H.K. Flynn Rides Again! [Reformed and FG Theologies Contrasted]
The following provides a few comments from our esteemed Free Grace Sister, Jodie Sawyer, aka H.K. Flynn. Jodie is responding to a Lordship and Reformed Salvation proponent on the doctrine of Repentance. Her points are very potent. Jodie contrasts Lordship and Free Grace in a way that I had never fully looked at it up until I read her comments. Enjoy!
[Jodie Responds:]
Um...
Nice try.
It appears to us that you'd rather take this [i.e. repentance, Editor’s note] off the agenda.
[Editor’s Note: Instead of wanting to deeply discuss repentance, the Lordship proponents simply wanted to use emotionally charged, yet superficial, charges against Free Grace Theology to blast its positions out of the water. Essentially, their argument was “See how many times repentance is used in Luke and Acts in evangelistic settings! It has to be a condition of eternal life! How can you say it is not!?”]
Both Daniel and Jonathan seem to me to be saying that since your paradigm conflicts with ours it is wrong. And I very much agree with Daniel that if we are wrong it is tragic and I would add abusive. I'll gladly email Antonio and say sorry I think this whole Free Grace thing has problems and it's not really what the Bible teaches...
But for now I think your paradigm gets astronomically high marks for being internally consistent. But when it is lined up with Scripture you need to define words very paradoxically to make it fit.
Repentant faith
faith works
You're so used to all that paradox you can't perceive its significance.
It will take a huge leap of intellectual curiosity to fully grasp the FG paradigm & then to realize how very simply it aligns with the NT!
Simple and parse beats voluminous and paradoxical.
[Editor’s Note: Jodie hits this one out of the park! Free Grace Theology harmonizes what texts simply convey with the rest of Scripture. Its interpretations are very simple. Free Grace Theology takes the Bible at its face value (prima facie). What the Bible says, it means. Although the interpretations are very simple, they are supported with very technical and precise means, which harmonize them with the other affirmations of the Bible (also simply interpreted). Reformed Theology, on the other hand, offers interpretations of texts that notably contradict the very texts they propose to interpret! They offer lengthy and wordy interpretations of the texts that rely on the “paradox” motif. “Simple and parse beats voluminous and paradoxical”!! Great one-liner, Jodie!]
[Jodie continued…] Jonathan and Daniel,
I'm not intending to say that you don't use Scripture to make your points, but that you stop interacting on the passages when Antonio seems to show that the contexts support his interpretations with more simplicity.
I also continue to insist that our two paradigms have more common ground (God's Holiness, God's Accountability, His wrath) than is usually recognized.
Warmly despite our disagreement,
H.K Flynn
[continuing…] Hi Daniel!
Thanks for your taking time to comment on this topic again.
You say:
I think that's a very clear way of describing the issue. My problem with it is very simple. John's Gospel asks to be isolated, not as the only NT message or as the only good news resulting from the Incarnation, but the one and only exhaustive book on how to receive eternal life. (Jn 20:31)
What would motivate John, late in the game in terms of the writing of the NT, to leave out repentance if he knew it was the necessary precursor to faith? Would you do that? Even though he himself was a disciple of John the Baptist, he even chose to mention John's baptism without using the word ‘repentance’.
Is it possible that the obstacle to seeing this, that John taught a profoundly free gift of eternal life, really is your own conscience? Are you possibly using your own conscience as your real authority, and not letting the Word of God break through that barrier? It's hard for me to see how anyone can understand that idea, that John speaks authoritatively only on that one core topic of eternal life, and honestly fail to see the incredible power of distinguishing John from Luke, who speaks on repentance. [Editor’s note: Bold is mine]
What power? The power of
(A) the simple beauty of God's generosity in wanting people to avoid torment. But also
(B) the power of leaving the stern and majestic call to repentance unhindered!
Why tame that message [the call to repentance] by framing it as the humble doormat to belief? [Editor’s Note: Italics mine] Yes it makes your interpretation of the NT neater but at what cost? Why picture repentance as not important enough to be mentioned [in John] but still invariably present like the quietest of all maidens? When I read Revelation, I notice that that's not how John (the Son of Thunder) treats the theme of repentance. John is not, as you know, the fay man of DaVinci [!!], he is the one trusted with the stunning letters to the churches:
That is, if you don't stop sinning it will cost you, soon, right here on planet earth, not in eternity. Repentance is never treated as a necessary precursor to faith[!!] It is treated as the fearful warning of God's temporal wrath on sin.
I don't mean to just argue. But it seems to me that your conscience may not be allowing you to be sensitive to the dramatic contrasts in God's Word.
Lord bless you!
[End Jodie Sawyer]
There you have it folks! Some general and specific contrasts between Reformed Theology and Free Grace theology. Excellent job, Jodie! We all want you to come back and write posts again!
[Lordship Proponent:] As you can imagine, it appears to us that you are attempting to find a way out of the dilemma you are facing with “repentance.”
[Jodie Responds:]
Um...
Nice try.
It appears to us that you'd rather take this [i.e. repentance, Editor’s note] off the agenda.
[Editor’s Note: Instead of wanting to deeply discuss repentance, the Lordship proponents simply wanted to use emotionally charged, yet superficial, charges against Free Grace Theology to blast its positions out of the water. Essentially, their argument was “See how many times repentance is used in Luke and Acts in evangelistic settings! It has to be a condition of eternal life! How can you say it is not!?”]
Both Daniel and Jonathan seem to me to be saying that since your paradigm conflicts with ours it is wrong. And I very much agree with Daniel that if we are wrong it is tragic and I would add abusive. I'll gladly email Antonio and say sorry I think this whole Free Grace thing has problems and it's not really what the Bible teaches...
But for now I think your paradigm gets astronomically high marks for being internally consistent. But when it is lined up with Scripture you need to define words very paradoxically to make it fit.
Repentant faith
faith works
You're so used to all that paradox you can't perceive its significance.
It will take a huge leap of intellectual curiosity to fully grasp the FG paradigm & then to realize how very simply it aligns with the NT!
Simple and parse beats voluminous and paradoxical.
[Editor’s Note: Jodie hits this one out of the park! Free Grace Theology harmonizes what texts simply convey with the rest of Scripture. Its interpretations are very simple. Free Grace Theology takes the Bible at its face value (prima facie). What the Bible says, it means. Although the interpretations are very simple, they are supported with very technical and precise means, which harmonize them with the other affirmations of the Bible (also simply interpreted). Reformed Theology, on the other hand, offers interpretations of texts that notably contradict the very texts they propose to interpret! They offer lengthy and wordy interpretations of the texts that rely on the “paradox” motif. “Simple and parse beats voluminous and paradoxical”!! Great one-liner, Jodie!]
[Jodie continued…] Jonathan and Daniel,
I'm not intending to say that you don't use Scripture to make your points, but that you stop interacting on the passages when Antonio seems to show that the contexts support his interpretations with more simplicity.
I also continue to insist that our two paradigms have more common ground (God's Holiness, God's Accountability, His wrath) than is usually recognized.
Warmly despite our disagreement,
H.K Flynn
[continuing…] Hi Daniel!
Thanks for your taking time to comment on this topic again.
You say:
So it is with the gospel. Antonio has isolated a portion of the gospel to the detriment of the whole, and regardless of how simple or sparse an incomplete gospel may be - it is nevertheless insufficient.
I think that's a very clear way of describing the issue. My problem with it is very simple. John's Gospel asks to be isolated, not as the only NT message or as the only good news resulting from the Incarnation, but the one and only exhaustive book on how to receive eternal life. (Jn 20:31)
What would motivate John, late in the game in terms of the writing of the NT, to leave out repentance if he knew it was the necessary precursor to faith? Would you do that? Even though he himself was a disciple of John the Baptist, he even chose to mention John's baptism without using the word ‘repentance’.
Is it possible that the obstacle to seeing this, that John taught a profoundly free gift of eternal life, really is your own conscience? Are you possibly using your own conscience as your real authority, and not letting the Word of God break through that barrier? It's hard for me to see how anyone can understand that idea, that John speaks authoritatively only on that one core topic of eternal life, and honestly fail to see the incredible power of distinguishing John from Luke, who speaks on repentance. [Editor’s note: Bold is mine]
What power? The power of
(A) the simple beauty of God's generosity in wanting people to avoid torment. But also
(B) the power of leaving the stern and majestic call to repentance unhindered!
Why tame that message [the call to repentance] by framing it as the humble doormat to belief? [Editor’s Note: Italics mine] Yes it makes your interpretation of the NT neater but at what cost? Why picture repentance as not important enough to be mentioned [in John] but still invariably present like the quietest of all maidens? When I read Revelation, I notice that that's not how John (the Son of Thunder) treats the theme of repentance. John is not, as you know, the fay man of DaVinci [!!], he is the one trusted with the stunning letters to the churches:
I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked men, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false. You have persevered and have endured hardships for my name, and have not grown weary. Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken your first love. Remember the height from which you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place.
That is, if you don't stop sinning it will cost you, soon, right here on planet earth, not in eternity. Repentance is never treated as a necessary precursor to faith[!!] It is treated as the fearful warning of God's temporal wrath on sin.
I don't mean to just argue. But it seems to me that your conscience may not be allowing you to be sensitive to the dramatic contrasts in God's Word.
Lord bless you!
[End Jodie Sawyer]
There you have it folks! Some general and specific contrasts between Reformed Theology and Free Grace theology. Excellent job, Jodie! We all want you to come back and write posts again!
posted by Antonio at 10:05 AM
29 Comments:
Of course it is important to note that Reformed Theology is not only captured by its 5 Point instantiation. Reformed Theology has a nuanced and expansive history, and thus it would be better to not be too reductionistic by speaking of Reformed Theology as if it is monolithic. For example, there is a strand that developed in Scotland contemporaneously with the development of Westminster Calvinism that is not an advocate of 5 Point Calvinism and/or a Federal Theology.
On another point of clarification; it is erroneous to single out the Gospel of John from the canon of Scripture; since the principles of canonicity itself involve a unity of message amongst ALL of the books of the Bible (all 66). So this should suggest to the careful thinker that ALL of the books of the Bible particularly and specifically take shape from the Gospel, and thus they should be read in complementary ways (one to the other) instead of competitive ways as you all seem to want to do with the Gospel of John against the rest of the canon.
The greatest irony to me is that Free Grace and so called Lordship Salvation continue to speak right past each other because neither side can appreciate the fact that they both speak from the same classical theistic metaphysical ground. Or, both systems of interpretation interpret scripture through a metaphysic (substance) that is not primarily given shape by Biblical Trinitarian categoreis, but instead Hellenic philosophical categories which are not compatible with the Gospel to begin with.
"On another point of clarification; it is erroneous to single out the Gospel of John from the canon of Scripture; since the principles of canonicity itself involve a unity of message amongst ALL of the books of the Bible (all 66). So this should suggest to the careful thinker that ALL of the books of the Bible particularly and specifically take shape from the Gospel, and thus they should be read in complementary ways (one to the other) instead of competitive ways as you all seem to want to do with the Gospel of John against the rest of the canon."
Nobody is singling out the Gospel of John as if it is REALLY the Word of God compared to everything else "just" being the Word of God.
What is being said is, that the Gospel of John has the clearest description of how to be in heaven. If you have verses elsewhere that seem to contradict something so clear as John 3:16, then your understanding of those other verses, is wrong.
The entire Word of God, is the Word of God. But not all of it serves the same purposes, or tries to give the same messages. Very little of the Bible tells you how to get into heaven. Most of the Bible is talking about growth and various other topics that have nothing to do with getting into heaven.
@Revelation,
But you have failed to appreciate my point on canonicity. If the principles we use to discern if books are canonical presuppose that All of Scripture is about the Gospel (which I don't primarily take to be "how do I get into heaven", but instead as a witness to Jesus Christ who personifies the Gospel in his own life as the Second person of the Trinity); then it is unnecessary to set up camp in the Gospel of John as if it is the ONLY book in the Bible that clearly proclaims the Gospel. It simply is not! We have to read John alongside the rest of the canon to understand the Gospel.
I guess if someone holds that the Gospel is reducible to "fire insurance" or a "ticket to the heaven," then I could see your point. But since the Gospel is actually God's life given historical form in the Incarnation and Revelation of Jesus Christ; there is much more to the Gospel than knowing whether "I am in or out." Indeed John 1:18; and John 5:39 make this eminently clear.
I think Free Grace Theology, in general, has coopted the Gospel of John and made it do more than it ever set out to do. John didn't write his Gospel in isolation from the other writings of the NT; no, he wrote his with the full knowledge that the rest of Scripture was available to the early church. Thus his Gospel should be read from a complementary vantage point and not the end all or last word on the Gospel ... which is how I see Free Grace coopting the Gospel of John. Free Grace has an idiosnycratic obsession with their reading of "how to get saved;" and all else is polemically read through this distorted, and even self-centered lens.
I know Free Grace folk love Jesus, but as far as I can see you all are off quite substantially in your zeal to defend your reading of the Bible; that again, I see as highly idiosnycratic, and entrenched in a Fundamentalist mire that should be jettisoned.
Bobby Grow, I may be to simple, but as a child of about 5 years, I believed in the Lord Jesus Christ as my Savior! Why did God go to the cross? Because He wants know one in hell. This act by God, supports the message of Eternal Life to all mankind before and after the cross. Being born from above, a new nature, brought forth and a divine nature (scriptural presentations of regeneration) have nothing to do with our performance but simple God's Graciousness to a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ.
And there is the problem that Bobby Grow has with all this. He hates Fundamentalists.
Fundamentalists know they are "in", which Bobby Grow speaks disparagingly of, and that is the reason for his hatred of grace.
I hope the Lord Jesus opens your eyes one day, friend. :)
@Harrison,
I came to Christ at 3.5. God came in Christ so that we could participate in his life of triune love; which is eternal life. His primary reason was not save from hell, but to reconcile us to himself---which is the purpose for all of creation in Christ (see Col. 1:15ff).
Who said anything about performance? I am against 5 point Calvinism, and against a God of the decrees and Law. I hold that God created out of who he is out of sheer love and grace, and that his desire was/is that all humanity reciprocate his love back to him in and through Christ our mediator (I Jn 4.19 and I Tim. 2.5 etc).
@Revelation,
I never said I hated fundamentalists; you said I did! I said I see Free Grace Theology stuck in the mire of Fundamentalism. And what I mean by that is that Fundamentalism, given its reactionary shape and heritage (i.e. it's fight against Liberalism and higher criticism) has resulted in its usage (ironically) of rationalist hermeneutics ... that's what I meant by Fundamentalist mire. Don't put words in my mouth; and especially don't say that I hate grace, what are you talking about? You don't even know me, or what I'm about! That is very un-Christian of you!
Anyway, this discussion isn't worth having; it really never is with FG folk anymore! That's too bad.
pax.
Bobby, you're hostile to the plain way of reading the Bible. If John 3:16 is so obviously clear in what it says, then no amount of theology-ese will change that. Call me a simpleton if you like. The truth is for the babes. :)
@Bobby Grow, his desire was/is that all humanity reciprocate his love back to him in and through Christ our mediator (I Jn 4.19 and I Tim. 2.5 etc). You seem to be putting the cart before the horse. With out us, (believers) first becoming His children, how can we render that statement back to a perfect, holy, merciful, righteous God
Who said anything about performance? I am against 5 point Calvinism, and against a God of the decrees and Law.
What about His performance on the cross. If you have forgotten that act, it is because you are self-righteous! And the gracious and most loving act God can do, is to say to us piteous human beings "look to me and I will give you life" as He did to the man on the cross and to countless others before and after the cross.
Hi Antonio,
A couple of thoughts in regards to Jodie's comments:
1)She says that "John's Gospel asks to be isolated..."
Where? Where does it ask to be isolated? She cites John 20:31, but nowhere in that verse does John's Gospel ask to be isolated.
She goes on to say "...not as the only NT message or as the only good news resulting from the Incarnation, but the one and only exhaustive book on how to receive eternal life. (Jn 20:31)"
I would take issue with the word "exhaustive". The Gospel of John is a book on how to receive eternal life, but it is not exhaustive in this regard. It is sufficient, but not exhaustive. The author makes this point in the last two verses of the book when he says: "This is the disciple who bears witness of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his witness is true. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books which were written." (John 21:24-25)
2) Jodie asks: "What would motivate John, late in the game in terms of the writing of the NT, to leave out repentance if he knew it was the necessary precursor to faith?"
This is a valid question but it's still only a question - and an unanswered one at that - not quite "thus saith the Lord". We have to be careful not to build a doctrine on an argument from silence. That reasoning is very perilous and it borders on being a logical fallacy. NOTE: I'm not saying that Jodie is doing this. I'm saying that we have to be careful not to do it.
But does Lordship Salvation really teach that repentance is "the necessary precursor to faith"? I'm not so sure this representation is completely accurate. For example, John MacArthur states: "Repentance is a critical element of saving faith [not "the necessary precursor to faith"], but one must never dismiss it as simply another word for believing. The Greek word for 'repentance' is metanoia, from meta, 'after' and noeo 'to understand.' Literally it means 'afterthought' or 'change of mind,' but biblically its meaning does not stop there. As metanoia is used in the New Testament, it always speaks of a change of purpose, and specifically a turning from sin." (MacArthur, The Gospel According to Jesus, p. 162, italics added; cf. Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 289.)
Please don't misunderstand me - I don't agree with Lordship Salvation, but I try to represent them fairly and accurately.
3) Jodie asks: "Why picture repentance as not important enough to be mentioned [in John] but still invariably present like the quietest of all maidens?"
I'm wondering if Jodie's statement is really a fair representation of Lordship Salvation? In other words, does Lordship Salvation really teach that the reason repentance is not mentioned in John's Gospel is because they picture it as not importance enough? Or is there maybe another explanation? I suspect that there is.
4) Jodie says: "Repentance is never treated as a necessary precursor to faith". Again, does Lordship Salvation really bifurcate repentance and faith the way Jodie indicates? Some more clarification on this would be helpful.
Dear Sir, the gospel of John to the unbeliever presents the Lord Jesus as Messiah not King or Lord. There is no question that you can not know His Love and the desire to obey Him from love until you become His child through believing in Him for everlasting life!
It is from John where the contrasts between receiving Him and walking with Him is so evident. All unbelievers, whether they be Hindu, Moslem. Baptists, Presbyterian, roman catholic, church of god or any other denomination from around the world if they have not believed in eternal life from the Lord Jesus then they will spend an eternity in Hell!
Harrison
Hi Friends,
As I think about the Gospel of John, I don't deny that it has a lot of good information for believers to grow by. I also realize that it is full of wonderful information to cause a person to get to the point where he believes in Jesus as the Christ... the giver of eternal life. But I am puzzled as to why another believer would deny that a person can't be saved by just believing the promise of John 3:16. When a person believes the promise of the One making the promise in that verse, he HAS past from death to life, no matter how much information he had to arrive at the point where he was persuaded that it was true. He believed in Jesus... the One making the promise in that verse.
I sure don't mean to be repetitive. This subject is just my passion, and I can't help jumping in. Thanks again for the privilege.
Diane
:-)
I would respectfully take issue with Harrison when he said that "the gospel of John to the unbeliever presents the Lord Jesus as Messiah not King or Lord."
In the very first chapter of John's Gospel we read:
"Nathanael answered [Jesus], 'Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the KING of Israel.'" (John 1:49)
This is a recurring theme in the Gospel of John (see: Jn. 6:15, 12:13, 12:15, 18:33, 18:37, 18:39, 19:3, 19:12, 19:15, 19:19, 19:21).
Indeed, it is not going too far to say that John presents Christ as "JESUS THE NAZARENE, THE KING OF THE JEWS." (Jn. 19:19)
The same is true in regards to Jesus as Lord. In the very first chapter of John's Gospel, John the Baptist proclaims: "I am A VOICE OF ONE CRYING IN THE WILDERNESS, 'MAKE STRAIGHT THE WAY OF THE LORD,' as Isaiah the prophet said." (John 1:23) This too is a recurring theme in John's Gospel (see: Jn. 4:1, 6:23, 6:34, 6:68, 8:11, 9:36, 9:38, 11:2, 11:3, 11:12, 11:21, 11:27, 11:32, 11:34, 11:39, 12:13, 12:38, 20:2, 20:13, 20:18, 20:20, 20:25, 20:28).
Yet John is not advocating Lordship/Commitment Salvation - he emphasizes that the only proper response to Christ is to believe in Him. John explains this response using various metaphors, such as: receive (Jn. 1:12), look (Jn. 3:14-17; cf. Num. 21:6-9), drink (Jn. 4:7-14, 7:37), etc. For more information see the article by Charlie Bing, "The Condition for Salvation in John's Gospel," Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 9 (Spring 1996).
Dear Jonathan, this is very basic until the Lord Jesus is your Messiah (Christ) you can not look to Him as King or Lord. I do not look to Nicodemus on the Lord Jesus’ titles but to the teaching of the Bible. The Bible clearly teaches that the Lord Jesus is King and Lord but prior to that, it teaches His Messiah ship! No one is born from above by calling Him Lord or King but by believing in His Life giving ability to give to any one everlasting life and they will not perish.
Dear Harrison,
You said: "I do not look to Nicodemus on the Lord Jesus’ titles but to the teaching of the Bible."
Are you saying that Nicodemus is not taught in the Bible? What are you contrasting?
Furthermore, where did I say anything about Nicodemus? Maybe you mean that you do not look to John 3:14-17 on the Lord Jesus' titles...? Could you please clarify?
If you want to look at "the teaching of the Bible" generally - outside of the Gospel of John, then let's look at the famous evangelistic passage in Acts 16:30-31. It says:
"and after [the jailer] brought [Paul and Silas] out, he said, 'Sirs, what must I do to be saved?' And they said, 'Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your household."
Please tell me, according to the teaching of the Bible, who is the jailer instructed to believe in in order to "be saved"? Is it not "the Lord Jesus"?
Again, please don't misunderstand me. I'm not advocating Lordship/Commitment Salvation or saying that the unsaved have to make Jesus the Lord of their lives in order to go to heaven. Instead, I'm saying that the Gospel of John in particular and the Bible in general presents Jesus to the unbeliever as Messiah (Christ) AND Lord (Deity).
I forgot to mention that Charlie Bing has written an excellent explanation of Acts 16:30-31 from a Free Grace perspective - making the same point that I've made. See Charlie Bing, Lordship Salvation (Xulon, 2010), pp. 109-110.
Hi Jonathan,
I was rereading some of the comments here again and think that maybe I'm missing your point??? Please correct me or help me understand more clearly what you're saying. Are you saying that a person CAN'T be saved without believing in Jesus as the KING of Israel? I do agree that John shows Him as the King of Israel, also deity, but John is a book clearly written to tell us HOW we can have everlasting life.
I understand Harrison's point, that the FIRST THING a person must do is believe in Jesus as the Messiah/Christ. John defines Christ for us as the giver of eternal life (John 11:25-27). Until that point nothing else really matters as far as eternity goes. Some people come to faith in Jesus knowing He is the King of Israel, and some do not yet know that. Birth first, then growth.
So my question is this for clarification. Is John a book that tells us EXACTLY what one must do to have everlasting life? To me it clearly is. I got saved without any understanding about Jesus being King of Israel, and lots of other truths that can be found in the gospel of John. Wonderful truths~!!! But John 3:16 was the JEWEL that brought me from death to life when my eyes were open to that truth. If I'm understanding Harrison correctly, that's what he's saying too. Just double checking to see if you and I are disagreeing on this point.
Thank you Jonathan for your comments. It helps me think through many Biblical questions. It's a joy for me to be allowed to participate here with friends, and I wish you all God's very best.
All because of HIS wonderful grace,
Diane
:-)
One other thought... to Bobby Grow...
You said... "On another point of clarification; it is erroneous to single out the Gospel of John from the canon of Scripture; since the principles of canonicity itself involve a unity of message amongst ALL of the books of the Bible (all 66). So this should suggest to the careful thinker that ALL of the books of the Bible particularly and specifically take shape from the Gospel, and thus they should be read in complementary ways (one to the other) instead of competitive ways as you all seem to want to do with the Gospel of John AGAINST the rest of the canon."
The Gospel of John beautifully fits the WHOLE CANON of SCRIPTURE. There is no competitiveness, I agree. The whole Bible is about Jesus, the giver of eternal life. None of the Bible contradicts that truth. But the books have difference purposes and emphasis. We know it is all the inspired Word of God and never contradicts one another.
One thing for sure, the whole Bible backs this truth up as stated so clearly in John.... "He who believes in Me HAS everlasting life." (John 6:47)
Isn't that the most AWESOME news one could ever hear~!!! Friends (anyone who may be reading this), if you believe the promise of Jesus that "whoever believes in ME shall not perish but have everlasting life"... (as recorded in John 3:16), welcome to the family of God~!!! Looking forward to being with you forever in eternity with the King of Kings and Lord of lords, Jesus Christ our Savior.
Rejoicing in Him always,
Diane
:-)
Hi Diane,
You asked: "Are you saying that a person CAN'T be saved without believing in Jesus as the KING of Israel? I do agree that John shows Him as the King of Israel, also deity, but John is a book clearly written to tell us HOW we can have everlasting life."
No, I'm not saying that a person CAN'T be saved without believing in Jesus as the KING of Israel. Are you?
You asked: "Is John a book that tells us EXACTLY what one must do to have everlasting life?"
Definitely! That's why I said in one of my previous comments:
"Yet John is not advocating Lordship/Commitment Salvation - he emphasizes that the only proper response to Christ is to believe in Him. John explains this response using various metaphors, such as: receive (Jn. 1:12), look (Jn. 3:14-17; cf. Num. 21:6-9), drink (Jn. 4:7-14, 7:37), etc. For more information see the article by Charlie Bing, "The Condition for Salvation in John's Gospel," Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 9 (Spring 1996)."
Hi Diane,
You asked: "Are you saying that a person CAN'T be saved without believing in Jesus as the KING of Israel? I do agree that John shows Him as the King of Israel, also deity, but John is a book clearly written to tell us HOW we can have everlasting life."
No, I'm not saying that a person CAN'T be saved without believing in Jesus as the KING of Israel. Are you?
You asked: "Is John a book that tells us EXACTLY what one must do to have everlasting life?"
Definitely! That's why I said in one of my previous comments:
"Yet John is not advocating Lordship/Commitment Salvation - he emphasizes that the only proper response to Christ is to believe in Him. John explains this response using various metaphors, such as: receive (Jn. 1:12), look (Jn. 3:14-17; cf. Num. 21:6-9), drink (Jn. 4:7-14, 7:37), etc. For more information see the article by Charlie Bing, "The Condition for Salvation in John's Gospel," Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 9 (Spring 1996)."
Thank you Jonathan,
I appreciate your answer. Sounds like we're saying the same thing.
Diane
:-)
P.S. I used Charlie Bing's very good discipleship workbook... "Living In The Family Of Grace" for my first ladies discipleship class. Now one of my daughters is using it. Good study~!!!
Hi Diane,
Yes, I think we agree on something - awesome!
I'll have to pick up a copy of Charlie Bing's workbook. Thanks for the review.
Jonathan, I know I made mistakes. Thank you for trying to see thru them. I apologize for them. However, let us proceed, please. There is no question that Paul knew Jesus’ Deity. But that is not what gave him Life! What gave him Life was when he believed that Jesus is the Messiah. The name JESUS is critical here. The long awaited man who would be the Messiah name was now known. Jesus knew He is God but did He emphasize that? No. He emphasize Life with Him and the Father forever. You do not inter the kingdom by doctrinal knowledge no matter how accurate it is. It is not your knowledge of Jesus’ abilities that gave you Life, it was it is the reception of that Life when you believed in Him (Jesus) for it!
Diane, thank you very much for seeing the truth of my message.
Hi Harrison,
Yes, I agree with what you're saying here. Beautifully said~!!!
Diane
:-)
Harrison,
I went back and looked at each of your comments since I entered this discussion. I was kind of amazed that you didn't cite any Scriptures in support of your statements!
You mentioned the apostle Paul in your previous comment. Wasn't it Paul who asked the all important question: "For what does the Scripture say?" (Rom. 4:3; cf. Gal. 4:30).
Can you please support your statements with the Scriptures?
Hi Antonio and others, I finally met a J. W. who may be saved! She sat their on the bench with a friend with magazines in her lap. I said to her having mentioned Everlasting Life from Jesus thru out our neibohood for years, "do you know where you are going when you die?". After saying some thing to her friend, she look me right in the eye and said " Christ has given me Life" I gave her a big smile and said praise the Lord Jesus and gave her a kuncle five hand shake. These people love the Bible and there is no question that John declares Jesus own words "belive in me and you will not perish"!
You are way to kind!
I'm honored to know you, bro!!!
Clearly I do not say things with much accuracy. However, here I go again, I enjoy some of your books also, but in addition I also enjoy Paul, John, Peter, Mark, should I go on?! I did appreciate Hodges comments on our mortal bodies being resurrected when our new nature, Devine life or being born from above cooperates with the Holy Spirit.
Clearly I do not say things with much accuracy. However, here I go again, I enjoy some of your books also, but in addition I also enjoy Paul, John, Peter, Mark, should I go on?! I did appreciate Hodges comments on our mortal bodies being resurrected when our new nature, Devine life or being born from above cooperates with the Holy Spirit.
Sorry for taking so long to repost on UOG, Antonio.
It doesn't measure up to your careful exegesis. But it's my attempt to highlight the way in which evangelism in the NT is so much more end-times focused.
Here's a link to Unashamed of Grace.
Again, thanks for your praise regarding my hopefully not too snarky commenting...
Jodie (formerly HK Flynn)
Post a Comment
<< Home