Pimping Jesus: consumerism and the red-light gospel

[ageofknowledge]

If I remain in the faith, I'm going to heaven. If I abandon it and never return to it, I'm not. This is my understanding. I'm not holding to it to be difficult. I can defend it. Will I have a different understanding in 20 years as I stay in scripture? It's possible. Or my current position will grow. Only time will tell. I can be very assertive Jac but you should know that I do try to keep an open mind for other's positions even when I debate them. It doesn't always come through though.

I'm not asking you if you will change your position. I am not asking you to defend your position now. I am asking you, in light of your position, how do you know that you will still be faithful in twenty years?

Again, assuming your position is true, how do you know that you will still have faith in Christ in twenty years (or however much longer God allows you to live on this earth)? Isn't it true that you hope you still believe--you think you will still believe--you even expect you will still believe, but that you do not KNOW you will still believe?

Scripture gives me every confidence that if I remain in the faith I shall be eternally saved and nothing has the power to take that from me. We can do this all day and night from here until Jesus returns. God honors our freewill Jac. He created it and he gifted it to us. It was my choice to respond positively to the Spirit's drawing and becoming a Christian and the choice is mine whether or not I choose to remain a Christian or deny Christ and walk away forever resisting God's attempts to bring me back to repentance. People don't lose their freewill and become robots after becoming Christians. Now I've answered your question more than once. I'm not going to continue posting the answer over and over. So if you ask me this question again, I won't bother to respond because I already have.

[Jac3510]

if I remain in the faith

No, you've not answered my question - my question is WILL you remain in? You keep telling me that you have the right to choose. I don't doubt that. Age, I AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT. I BELIEVE THAT PEOPLE CAN WALK AWAY FROM CHRISTIANITY. I AM NOT A CALVINIST.

So, can you stop being defensive and just give me a simple answer. Do you know whether or not you will stay in the faith? I assume you think and hope you will. I am asking if you KNOW you will.

[ageofknowledge]

if I remain in the faith

No, you've not answered my question - my question is WILL you remain in? You keep telling me that you have the right to choose. I don't doubt that. Age, I AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT. I BELIEVE THAT PEOPLE CAN WALK AWAY FROM CHRISTIANITY. I AM NOT A CALVINIST.

So, can you stop being defensive and just give me a simple answer. Do you know whether or not you will stay in the faith? I assume you think and hope you will. I am asking if you KNOW you will.

Yes I know I will. I'm not of the character that will cut and run. I may complain and get emotional at the difficult circumstances life heaps upon me while people stand idly by watching but that's the extent of it. How about yourself?

[Jac3510]

Ah, thank you for a straight answer!

As for me, no, I don't know that I will. I hope I will. I can't imagine myself not staying in the faith, but then again, I know of many, many people who were just as committed as I am--many who were in their commitment more educated than I am now--and lost their way. The simple fact is that I don't know the future. I wish I did, but who knows what life will bring?

So I have another question for you, then. What makes you different than other people that guarantees that you will never leave the faith? You say you are not the kind of person to cut and run. Can you elaborate? Are you saying that every other person who does leave is the kind who does that? And if you don't cut and run, in what areas? Any and all areas? Are you saying that you have NEVER quit something? I can't imagine you saying that, so I'm trying to understand your position.

Again, basically, I would like you to contrast your assurance that you will NEVER leave the faith with others who had that same assurance when they were still Christian. What makes you different? And in case you feel like I'm attacking, note the motivation--from a pastoral perspective, the issue of assurance is a major one that is always dealt with. So when someone says to you, "AoK, I just don't know that I'll make it. Others have left! How do I know that tragedy, bad information, or a personal medical condition may not drive me away?!?" what do you say? What makes you so different?

[ageofknowledge]

You're looking for a paradigm that does away with freewill. That paradigm doesn't exist. The sooner you accept that we have a choice in the matter, the quicker you'll stop stumbling around looking for a magic bullet that says all apostates and heretics go to heaven because they said the sinner's prayer once.

[Jac3510]

Where did I say anything about going to heaven? Again, Age, I 100% believe that people can choose to reject their faith. Why do you keep telling me that I don't believe that? My entire position is based on the argument that you CAN reject your faith.

I am trying to understand YOUR position. You said that IF you stayed in the faith, you would be saved. You said that IF you reject the faith, you will go to Hell. You said, however, that you KNOW that you will never leave the faith. I asked how you know that, because honestly, I don't know that about myself. Let's say that you are right. If so, I don't see how I can have any assurance of my salvation. Maybe you do, which is why I am asking how you do. If you are right, then if I lose my faith, I go to Hell. Since it is possible for me to lose my faith, you are telling me it is possible for me to go to Hell. And yet you tell me that it is impossible for you to lose your faith.

So, what I want to know is BASED ON YOUR FREEWILL, how can you know that you will never choose to walk away from the faith? I don't see how you can make that claim given our agreed upon position that a person may well walk away from Christianity.

[Jac3510]

Thus, you have admitted that you have murdered post-salvation. If YOU can murder and still be saved, why can't anyone else? What makes you different?

Did I say that? no. And further, this doesn't appear as if you are trying to communicate some theological truth, but that this is only an argument where you are trying to corner someone into accepting your postion.

"A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." It is a waste of time for me to try to change your mind. I know that, so I wouldn't bother. I am asking you about the ramifications of your position. I'm just trying to understand how you are not contradicting yourself. Help me understand, Jlay. Tell me where I am misunderstanding your argument, because it sounds like you argue:

1. A person who really gets saved isn't going to go out and then murder someone, but
2. A person who really gets saved CAN go out and hate someone (even though Jesus says that hatred is murder)

So . . . what gives?

Is it belief or trust? Even the devil and his demons believe. I can't tell you how many people I have met and witnessed to who have intellectual belief. They don't deny anything about Christ. They just don't trust IN Him for salvation.

I've no problem with saying that people have to put their faith in Christ. That's what John 3:16 says, right? Jer. 17:7 is instructive as well:

"Blessed is the young man who will trust in the LORD, for the LORD will be his confidence" (My translation)

What is really interesting is the word for "trust" here is batah--it is the same root for "his confidence." The idea of batah is to place one's security in something--it is equivalent to the NT word elpidos (hope). If I trust the LORD, then He will be my security, my trust, my steadfast hope, the One who takes care of me. The point is that there is a volitional aspect to this.

With that said, I don't know that you can distinguish between intellectual belief and "heart belief." Ultimately, placing my trust in the LORD is believing His testimony. Again, remember Gen. 15:6. Abraham believed (amen) the LORD (that He would give him a son). Do we BELIEVE Jesus is capable of doing--and will do--what He said He can and will do, raise us all on the last day (John 11:24ff)?

And since I've already addressed the issue about Satan believing, I won't repeat myself.

What does IN Him mean? I think you are reducing the gospel down to a theology that the whole counsel does not communicate. Apparently we are to understand the scripture in context except for where it suits our agenda. I totally understand what you believe. I believe there is so much contained IN Him, and this is why Jesus is NEVER recorded as saying John 3:16 in a public setting. Instead he said things like, 'But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.' In fact it is actually quite surprising to see there isn't any red letter scripture where Jesus makes a blanket statement regarding salvation in a public setting. John 3:16 was a private, one on one. Don't misunderstand me, I am not downplaying what IS said in John 3:16, only pointing out that context is key, and nothing is in the sciptures by accident.

Are you one of those people who think that the red letters are more authoritative than the black ones?

Please read the paper I provided that I wrote. It deals extensively with John 3:16, who said it, and what the various conotations are. At the same time, I would question your phrase "whole counsel." Can one part of Scripture contradict another? If a single verse says that faith is sufficient to save, and if another verse says that something other than faith is necessary to be saved, can you not see how you have created a contradiction? Jesus said that EVERYONE who believes has eternal life. So what about people who believe but don't repent or aren't baptized? Are they saved? If you say that anything in addition to faith is necessary, then you have created a contradiction with any one of over 100 verses I can cite.

Now, you say that you are not downplaying John 3:16, but that context is important. FOR THE THIRD TIME, where in the context of John 3:16 are we led to believe that anything beyond faith is necessary?

On the surface we can both say that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone. I don't believe works add to the sacrifice. I don't beleive a saved simply person stumbles into sin, and loses their salvation, like a key falling through a hole in their pocket. If we are truly saved, we are truly saved. It is God who saves us, and God who keeps us.

AMEN

If we look at the life of Christ and His teachings recorded in the scriptures, then I would find it hard to reduce everything down to these verses out of context.

1. Who says everything reduces to John 3:16? Are you under the impression that the only thing Jesus addressed was salvation?
2. AGAIN, where in the contexts of John 3:16; 5:24; 6:47; 11:26-27; or 20:31 are we led to believe that these verses should not be taken exactly as they are written?

This is the same thing people have done with salvation verses to come to the conclusion that all people are saved, even those who have not trusted IN him. For example, "For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people." (1 Titus 2:11) Now, I believe that Jesus died for all. But that doesn't mean I believe all will be saved. Why? The whole counsel. Jesus says, 'but whoever does not believe stands condemned already.' (John 3:18)

I don't need John 3:18 to recognize that Titus 2:11 doesn't teach universalism. The verse doesn't say that all people have received the grace of salvation. That would be reading something into the text it doesn't say. It says exactly what it says. It says that the grace that BRINGS salvation has APPEARED to all men. It doesn't even say that salvation has appeared to all men. So you have a LONG way to go to get to universalism.

Further, I feel really bad for people that need John 3:18 to recognize that about Titus. Did Titus have a copy of the Gospel of John on him when he read that? I doubt it. But I bet we both agree that Titus didn't think that Paul was teaching universalism! So here's a bit of hermeneutics for you to consider: absolutely everything you need to understand the theological import of a passage is found in that passage itself and/or passages to which it alludes, for if it is not, then the people to whom it was originally written would have been unable to understand it.

What is our response to the knowledge of what is IN him? In Him I KNOW that I am a murderer, a liar, a wretch. In Him I know that God is Holy above anything I can fathom. In Him I know that because of my utter depravity, I am an enemy of God in my mind through wicked works. In Him I know that God must give justice to all evil doers, and punish iniquity wherever it is found. In Him I know that God predestined a plan of redemption, to atone for my sin, and wash me clean, so that I might be presented before Him without blemish. In Him I know that there is salvation in no other name. In Him I know the promise of the Holy Spirit, and that we are no longer slaves to sin. And that through this indwelling I can have a renewed mind, transformed with the ability to discern the will of God, and desire to live it. In Him I know that faith is alive, not dead, and that faith is not a date on a calendar. Faith is a response to Him and who He is. Not that I beleive about Him, but I beleive IN Him. And that In Him is life, and apart from Him I can do nothing.

Did you know all that when you very first got saved? I didn't. Those are things I came to learn. Maybe I didn't really get saved until I learned all those things? If so, why did Jesus say that everyone who believes in Him has everylasting life. Do you think the disciples understood all of that when Jesus first started preaching? And yet, they had eternal life . . .

I would bet quite a bit that the vast majority of what you just stated you learned as you studied Scripture as a believer. In fact, it was because you were a believer that the Holy Spirit could lead you to understand those things (1 Cor 2:14-15). You don't have to be a theologian to be saved, Jlay. You just have to understand that Jesus is the Christ (that is, the only one who can and does save you), the Son of God. If more than that is required, then John 20:31 is a lie.

Even in my earliest stages as a new believer, the reality of all this was planted. Even when I didn't have the verses memorized or all the theology down pat, I know that what God planted was real.

Yes, AS A BELIEVER that reality was planted. You had eternal life the moment you trusted in Christ, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit allowed you to understand them.

Is there a difference in beleiving about Him and trusting IN Him? Is there a head belief and heart belief? Romans 10: 9-13

Where do you see a distinction in those verses?

example. A man puts on an archery display. With preceision he shoots his arrows at his targets, never missing the mark. he places apples on a stand, and from 20 feet he repeatedly strikes the target dead center. The crowd watches in amazement. He turns to them and ask, "How many of you believe I can shoot one of these apples off of your head without hitting you?" All of the crowd, impressed by his marksmanship eagerly raise their hands. "Ok, how many of you are willing to put that belief into practice, and trust me with a demonstration?"

If you are simply saying that a person has to trust Christ alone with their eternal soul, then I am fine. If you are saying that a person has to give every aspect of their being to Christ, then you go too far. That's a matter of discipleship.

See, I am afraid that people hear the way you present the Gospel and think that they have to give their lives to Christ as part of the Gospel-deal. They think of their salvation as an exchange plan. I give You my life, You give me salvation in return. That's not faith in Christ, Jlay. That is faith in your works. That is faith in Christ plus. If no one ever says to you, "Wait, so I can just trust Christ and live however I want and still be saved?!?" then you haven't given people the radical Gospel of Jesus Christ, because only when they say that can you be sure they have come to realize that it is TRULY FREE.

[ageofknowledge]

Jac,

You are starting to give me a headache. I'm going to take an aspirin. Don't permanently reject Jesus Christ and it will never be an issue.

[Jac3510]

Jac,

You are starting to give me a headache. I'm going to take an aspirin. Don't permanently reject Jesus Christ and it will never be an issue.

Relax, it's mutual. I've never had so much trouble getting a simple answer to simple questions.

"If I don't leave the faith I won't go to Hell."
"Will you leave the faith?"
"You idiot. I said if I don't leave I won't to go Hell."
"Fine, I get that, but how do you know you won't leave."
"What is wrong with you, you Calvinist? I said that if I don't leave I won't go to Hell."
"Right, I agree. But WILL you leave?"
"You just aren't hearing me. Of course I won't leave, so I won't go to Hell."
"Fine, but how do you know you won't leave?"
"Here we go again! If I don't leave, I won't go to Hell"
" "

[Byblos]

Do I really need to point out the 800 lb gorilla in the room everyone is desperately trying to ignore? Such (Jac's position) is the only logical and inescapable conclusion of OSAS. If you want to believe in assurance then absolute assurance DEMANDS a Once Saved Always Saved position NO MATTER WHAT, otherwise it is no assurance at all, rendering OSAS meaningless. Jac and I have come to this understanding long ago. I choose to reject it because I believe OSAS is unbiblical (free will and all). If you disagree, you'd be hard-pressed (and wrong) not to take up his position.

[Jac3510]

Do I really need to point out the 800 lb gorilla in the room everyone is desperately trying to ignore? Such (Jac's position) is the only logical and inescapable conclusion of OSAS. If you want to believe in assurance then absolute assurance DEMANDS a Once Saved Always Saved position NO MATTER WHAT, otherwise it is no assurance at all, rendering OSAS meaningless. Jac and I have come to this understanding long ago. I choose to reject it because I believe OSAS is unbiblical (free will and all). If you disagree, you'd be hard-pressed (and wrong) not to take up his position.

May I point out, sir, that this is why I have more respect for you than anyone else who has ever posted on these boards (and there have been a lot of them!)? I couldn't care less if someone agrees with me. But intellectual honesty is key. If we are not willing to be honest with our positions and with ourselves, then what in the heck are we even bothering discussing in the first place?

For the record, I think that there are ONLY two logically consistent Christian positions: Catholicism or Free Grace Biblicism (if I may make up a term . . .). Both have everything to do with methodology--with authority. Your decision on authority, I think, it the determining factor, and to that extent, only these two positions make sense. I can honestly say if I were to ever let go of the FG view, I would convert to Catholicism. So I say this with no hint of negativity whatsoever: if protestants like those in this discussion who reject the FG view of the Gospel are going to hold their position, they may as well take that road to its only logical conclusion: Rome.

I know, Byblos, the point of your post wasn't to make the dichotomy I'm laying out here. But it's just an idea that's been in the back of my mind for a really long time now, and I thought your statement provided a good place for me to vocalize it, be it right or not. It is, in any case, my own view.

Either salvation is imputed, immediate, total, and logically assured (OSAS) or infused, mediate, progressive, and morally assured (Catholicism - feel free to correct me if I've misunderstood!).

God bless

[Byblos]

Either salvation is imputed, immediate, total, and logically assured (OSAS) or infused, mediate, progressive, and morally assured (Catholicism - feel free to correct me if I've misunderstood!).

I would agree with that.

[Byblos]

For the record, I think that there are ONLY two logically consistent Christian positions: Catholicism or Free Grace Biblicism (if I may make up a term . . .). Both have everything to do with methodology--with authority. Your decision on authority, I think, it the determining factor, and to that extent, only these two positions make sense. I can honestly say if I were to ever let go of the FG view, I would convert to Catholicism. So I say this with no hint of negativity whatsoever: if protestants like those in this discussion who reject the FG view of the Gospel are going to hold their position, they may as well take that road to its only logical conclusion: Rome.

One more thing I wanted to comment on in your post Jac: I also say this without a hint of negativity, hesitation, or doubt whatever, that if I were to let go of Catholicism I would be a Free Gracer. Although many see the two positions as polar opposites, I believe they are two sides of the same coin. Everything else is somewhere in between. I know some of you will get a good chuckle out of this but I've spent the better part of the last decade looking at the differences. All I've managed to find are stark similarities. That's not to say there aren't any fundamental differences, I'm not THAT delusional. But the point is I haven't discovered anything insurmountable.

By the way, of course you were right about it being an authority issue with me. I think authority is THE key issue, once resolved, everything else will follow.

[ageofknowledge]

Jac,

You are starting to give me a headache. I'm going to take an aspirin. Don't permanently reject Jesus Christ and it will never be an issue.

Relax, it's mutual. I've never had so much trouble getting a simple answer to simple questions.

"If I don't leave the faith I won't go to Hell."
"Will you leave the faith?"
"You idiot. I said if I don't leave I won't to go Hell."
"Fine, I get that, but how do you know you won't leave."
"What is wrong with you, you Calvinist? I said that if I don't leave I won't go to Hell."
"Right, I agree. But WILL you leave?"
"You just aren't hearing me. Of course I won't leave, so I won't go to Hell."
"Fine, but how do you know you won't leave?"
"Here we go again! If I don't leave, I won't go to Hell"
" "

You should go into politics. There you can selectively use other people's quites to present pictures that say whatever you want them to just as you've done here. It won't actually prove anything or even be an adequate representation of the truth, but you might influence enough sheepoles to vote for you to get elected.

The answer was always very simple: If you permanently reject Jesus Christ and die in that state as an unrepentant non-believer, you don't go to heaven.

Whether you choose that state from birth or whether you end in that state as an apostate, scripture reveals your end is hell (not purgatory and then heaven).

Eternal security is assured for the authentic believer unless they willfully choose to become an apostate returning to the state of a non-believer and die in that state. You want to know your future? Here it is: don't become an apostate and you'll go to heaven. There's your future.

You can continue playing games, asking your question repeatedly after receiving the answer (and here I've answered you yet again), and selectively framing my responses to make them appear as you wish them to but nothing you do changes reality. I've been clear. I'm done with this. It's obviously not going anywhere.

[jlay]

1. A person who really gets saved isn't going to go out and then murder someone, but
2. A person who really gets saved CAN go out and hate someone (even though Jesus says that hatred is murder)

So . . . what gives?

A saved person CAN.....do lots of things. But is it fruit that speaks to the saving work that has occurred in them? I find it hard to fathom, that one who is redemed and now an abode to the Holy Spirit will show no signs of new life.

Ultimately, placing my trust in the LORD is believing His testimony.

Placing one's trust in something. I can say I beleive in my wife's ability to balance our check book and pay our bills. I can actually beleive that in my mind. But if I never trust her by turning them over to her, then my trust is not real. I know this is a simple analogy. But we are talking about placing the trust of one's life into the hands of Jesus. I believe in the abididng truth of that. I don't buy that someone can place their TRUST IN Christ and it have no manifestation in their life. If the seed finds good soil it will.

Are you one of those people who think that the red letters are more authoritative than the black ones?

Seriously Jac, get over it. I beleive in the context and whole counsel of the scripture. I beleive John 3:16. And I also believe that it is where it is in context for a reason. The difference my friend is what we understand faith to be, and what 'In Him' represents to the believer.

Jesus said that EVERYONE who believes has eternal life. So what about people who believe but don't repent or aren't baptized? Are they saved? If you say that anything in addition to faith is necessary, then you have created a contradiction with any one of over 100 verses I can cite.

I don't believe water baptism is a requirement, anymore than Jesus did. i would question why someone who places their trust IN Christ would not want to be baptized. I don't see faith and repentence as being different things. As Peter said, 'He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.' 2 pet. 3:9
"Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Acts 2:38

Man if there wasn't a better place to plop a John 3:16, it was right there for Peter. Jesus could have plopped one right down on the rich young ruler. But nope.

if you are under the impression that I see repentance as stopping one's sin, and then you can get saved. No. I know there are a lot of people who teach that you need to trust Christ and turn from your sins. I didn't have the power to stop sinning before Christ, and I certainly can't do it on my own now. A believer though does turn from their relationship with sin. I see that as part of faith.

Can one part of Scripture contradict another? If a single verse says that faith is sufficient to save, and if another verse says that something other than faith is necessary to be saved, can you not see how you have created a contradiction?

No, scripture does not contradict, but complement. I haven't created a contradiction. I think the proper understanding of faith/belief/trust and 'In HIM' eliminates any supposed contradiction. I think John 5:24 only further speaks to this. Jesus doesn't only say whoever believes in me. He also says, whoever hears my word. So has Jesus added another condition? Gracious, we could go into a whole other thread about 'hearing.'

Something happens when someone is saved. They pass from death to life. And, they become the abiding place to the Holy Spirit. That is a pretty significant thing.