite straight forward. At the time of faith in the gospel of Christ a believer is sealed with the Holy Spirit, Him being the guarantee of our inheritance until our full redemption at His coming.
Once we are sealed can we be unsealed? If so, I would like to see the verses that would clearly teach contrary to this. The sealing is obviously done on behalf of a genuine believer. The reason I use the term genuine believer is because there are many people who think that they are saved, when they are not. Such as:
Mat 7:22,23 “Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’
And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’ This whole chapter is worth considering in this discussion.
And also the parable of the sower Mat 13:3-23.
Back to my question, can a genuine believer, once sealed become unsealed?
Based upon Christ’s dynamic relationship with the Father, Jesus speaks what He has seen with His Father (vs 38). Jesus states in vs 38 that these Jews are experientially doing that which they see (or hear) their “father” do. Jesus is therefore stating that these Jews have a dynamic relationship one to the other (the Jews with their “father”, the Devil vs 44).
The Jews say, “No! We have Abraham as our father!” thus claiming an experiential, dynamic relationship with him instead. The Jews state that Abraham is their father (vs 39). They are claiming a dynamic relationship with him in this context. They are stating that their actions are not based upon a dynamic relationship to the ‘father’ Jesus is pronouncing that they do. They are claiming that their actions are commensurate with a dynamic relationship to Abraham.
Christ has already identified these Jews as Abraham’s “sperma”, seed or descendents (vs 37). But He contrasts that with being a child of Abraham (vs 39). Therefore He distinguishes between two relationships with Abraham: being a descendent based upon genealogy, and being a “child”. What is the contrast? Is not a child a descendent of the father? Yes. The most likely contrast between seed and child in this context is that of a dynamic relationship one to the other.
In vs 41, Jesus says that they are “doing the deeds” of their father. The Jews then say that they “have one Father: God” thus claiming to be doing the deeds of Him rather than the person whom Jesus is implying is their father. Jesus says “If God were your Father (and you were doing his deeds) you would love Me.” But since they do not love Jesus, they show that they are not experientially and dynamically linked to the Person in whom they have just claimed is their Father, for they are not doing His deeds, which in this case would be to love the one who “proceeded forth” and came “from God.” If the Jews actions were based upon a dynamic relationship to the Father, empowered by the Father, they would love Jesus.
I dont believe that deductive interpretation works here. Jesus isn’t speaking technically. His words can’t be used as the premises of a deductive argument without first using induction and context to truly understand what he was trying to say.
The same writer of this gospel says elsewhere:
1 John 2:15
Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
What is the significance here? That if a Christian is caught up in the world, enamored by it, that at that moment, he is not loving the Father. His actions of loving the world are not based upon a dynamic relationship with the Father. If he were at that time experiencing the abiding life in Christ he would not love the world.
Our actions are based upon that which we are at that moment having a dyamic relationship with. If we are in the flesh, our actions will be commensurate with the flesh (even if what we are doing is “good”). If we are abiding in Christ, our dynamic relationship to Him will dictate our actions.
Taken from another comment on Pulpit:
———-
None of the “prooftexts” given that a Christian will always or indefectably love Jesus prove that all true Christians will do so. Is it impossible for Christians to get caught up in the things of the world? Are the advocates of Lordship Salvation so pious as to claim that this has never happened to them? John says that when we are enamored by the things of the world that at that moment we are not loving God (1 John 2:15). Can we say that we are “loving” Jesus when we sin? Jesus identifies loving Him with obeying his commandments (John 14:21). At the moments we sin we are not obeying his commandments. Lordship Salvation believes that true Christians can be caught up in episodes of sin. During this time interval, the wayward Christian is not loving Christ.
loving Christ entails having and keeping His commandments
loving Christ is necesary for eternal life
———-
eternal life is contingent on keeping His commandments, IOW, doing works
Jodie,
I appreciate what you have shared. If I could make a few comments.
The burden lies in proving that He turned from those who believed to those other Jews and not the other way around. Where in the text would that have taken place? As we look at verse 39 there is nothing in the text that would indicate that “they that answered Him” was anyone different then “they answered Him in verse 33. Indeed the back and forth conversation seems to flow naturally. Interestingly, when He addresses them specifically in 8:31 they, not understanding what He meant by what He said questioned Him, commenting that they were Abrahams descendents. This specific subject concerning them and Abraham clearly continues on unstopped through to verse 40.
31 Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. 32 “And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
33 They answered Him, “We are Abraham’s descendants, and have never been in bondage to anyone. How can you say, ‘You will be made free’?” 34 Jesus answered them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin. 35 “And a slave does not abide in the house forever, but a son abides forever. 36 “Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed. 37 ” I know that you are Abraham’s descendants, but you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you. 38 “I speak what I have seen with My Father, and you do what you have seen with your father.” 39 They answered and said to Him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would do the works of Abraham. 40 “But now you seek to kill Me, a Man who has told you the truth which I heard from God. Abraham did not do this.
I think the one of the problems lie in the fact that some have a hard time believing that He would continue to converse with “those who believe” in this way.
John 8:30-32 states this:
30 As He spoke these words, many believed in Him. 31 Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. 32 And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
NKJV
———-
As clearly as John can express it, a group of “many” “believed in” Jesus. This phrase, “believed in him” is a special Greek expression “pisteuw eis” which is almost unique to the Gospel of John. This phrase involves the use of a Greek preposition (eis) after the verb for “believe” and, so far at least, it has not been found in secular Greek. Among the instances of its use in John’s gospel may be mentioned the following- 1:12; 2:11; 3:15, 16, 18, 36; 6:29, 35, 40, 47; 7:38, 39; 9:35, 36; 10:42; 11:25, 26, 45; and 12:44, 46.
Even a rapid examination of these texts shows that this specialized expression is John’s standard way of describing the act of saving faith by which eternal life is obtained. To deny this in 8:30 would be to go directly counter to the well-established usage of the author.
For instance, John 3:16 states, “…whosoever believes in Him [pisteuw eis] should not perish but have everlasting life”. Could not “those Jews who believed Him” be considered a “whosoever”? Does not John make a blanket statement that the one believing into Jesus has eternal life?
Notice that there is nothing in the text itself to indicate that the faith exercised by “those Jews” is anything but the faith that brings eternal life. There are no modifiers such as “spurious” or “false” or “substandard”. On the contrary, the expression is the same in John 3:16 and 6:47 (Most assuredly I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life). It uses the “pisteuw eis” expression with Jesus as the object. This is the very same expression that is saving faith in our most beloved texts, such as John 3:16 and John 11:25, 26!
It has been claimed, however, that the believing Jews of verses 30, 31 are the speakers in verses 33, 39, and 41. It is then pointed out that in verse 44 Jesus tells them, “You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do.” Along with the whole tenor of verses 33-47 (and especially the statements of verses 39, 40, and 42) this is seen as a clear indication that the faith described in 8:30 was not regenerating faith.
But this argument involves a missassessment of the whole context in which verses 8:30-32 are placed.
John 8:13-59 is clearly a controversy section which has its setting in the Jewish Temple (8:20). Jesus’ opponents throughout the section are His general audience in the Temple treasury. They are described as Pharisees (8:13), as Jews (8:22, 48, 52, and 57) and more simply as “they” (8:19, 25, 27, 33, 39, 41, 59). John does not expect us to understand the “they” of verse 33 any differently than we do the same word in verses 19, 25, and 27 He means the larger audience.
Verses 30, 31a (about those who believe in Him) are a kind of “aside” to the reader to explain the background and purpose of Jesus’ statement in verses 31b, 32 (about continuing in His Word). In this way the reader is allowed to learn the reason why Jesus’ words are misunderstood and how they serve to intensify the controversy that is already raging.
This technique is thoroughly Johannine. Throughout the Fourth Gospel, the words of Jesus are frequently misunderstood (c.f. 3:4; 4:11, 12; 6:34; 7:35; 8:22; etc.). Where necessary, John offers the readers the crucial clue to their actual meaning (cf. 2:19-22; 11:11-13). This is what he is doing in verses 30-31a. The reader is tipped off about the real purpose behind the words in 3:31b-32.
———-
(Zane Hodges, The Gospel Under Seige)
Imagine for instance that John’s “editorial” note was not included in the text, how it would read:
John 8:28-33
Then Jesus said to them, “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and that I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me, I speak these things. And He who sent Me is with Me. The Father has not left Me alone, for I always do those things that please Him If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
They answered Him,” We are Abraham’s descendants, and have never been in bondage to anyone. How can You say, ‘You will be made free’?”
Notice the bold “they”. Without the editorial by John, the “they” would then be the obvious continuation of those hostile, disputing, and unbelieving Jews that have been referenced time and again throughout the discourse in John 8.
John’s point in his editorial is that when Jesus said the words in 8:31b-32, it was for the benefit of those “many [who] believed in Him” (8:30). Jesus did not address those who believed in Him, but it was for their benefit. It was spoken in the same manner as had the rest of the discourse Jesus had been giving from 8:13-29, in the sphere and in the hearing of all in the Temple. The unbelieving Jews misunderstood Jesus’ statement and began questioning His statements in verse 33.
The interpretation of the Traditionalist of John 8:30ff puts variance between verses 8:30,31 with verses 8:45-47, wherein 8:30,31 the Apostle John states that there was a group of Jews who both “believed into Him” and “believed Him”, but Jesus in verse 8:45 says that those whom He is talking to (who the Traditionalist says is the same group as 8:30,31, IOW the believing Jews) “do[es] not believe Me”.
Instead of seeing the true contradiction of their understanding of this passage, the Traditionalists accommodate their interpretation with a secondary assumption that the “faith” in 8:30, 31 is a “spurious” one, even in the face of the overwhelming testimony of John in his gospel that states that “whosoever believes into” Jesus IS saved, and even though not a single qualifier or modifier exists in the text to color our comprehension of these Jew’s faith. They then use this passage as a “proof-text” to their doctrine of perseverance and their position that all true believers are disciples as well.
We must not give secondary assumptions and/or modify one experimental fact in order to accommodate it with another apparently contradictory one. Instead, we must search for a higher synthesis, larger than each fact, which will explain both.
And in this case, if this were done, the Traditionalist would realize that John’s commentary and editorial in 8:30,31b was an “aside” for the reader’s own understanding, denoting that 8:31b-32 was an expression made for the benefit of those “many Jews [who] believed in [to] Him”, and that the discussion in 8:33ff is just a continuation of the dispute with the Jews and Pharisees who had been hostile to Him throughout the whole of the discourse.
————-
Furthermore, it is interesting that John Calvin himself takes the same view as I do:
For whatever it is worth, John Calvin said some interesting things regarding John 8:33.
[Quote]
33. We are Abraham’s seed. It is uncertain if the Evangelist here introduces the same persons who formerly spoke, or others. My opinion is, that they replied to Christ in a confused manner, as usually happens in a promiscuous crowd; and that this reply was made rather by despisers than by those who believed. It is a mode of expression very customary in Scripture, whenever the body of a people is mentioned, to ascribe generally to all what belongs only to a part.
[Unquote]
His entire commentary on John 8:30 ff. can be located using the following link:
Calvin on John 1-9
Nate- Can you answer a quick question? I have tried to keep up with all this, so hopefully this has not already been answered/addressed.
How would you rate the strength of the arguments made by FG’s? Quite strong? Somewhat strong? So-So? Weak? Very Weak? Completely without basis?
I ask because of this: I don’t even see the issue. To me, LS is a given (i.e., true regeneration WILL RESULT in fruit, repentance, a love for Christ, etc.). While FG is completely without Biblical basis.
I don’t ask that in a sarcastic or disrespectful manner. Instead, because I see this so black-and-white, it makes me think I have totally missed the FG’s main point/argument/assertion.
To be more blunt, I find myself asking, “Why is this even being debated?”
CPA,
you say:
———-
I don’t even see the issue.
LS is a given
I see this so black-and-white
———-
I debated whether or not I would even dignify your comment with a reply.
I just wanted to say that Mormons, Arminians, Roman Catholics, and every other brand of “Christian” say the same thing.
Your comment betrays an ignorance of the issues, an unawareness of the Free Grace position and exegesis, and a lack of knowlege concerning the debate itself.
Maybe you ought to familiarize yourself with the arguments that are made in favor of Free Grace theology and in opposition to Lordship Salvation before you submit your thoughtless comments.
Jodie,
Sorry for my lack of response today. I was busy with some non-blog-related responsibilities, and did not have time to respond to your earlier comment.
You had noted: The idea that the grammar proves that the discussion after v. 31 is directed toward those Jews who believed in Him seems like a stretch to me. Maybe you could give me more information about that.
In a comment before that, you had asked if any Greek scholars take that interpretation. In fact there are many, including:
Others could be added to this list. While you may not find the list impressive, I provide it here only to demonstrate that a majority of conservative evangelical New Testament scholars understand the believers of verse 30 to be the subject of Jesus’ admonitions in vv. 31 and following.
Antonio makes the point that pisteuo plus eis is John’s formula for indicating true belief (as used in verse 30). Because that formula supposedly always points to true belief, and because the people in verse 31 and following were obviously not true believers, the people in verse 31 must be different than those in verse 30.
The major problem with this argument, as both A.T. Robertson and Thomas Constable point out, is that John 2:23 uses the exact same formula, and yet clearly speaks of false belief. Moreover, the John 8:30ff “anomaly” (of superficial believers who proved to not be believers in the end) parallels the events of John 6, where people supposedly believed in Jesus and then later rejected and abandoned Him.
In his commentary, D.A. Carson has a helpful explanation on this issue…
****
It seems wiser to observe that John has already introduced the theme of fickle faith. In 2:23, the many people who believed in his name when they saw the miraculous signs Jesus was doing turn out to have untrustworthy faith (2:24- 25). Some seek to exclude this parallel on the ground that the faith in question is the fruit of signs, not words, and signs are elsewhere deprecated (4:48). But the signs can foster acceptable faith (10:38). More important, the same theme of fickle faith recurs in 6:60, where many of Jesus’ disciples turn away from him after a discourse of which they disapprove,, not after a sign. A similar situation develops here. Some believe in Jesus: whether or not their faith is genuine cannot be determined by the linguistic expression selected by the Evangelist. But Jesus now lays down exactly what it is that separates spurious faith from true faith, fickle disciples from genuine disciples:
If you hold to my teaching, you really are my disciples. The verb rendered ‘hold’ is meno, to abide, to remain — a theme of critical importance that returns in a concentrated way in ch. 15. In short, perseverance is the mark of true faith, of real disciples. A genuine believer remains in Jesus’ ‘word’ (logos), his teaching (cf. notes on 1:1): i.e. such a person obeys it, seeks to understand it better, and finds it more precious, more controlling, precisely when other forces flatly oppose it. It is the one who continues in the teaching who has both the Father and the Son (2 Jn. 9; cf. Heb. 3:14; Rev. 2:26).
This interpretation makes sense of the literary context, and suits the purpose of the book. To the Jews who have professed faith in him, Jesus understandably enough, indicates what genuine faith does: it perseveres, it holds tight to Jesus’ teaching, with some glorious consequences (v. 32).
But such faith costs not less than everything, and the freedom it brings presupposes that life before such faith is pitiful slavery. By sketching genuine faith in such stark terms, Jesus is standing true to a pattern we find elsewhere: he is never interested in multiplying numbers of converts if they are not genuine believers, and therefore he insists on forcing would-be disciples to count the cost (cf. Lk. 9:57-62; 14:25-33). Up to this point in the text it is unclear to the reader whether these ‘believers’ will prove true or false. Verses 33 ff. settle the matter: they cannot follow Jesus’ teaching unhesitatingly, they cannot believe that he is necessary to their true freedom, they will not recognize their own slavery to sin, not even the fickleness that oscillates between hero-worship and massive discontent. The movement in reactions to Jesus is entirely parallel to the flow from 6:14-15 to 6:60ff. … John, like Jesus, must present the gospel in such a way that spurious professions of faith are soon unmasked before they flood the ranks of the messianic community with people who have never been born again.
****
Ultimately then, there is no grammatical or contextual reason to deny the plain reading of the text, which sees the believers in verse 30 as the same believers in verse 31.
The only reason to introduce another group of people into the context is because the text, as it reads in its most straightforward sense, does not fit with some theological presupposition held by the interpreter. In this case, Free Grace theology is being read into the text and not the other way around.
Thanks again for your comment.
NB
Jodie,
Tomorrow I hope to respond to your question/statements regarding the father-child relationship in John 8, as well as whether or not the context is truly soteriological.
Also, I want to readdress what Jesus meant in John 8:42, when he said, “If God were your Father, you would love Me.” The second class conditional statement there seems very straightforward to me.
Nonetheless, I will elaborate on why I believe this means … “If you do not love Jesus, you are not a part of the family of God;” or perhaps more precisely, “If you were part of the family of God (such that God were your Father), you would love Christ.”
Thanks,
NB
This has certainly been an interesting, albeit predicatable thread. I understand one purpose of blogs is to promote dialog and discussion, but I honestly wonder what some of the FG advocates such as Amy, Jodie, and Antonio think they are accomplishing with their posts. After all, this site is clearly committed to the so-called Lordship position. Do they really think they are going to change anyone’s mind? Are they going to change their own view? Based on the posted comments, it is safe to say the answer to both questions is a resounding NO. Furthermore, if you want a comprehensive view of either position a blog is not the place to look; just order the appropriate book from amazon.
Just venting.
Antonio- You may be right (i.e., I may need to better familarize myself with the issues). Indeed, that was the whole point of my question to Nathan.
You see, I am a CPA….just a nerdy ole bean-counter. I am not seminary trained. I do not know Greek. I do not pretend to be skilled in exegesis. But as one truly regenerate, I am filled with the Holy Spirit who illumines God’s Word and truths to His sheep. And in just completing a read-through of the entire Bible, I saw LS permeate Scripture before I even got to this blog.
Let me give you an example. The title to this thread is “Can You Be a Christian and Not Love Jesus?” That question blows me away. For instance, what would you do with the verse in 1 Peter (I believe it is) that says, “To those who believe, He (i.e., Christ) is precious”??? I ask that sincererly, not sarcastically.
Lastly my friend, I did not disrespect you nor the FG camp in my posted question. Yet your post comes across to me as very disrespectful, demeaning, prideful and arrogant. I see none of Christ’s love and humility in your post.
Scott,
Your exactly correct!! I stumbled upon that conclusion which explains my absence!! I had found this blog while I was looking at Albert Mohler’s website, and I had found out I did not want to attend a speaking engagement of his. And, I could not resist but add my 2 cents. And, then as I was praying I remembered that scripture where Paul says “who are you with, I am with Cephas, and I am with Paul.” I a know I am not quoting it correctly. But, I realized everyone is saying “Are you with Zane Hodges?” Are you a Calvinist? Are YOu Lordship salvation?? I mean did Jesus Christ say any of these terms?
I just stick with Jesus. And, no I don’t think I am going to convince anyone. Jesus did not call me to argue and apologetics with other CHRISTIANS!! He calls me to evangelize and pray for others to come to know Him! One thing I do know, everyone on this board loves Jesus. And that is a good and right thing. I am signing off. In His Love amybeth.
Reading Antonio and Amy is like reading the members of the Flat Earth Society… it’s impossible to have a rational argument with them. They are their own worst enemies, when it comes to debate. Just letting them talk shows everyone how ridiculous their position is.
I think they must have learned how to argue from this article:
http://www.rinkworks.com/persuasive/
Seriously… their rhetoric is not only unbiblical, it’s patently illogical.
Jodie,
As a follow-up, can you point to other verses in the NT which you believe teach that an unbeliever can be considered a child of God?
A lively discussion, to say the least.
I think we need to be careful about making such blanket-statements as ‘you cannot be a Christian if you do not love Jesus.’ Should we conclude that Demas, Paul’s fellow laborer and companion in the gospel, who at the end of the apostle’s life forsook him, loving this present world (2 Tim. 4:10), had been an unbeliever all along? Calvinists such as Kent Hughes, and John Calvin himself, were not ready to make that leap (see Hughes commentary on 2 Timothy).
In another passage, the apostle John writes that ‘If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him’ (1 Jn. 2:15). This ‘anyone’, I believe, can at least include believers — elsewhere in John’s first epistle, ‘anyone’ has reference to believers, thus I conclude that it does here as well. A believer can love this present world, but thus, at that same moment, does not and can not love God.
One rebuttal I can think of against this proposition is that ‘this present world’ (age) in 2 Timothy and ‘the world’ in 1 John are two different words in the original (aion vs kosmos). If you think that the two words are too opposed to one another for Demas to be lumped into the ‘anyone’ of 1 John, I would love to hear why. In any case, I still believe 1 John can include believers, not necessarily from the first to the last of their Christian life, but quite possibly for undeterminable lengths of time, resulting in broken fellowship with God. I expect that some won’t agree that this love of the world can be present in a beleiver for very long — I would disagree, respectfully.
We all accept that there is no work on our part required for justification, but we also recognize, I believe, the hard work and yielding necessary toward God for our sanctification, and sanctification varies in progression and degrees from one Christian to the next, as we can see in our own lives and in the lives of the apostles and their first-century Christian readers. We all struggle in sanctification, we all fail to obey the greatest commandment, and the answer to our failure toward the law will always be the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. I hope that we can recognize the Christian struggle, and in a spirit of gentleness restore the ones overtaken (Gal. 6:1).
‘Let us LOVE and sing and wonder, let us praise the Savior’s name; he has hushed the law’s loud thunder, he has quenched Mt. Sinai’s flame’.
Mike,
You cautioned against “making such blanket-statements as ‘you cannot be a Christian if you do not love Jesus.’” In support of your caution, you cited Calvinists such as Kent Hughes, and John Calvin. You may find it interesting that in his discussion of John 8:42, Kent Hughes refers to love for Jesus Christ as “the highest test” of whether one’s faith is genuine and whether one is a true child of God (Kent Hughes, John, 252-54). You may also find it interesting that in his discussion of John 8:42, John Calvin writes, “Christ’s argument is this: ‘Everyone who is a son of God will acknowledge and love His first-born Son’” (John Calvin, The Gospel According to St. John, 226). While I certainly don’t look to Hughes and Calvin as my authority in these matters, I wouldn’t want people to think that either of them might answer “yes” to the question raised in the title of Nathan’s excellent article.
Matt,
Thanks for that.
Also, I wanted to clarify the earlier reference by Jodie to F.F. Bruce. While it is true that Bruce sees Jesus’ audience widening between vv. 32-33 (though not for grammatical or contextual reasons), this in no way leads him to a Free Grace understanding of the passage.
Bruce equates the true discipleship of verse 32 with the true belief of verse 31, implying that false belief is possible (even mentioning “false belief” on p. 196 of his commentary) and that true belief will be characterized by a life of discipleship.
Moreover, on verse 42, regarding Jesus’ words, “If God were your Father, you would love Me,” Bruce writes:
“Those with whom he engages in debate have claimed to be children of Abraham (by natural descent) and children of God (by adoption). He has already told them that Abraham’s children might be expected to do Abraham’s works; now he denies their claim to be children of God because nothing of the heavenly Father’s character is to be seen in them.” (p. 200)
Bruce sees the ethical disconnect in verse 42 as indicative of a soteriological condition.
Because these Jews did not love Jesus, they demonstrated that they had not been adopted into the family of God.
If they were part of the family of God, they would love Jesus. And that’s exactly what Jesus says.
While I appreciate your appeal to a scholar like Bruce, I don’t think it ultimately strengthens your case. In fact, I believe it weakens your overall argument, since Bruce himself so clearly disagrees with the Free Grace position.
Thanks,
NB
Hi Nate,
I appreciate you going to the trouble of listing the scholars. What I was curious about is not so much their conclusions of the passage but their comments or specific thinking on the antecedent issue. For instance in English my understanding is it is part of effective writing/good communication rather than a formal rule of grammar.
In general I think you’re building a significant edifice on something a little too ambiguous, ambiguous enough at least for Bruce to demur.
The basic situation seems to undercut your treatment. The Lord is speaking to a hostile group, or at least one in which there are hostile, murderous members present and vocal.
My time is short, but essentially it’s hard to visualize this group of “the many” who believed within the group suddenly becoming the sole people verbally responding to the Lord and the only people of the group He is speaking to. It seems to assume that the Lord’s insight about their belief, based on his omniscience, was shared by this group. An odd situation made even odder by John not explaining the situation in his narration.
Only those who love Jesus are His disciples. Explicitly biblical. But using this type of passage to go beyond that to “prove” the whole puritan model seems to suggest some overall weakness.
Jodie
Hi Matt,
You asked if I could “point to other verses in the NT which you believe teach that an unbeliever can be considered a child of God?” technically I would mention Acts 17:29, but your question suggests how your gold-plating of the redeemed leaves you seeing nothing but that one issue of regenerate v unregenerate people.
Anyone who considers that the may subject of chapter 8 is “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.” Will see that it is discipleship that is the core of His discussion throughout.
But Matt, anyone who is attracted to Christ and begins to follow Him is going to be convicted of sin, righteousness and judgment and drawn by the Father to the truth of the Gospel. Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.” Jn 6:29 The new “follower” of Christ who is too proud for this message, which is the will of the Father, becomes a fake follower of Jesus, or a follower who won’t follow, and the end result is Matthew 7:16-23:
15″Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. 18A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus you will recognize them by their fruits. 21″Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?‘ 23And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’
Notice that these are front-row Christians who are not lacking in works.
But the alternative is that a person who begins to follow Christ and is led by God to do the will of the Father and believe in Christ, (For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” Jn 6:40) is like the reality of Cornelius, who you hate hearing about, but who’s prayers were recognized by God prior to his becoming born again. He was following the light that God shed on Him was led by God to Christ.
Acts 10:4
The angel answered, “Your prayers and gifts to the poor have come up as a memorial offering before God. 5Now send men to Joppa to bring back a man named Simon who is called Peter.
Again, the very fact that you have, or really Nate has, used verse after verse of equating love with obedience and discipleship reveals that there are no verses insistng that possessing eternal life, or possessing justification, can be equated similarily with loving Christ. There is a need for the justified to love Christ, but that love is not an inevitable result.
God bless you and your readers.
Jodie,
To clarify my question: Is there any verse in the NT which refers to unbelievers as children of God because they have begun to apply God’s Word to their lives and reproduce the ethical qualities of their Father (to borrow some of your wording from above)? Acts 17:28-29 does not fall into this category since it speaks of all people being the “offspring of God” in the sense that we have all been created by Him.
The consistent teaching of the NT is that one becomes a child of God when he believes in Christ and is converted (John 1:12). I could offer dozens of verses which teach this. I am just wondering if there is a single verse which would provide some kind of precedent for your interpretation of John 8:42. The lack of a precedent, along with the contextual argument that Nathan has made above, is making the Free Grace view of John 8:42 a big pill to swallow.
Regarding your puzzling comment that I hate to hear about Cornelius, you obviously haven’t seen me in my “Cornelius is My Homeboy” T-shirt.
Blessings.
Matt,
What I’m saying, is that Jesus and the NT writers are often speaking to, or at least of, all mankind when they teach of the effects of sin and the benefits of following God’s revealed will.
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
3″Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
5Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
6Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
7Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
8Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
9Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called sons of God.
10Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.
And in John 8 verse 12 the Lord says, “I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.” This was said to his adversaries “the Scribes and the Pharisees” but it is a universal truth. When Cornelius was praying and fasting prior to his conversion he was not walking in darkness.
The teaching on rewards was not only taught to Christ’s disciples but to the crowds as well. As a person follows Christ and does the revealed will of God that person puts His faith in Christ. And as he continues to do the will of God, now empowered by God Himself, he lays up rewards for himself.
Christ is not, in this chapter, looking at a group of unbelievers and calling them his sons! He is saying IF you were ethically in tune with the Father and ethically in tune with discipleship truths, you would love me. Their being regenerate or unregenerate is irrelevant to that main point.
Hope that helps. Your question shows that I apparently wasn’t being clear in my explanations because you were misunderstanding what I was saying.
God bless.
Jodie
Jodie,
Thank you for your patient response. Rather than prolonging the discussion, I think I will simply conclude by summarizing what I believe to be a potent argument in favor of “lordship salvation” from the Gospel of John:
1. All who believe in Jesus Christ are children of God (John 1:12).
2. All who are children of God love Jesus Christ (John 8:42).
3. All who love Jesus Christ obey Jesus Christ (John 14:15).
4. Therefore, all who believe in Jesus Christ also obey Jesus Christ.
Thanks again, Nathan, for an excellent article.
Thanks, Matt, and I’ll let you have the last word so to speak, with those comments.
Even though God abducted him abruptly, the Apostle Paul said his salvation was a process – the same as it is with any friendship. It takes time to bond with someone and to learn to love them. When we are introduced to Jesus, we need to be delivered (a process) from all the spiritual viruses that infect our definition of “love” so that we can enjoy building and being involved in agape community.
Even the thief on the cross next to Jesus (who Jesus promised would be in paradise with Him)had to go through the process of becoming discouraged with worldly living before he could recognize and acknowledge God’s spiritual salvation. He had developed a genuine thirst and perspective which allowed him to see Jesus for Who He was.
[...] Can You Be a Christian and Not Love Jesus? [...]
Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come. (Matthew 12:32)
28 “Assuredly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter; 29 but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation”– (Mark 3:28-29)
Ephesians 5:3-20
3 But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints; 4 neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. 5 For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. 7 Therefore do not be partakers with them. 8 For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light 9 (for the fruit of the Spirit* is in all goodness, righteousness, and truth), 10 finding out what is acceptable to the Lord. 11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them. 12 For it is shameful even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret. 13 But all things that are exposed are made manifest by the light, for whatever makes manifest is light. 14 Therefore He says: “Awake, you who sleep, Arise from the dead, And Christ will give you light.” 15 See then that you walk circumspectly, not as fools but as wise, 16 redeeming the time, because the days are evil. 17 Therefore do not be unwise, but understand what the will of the Lord is. 18 And do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation; but be filled with the Spirit, 19 speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord, 20 giving thanks always for all things to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
Colossians 3:5-7
5 Therefore put to death your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. 6 Because of these things the wrath of God is coming upon the sons of disobedience, 7 in which you yourselves once walked when you lived in them.
These are verses I’ve found that seem unpardonable if you continue in doing them. I believe the Bible is saying that if you do these things, your faith is not geniune.
[...] Pulpit Magazine continues the discussion on Lordship Salvation, as Nathan Busenitz asks, Can You Be a Christian and not Love Jesus? [...]