Question and Answer with a TFG

Where is the Biblical evidence that people now receive eternal life differently than Peter, Andrew, Nathaniel, and John (in John 1:35-50); the disciples (John 2:11); Nicodemus (John 3:15-16); the Samaritans (John 4:39-42); people listening to Jesus (John 5:24; 6:35-40, 47); and Martha (John 11:25-27) which is clearly expounded for us in the only expressely evangelistic book in the Bible? In other words, where do we learn that the content of saving faith is different or changed?

Asked this question recently, a Traditionalist Free Gracer stated:

"...I am concerned that the standard of evidence being requested is too high. You are right, there is nothing that specifically says that the required content has changed. Frankly, there are many things that we believe that are not specifically stated in Scripture." http://blog.jessecamacho.com/free_grace/?p=32#comment-158

Needless to say, I find many things about this answer both telling and troubling at the same time! Why are the TFG's so up in arms with so little actual Biblical support? This person has admitted that there is not a single, specific biblical mandate for the modification of the content of saving faith. Furthermore, the door is opened to tradition by stating that there are many deep convictions that Christians hold that are not stated specifically in Scripture. I can't think of any. Is the Trinity an example? Well the word itself is not used, but cannot we prove from the bible, using specific and clear verses that:

1) God is one
2) Jesus is God
3) The Father is God
4) The Holy Spirit is God
5) These 3 Persons are distinguished from each other

Aren't these tenets of the doctrine of the Trinity clearly defined in the Bible? But the TFG don't have any specific support in the Scriptures or anywhere they can turn to in order to defend their supplementation to saving faith. The answers they do give are a patchwork quilt of scriptural hop-scotch, none really providing any definitive support. Their articulations have been handed down for generations, never questioned. When tradition is challenged, reactions become visceral and quickly leave the realms of reason and logic. Why can we not look at the bible fresh, with an open mind, and not suppose that we can not be wrong? This is what I have done several times in my life, changing and refining my positions. I was once a 4 point dispensational Calvinist like Chafer and Ryrie. I was once a traditional Free Grace advocate. But I have continued to learn, continued to question, continued to look at the available data with an open mind.

In my last post I asked these questions:

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?

Anytime you ask a TFG for biblical support of their position you get journal articles, dissertations, complex arguments, machine-gun apologetics (rapid-fire proof texting) -- but no simple biblical proof. The reception of eternal life is the milk of the Word! It doesn't take a theological degree to ascertain from the scriptures what one must do to have life! It doesn't take the theological astuteness of a Calvin or Luther. The answer is clear: one must simply "believe in" Jesus as described in my last post and he will both have everlasting life and certain assurance of its possession. It should not take a dissertation in order to tell someone what one must do to have eternal life and prove it to them.

I have recently read a 20 page argument that the Gospel of John, in the end, modifies the doctrine of saving faith that John goes into great detail expounding for his readers in the first 12 chapters of his book. The arguments were confusing and many of the conclusions were simply non-sequitor. This 20 page article failed to do what John could have done in a sentence or two: clearly state that the content of saving faith (that he gave elaborate testimony to in his 1st 12 chapters [13-17 being the Upper Room Discourse]) had changed, precisely defining for us the new content.

The most important question that can ever be answered is "What must I do to be saved?" or equally, "How can I have eternal life?"

The answer to this question is a matter for the milk of God's word. It is not something deep and inaccessible. It is clearly articulated for us in the Bible.

Jesus of Nazareth, the King of Israel, that is, the Son of God, the Christ, who has the words of everlasting life and whose words are spirit and life says:

"He who believes in Me... shall live"
"Whoever... believes in Me shall never die"

"Do you believe this?" (John 11:25-26)

Jesus asks that we simply and certainly rely upon Him for our secured and guaranteed eternal well-being by believing in Him.