Are We Robbed of John 3:16? -- What does "believing in" Jesus really mean?

Introduction
What does it mean to “believe in” Jesus in its Johannine, soteriological sense? Is the answer simple or complex? Can it be arrived at easily, or does one have to do hours of research and write a series of journal articles to reach an answer? Will it be a response of common sense, or will the solution require a dissertation? Will it be sufficient to view one verse in context, or must we paste together a plethora of loosely associated verses and considerations?

Preliminary Considerations
When we use the colloquial expression "I believe in [somebody or something]" or "I trust [somebody or something]" it is shorthand for a much more precise and specific articulation. If I said, "I believe in the airline pilot" or equally it could be stated, "I trust the airline pilot," the intended meaning is clear: "I believe that the airline pilot is qualified and will get me from point a to point b safely." Or it could equally be articulated as, "I trust the airline pilot is qualified and will get me to my destination safely." In all of this it is important to note that each time we use the phrases, "I believe in _______," and "I trust ________," we have a specific content in mind, in other words, we are believing and trusting in someone/something for something specific and precise.

Now I really do want to emphasize the aforementioned (it cannot be overemphasized!) and I wish to discuss in the comment thread your objections to what I have stated. If you object, please give me an example that makes an exception to the above rule.

If I said the expression, "I trust the babysitter" it does not mean that I trust her in everything! I would not entrust her with my taxes or rely upon her for medical diagnosis. Nor does it imply that I know everything (or even the most major things!) about her that makes her qualified. It simply means that I have (through whatever communication or consideration) been persuaded that she is trustworthy. Obviously what is intended by this somewhat general sounding expression is in reality something very specific and precise: "I believe that the babysitter is well-qualified and able to sufficiently care for my children in a mature, responsible, and safe manner." We cannot take this any other way! These types of phrases are not used in any other way. These somewhat general sounding phrases are colloquial and in actuality convey implied, specific content based upon the context of the situation in which they are expressed and/or the named object(s) itself/themselves.

Contextual Consideration
Dr. J.B. Hixson, Executive Director of the Free Grace Alliance, states, “Many texts clearly explain the Christian gospel (John 1:12; 3:16, 36; 5:24; 6:47; etc.).” Taken from, “What is the Gospel?” (http://www.hixson.org/docs/Soteriology/What%20is%20the%20Gospel.pdf) Therefore, I wish to choose one of those texts that, according to Dr. Hixson, “clearly explains the Christian gospel.” Let us look at the ever famous John 3:16:

Jesus of Nazareth, who is the Christ, Son of God, the King of Israel, said, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” – John 3:16 (NKJV)

What is “believing in” Jesus shorthand for? What is the specific content of that belief? In a nutshell, according to the context, "believing in Jesus" means believing that Jesus gives me eternal life and I will not perish, or equally, trusting in Jesus for eternal life and deliverance from perishing. Essentially, “believing in Jesus” is entrusting one’s eternal destiny to Him; it is certain reliance upon Him for the promised result. It really is this simple, and as such lies unencumbered by any additional caveats or qualifications.

Much like:

Believing in the babysitter

= trusting the welfare of your children into the hands of the babysitter, and

Believing in the airline pilot

= trusting your own welfare into the hands of the airline pilot

Believing in Jesus

= trusting your eternal welfare into the hands of Jesus

This is not complicated and it is not rocket science. Jesus states that anyone who simply and certainly relies upon Him for his eternal welfare is eternally secure.

Facilitation of “believing in” Jesus
This brings us to the question: Why would anyone become persuaded that Jesus could be relied upon for one’s eternal well-being? In a nutshell, understanding that Jesus is authorized, qualified, able, and willing to impart eternal life to all who simply “believe in” Him for it can persuade someone to believe in Jesus in the manner as we have so described above. No one can (or will) put their faith in Jesus unless they are first convinced that what He has promised He can and will indeed perform. Therefore, those who are the objects of our evangelistic conversations must be apprised of information that substantiates Jesus’ ability to impart eternal life to all who entrust themselves to Him. Pragmatically speaking, there may be a wide range of things that are absolutely necessary for the objects of our evangelism to understand and assent to in order to come to faith in Jesus. Therefore it behooves us to be liberal with information.

Let me make a simple illustration.

Imagine that I am in need of a reliable, qualified, and appropriate nanny. The simple testimony of a friend’s firsthand experiences with a particular person may be sufficient to persuade me to trust that specific nanny, but then again, it may not. I may need to see lists of educational credentials and employment references, and hold a few interviews with the candidate before I entrust my little ones to this person. Such will depend on my psychological makeup, the subjective factors of my personality, and other variables. But as soon as I am convinced of the qualifications of this nanny, I will believe in her, in other words, trust her.

A single doubt about this person has the potential to preclude me from trusting her. Several doubts will make it even harder. If I don’t believe that she actually graduated with a child development degree from Harvard, as her resume states, trust in the person is precluded.

The same goes with believing in Jesus for eternal life. Men and women will need to be persuaded and assent to a varying number of preliminary and supportive facts about Jesus and themselves before they will become convinced that Jesus’ promise is sure. The amount of information psychologically needed to become persuaded of Christ’s authority and ability to execute His promise is different with everyone. But just as someone can become convinced of the reliability of a nanny with the simple testimony of a friend, so it is possible that there are people out there who can become convinced of Christ’s reliability based upon a small amount of evidence, though we can confidently say that this is not the norm.

An illustration of such a thing is found in John 4:

“And many of the Samaritans of that city believed in Him because of the word of the woman who testified, ‘He told me all that I ever did.’” – John 4:39 (NKJV)

Many of the Samaritans of Sychar “believed in” (pisteuw eis) Jesus based solely on the testimony of the immoral and adulterous woman, who stated, “Can this be the Christ?” and said, “He told me all that I ever did.” I admit, again, that this is not a normal occurrence, and that an average person will need to necessarily understand and assent to a varying number of preliminary considerations, in other words, psychological requirements.

There are several things that I personally do not fail to share with those whom I have evangelistic conversations with. These elements will be the subject of an upcoming post.


Final Question
John 3:16 was stated by Jesus around three years before His essential, substitutionary death on the cross for the sins of mankind. He stated to His audience that anyone at that time who “believed in” Him had everlasting life and would not perish. In other words, anyone who entrusted their eternal destiny to Him would have everlasting life and never perish. This was His promise. This is the most used evangelistic verse in the whole Bible. Does this promise still apply to the present time? If it does not, then those of the Traditional Free Grace position necessarily, in some sense, misuse it (if they use it at all), for in line with their position, it is necessarily an inadequate passage relating to lost man the core consideration in the reception of eternal life*. How is it misused? When the statement was given by Jesus, it was a sufficient summary and promise providing for Nicodemus the unadulterated condition for receiving eternal life. Since, for the TFG saving faith includes many more conditions than simply “believing in” Jesus as articulated above, they cannot apply John 3:16 with its intended meaning and usage in context. They necessarily would need to supplement it with a variety of other additional information not contained therein.

If asked the question:

Is John 3:16 a sufficient invitation, summarizing the core appeal to men for the reception of eternal life?

The TFG necessarily have to answer: No.
But Refined Free Grace theology uncomplicatedly answers: Yes.


Conclusion
The bottom line in the ongoing debate between the branches of Free Grace theology is not an issue of what needs to be presented to the lost in the way of information which lifts Jesus up as the authoritative, qualified, and able Guarantor of eternal life to the believer in Him – as I would certainly agree with all Free Grace people that it should include the many elements that they require as objects and/or contents of saving faith. The crucial issue is the meaning of “believing in” Jesus in a soteriological sense. Does “believing in” Jesus in the soteriological sense (you know, faith alone in Christ alone) have the same meaning now as it did in each usage in the Gospel of John?

Let us observe some pertinent points:

1) The Gospel of John was written, by most evangelical scholars’ estimations, in the 90s, which makes it one of the last two books written in our canon. If by the time it was written, “believing in” Jesus meant something different than articulated in the book, it would have behooved John to clearly and unambiguously said so (it would have been quite simple for him!).
2) The Gospel of John is the only book in the canon that has the express written purpose of being evangelistic
3) The Gospel of John does not qualify its examples of pre-cross evangelism in its post-cross conclusion
4) “The simple fact is that the whole Fourth Gospel is designed to show that its readers can get saved in the same way as the people who got saved in John’s narrative. To say anything other than this is to accept a fallacy. It is to mistakenly suppose that the Fourth Gospel presents the terms of salvation incompletely and inadequately. I sincerely hope no grace person would want to be stuck with a position like that.” (Zane Hodges, “How to Lead People to Christ, Part 1”)

The bottom line is not information, as we will all basically agree on what information should be told to the objects of our evangelism. The bottom line is clarity in our evangelistic appeals/invitations. Can we legitimately use verses such as John 3:16; 6:47; 11:25-26, etc. as our simple appeal to faith after lifting up Jesus by our evangelistic conversations? Refined Free Grace says, “yes!” TFG cannot, for they esentially rob it of its sufficient and authoratative decree. It simply is not complete as an evangelistic invitation in their position.


* As a matter of fact, there is not even one verse or passage that clearly articulates a statement providing all that is necessary to be saved in the view of TFG, this necessarily including John 3:16 and Acts 16:31. There is no verse that states, for example, “Believe that Jesus was man, that Jesus was God, that Jesus died a substitutionary death on the cross, that Jesus rose bodily from the dead, and believe in Jesus’ works then you have 1) eternal life, 2) eternal salvation or 3) eternal justification"