tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post2142458967149251679..comments2024-02-27T03:28:22.684-06:00Comments on In Defense of the Gospel: OPEN QUESTION to Bob Wilkin at the Grace Evangelical SocietyLou Martuneachttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comBlogger57125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-35556779911511678142007-10-11T17:02:00.000-05:002007-10-11T17:02:00.000-05:00Romans 10:9 & 1210:9 because if you confess with y...Romans 10:9 & 12<BR/>10:9 because if you confess with your mouth that <B>Jesus is Lord</B> and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. <BR/>10:12 For there is no distinction between the Jew and the Greek, for the same Lord is <B>Lord of All</B>, who richly blesses all who call on Him. (Yahweh)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-68000980873466821802007-08-31T16:52:00.000-05:002007-08-31T16:52:00.000-05:00I have a question for Jeremy Myers. On this thread...I have a question for Jeremy Myers. On this thread (8/28/2007 2:29 PM) he stated that neither the titles "the Christ" nor "the Son of God" involve Deity. In fact, he actually typed Christ's title "son of God" (lowercase).<BR/><BR/>If the title "the Son of God" does not refer to Christ's unique relationship with the Father in which he is equal in Deity, what is the meaning of the term, "the Son of God"? <BR/><BR/>If anybody communicates with Jeremy, please direct him to this question.<BR/><BR/>Thanks,<BR/>GregGreghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08627415936514319391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-31426432034894140722007-08-30T20:51:00.000-05:002007-08-30T20:51:00.000-05:00BNaz:If Jeremy and Antonio are any indication ther...BNaz:<BR/><BR/>If Jeremy and Antonio are any indication there is no doubt that there will never be any honest answers to the difficult questions they do NOT want to address.<BR/><BR/>I have never seen the likes of what he have witnessed over the past weeks with these men.<BR/><BR/>Just look at the GES blog. Now an "Alvin" is doing the same kind of dodging that Jeremy does. Disgraceful!<BR/><BR/>I will have more on this later.<BR/><BR/><BR/>LouLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-83262648328220820302007-08-30T19:11:00.000-05:002007-08-30T19:11:00.000-05:00Wouldn’t you die a million deaths to think that so...<I><B>Wouldn’t you die a million deaths to think that someone might need to get you to clarify which Jesus you were speaking of?</I></B><BR/><BR/>No Evangelist, or anyone doing the work of an Evangelist could bare such a thing. I'll tell you that I live in terror of not being clear about the Gospel. <BR/><BR/>I know that the Seed is the object and not the sower. I know the Seed is potent even when the sower is a complete mess. <BR/><BR/>But to imagine preaching to someone who's Eternal Life depends on how they respond to to what you're saying.. and not being clear. God does the saving, but I'll be honest I'm going to do the best I can - even while knowing that my effort is wasted without Him.Kevlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18080346872086553798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-37469644927524886512007-08-30T18:04:00.000-05:002007-08-30T18:04:00.000-05:00Can you even remotely envision yourself ever being...Can you even remotely envision yourself ever being in the position where someone might question whether or not you preached Christ crucified? Wouldn’t you say; “Perish the thought! What would make you ever think I’d not preach Christ crucified?” Wouldn’t you pale and or even sicken at the thought of such a question being asked of you?<BR/><BR/>But, on the other hand, if indeed you were asked, would you give a straight up answer? Would you call those who question you, concerning the Gospel you preach, “Pharisees” in order to avoid an answer? Would you retort with, “How many angels could stand on the head of a needle?”<BR/><BR/>Wouldn’t you die a million deaths to think that someone might need to get you to clarify which Jesus you were speaking of?<BR/><BR/>What if you had to defend a gospel position where you felt it necessary to explain away Christ's deity? What if you had to make the word “Christ” or the phrase “Son of God” mean anything less than God in order for your gospel to be consistent? What if you had to say that, “Son of God really doesn’t mean God! And when you say “Christ” that really doesn’t mean much more than saying King Cyrus or mere man? There really no deity in that word! Why would you need to disparage our exalted Lord Jesus to a level of vagueness and ambiguity in your gospel message?<BR/><BR/>Why would you think that believing in Christ, who was God, who died on the Cross for my sins and was raised on the third day, add works, clutter, or fog to salvation and takes away from the Gospel? That is the Gospel.<BR/><BR/>You know, I would only feel that it was unnecessary, if really don’t believe that the Gospel message contained that information?<BR/><BR/>Wow, this is the affront that I am appalled with in this new GES position. Those who are following the crossless, reductionist view are preaching “a distorted gospel which is no gospel at all.” Gal 1:6-7<BR/><BR/>BNazNazhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17569948809440339340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-55558590372001790212007-08-30T17:11:00.000-05:002007-08-30T17:11:00.000-05:00Lou,I am looking forward to Mr. Wilkins response b...Lou,<BR/><BR/>I am looking forward to Mr. Wilkins response but, to be honest, I am afraid of what it might be. Wouldn’t it be great if someone would just come right out and say what GES is really saying? Then, the whole struggle to get them to reveal their cards and to deal candidly would be over. People could make honest assessments of what is being taught and then choose to be on board or off. With yourself, there is no doubt about what you believe in regards to the Gospel. If the Gospel is God’s message why not just spell it out. If there is a dark side to Historical Gospel that we have preached, let’s hear the challenge. Let’s embrace in four colors, frontally and honestly. Let’s put our cards on the table. If it is truly the gospel its not our to have to shield but to boldly preach. We don’t need to dodge questions, even if an honest answer took us a week, to articulate.<BR/><BR/>BNazNazhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17569948809440339340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-84437839510412123812007-08-30T14:09:00.000-05:002007-08-30T14:09:00.000-05:00Yes, Bob Wilkin sent me an e-mail yesterday, (Wedn...Yes, <BR/><BR/>Bob Wilkin sent me an e-mail yesterday, (Wednesday). He told me whether or not he will answwer the question, but I am withholding that answer for the moment.<BR/><BR/>I sent a reply to Bob, and I am awaiting his response.<BR/><BR/><BR/>LouLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-75204202057306567892007-08-30T11:38:00.000-05:002007-08-30T11:38:00.000-05:00Lou,I note that Tuesday has come and gone. Did Bo...Lou,<BR/><BR/>I note that Tuesday has come and gone. Did Bob Wilkin ever respond to your question?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-8748312919725806492007-08-29T20:14:00.000-05:002007-08-29T20:14:00.000-05:00Bret:It is something we will never know with certa...Bret:<BR/><BR/>It is something we will never know with certainty, but I am of the opinion the “<I>Crossless</I>” advocates realized they had disclosed too much of what they truly believe and needed to bail. IMO, damage control.<BR/><BR/>Much about the “<I>Crossless</I>” theology, that has been unknown until my blog began tackling the issue, has come to light.<BR/><BR/>I think they are very concerned that they now have to not just defend what they have disclosed, but the level of scrutiny and genuine concern has been raised beyond anything they have encountered in recent years, maybe ever. <BR/><BR/>IMO, the GES as a meaningful organization has come to an end. It went doctrinally bankrupt long ago, but it is now out in the open. Many who have not yet resigned the GES may be realizing that it is time to depart from the egregious doctrinal errors coming from the GES and its leadership. The items you note above are examples.<BR/><BR/>Jeremy's position that the “Son of God” does not mean deity is absurd. It shows that he and anyone who shares that position has checked out on the Scriptures. Imagine stripping the beloved Savior of His deity by denigrating His title, “Son of God.”<BR/><BR/>In a few days I am going to post an article on the “Son of God.”<BR/><BR/>Thanks for checking in. Keep active at the GES site, you are making a difference and opening the eyes of the many lurkers. IMO, they may be considering shutting it down as well.<BR/><BR/><BR/>LouLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-28059314417804769752007-08-29T19:22:00.000-05:002007-08-29T19:22:00.000-05:00Lou and all,It sounds like by Jeremy’s statement a...Lou and all,<BR/><BR/>It sounds like by Jeremy’s statement about he is going to go back to his old life. I wonder if he is going to close down his blog?<BR/><BR/>I’m sure he must have just meant that he was going to quit posting here. I wonder if Greg’s posts were just too clear to debunk. Was he seeing that he would have to concede that your question was not hypothetical after all and bailed out? I guess we will just pine away with that mystery.<BR/><BR/>I am beginning to believe that the tide is turning and that people are daily seeing that the crossless position is not the gospel that the Bible teaches. Some pastors in the Free Grace Camp have begun to understand the real issues and are pulling away from the GES position and away from the men who espouse this new way.<BR/><BR/>With Jeremy’s sudden departure I wonder if word went out today at 3:00 pm to call off the bloggings because so much ground is being lost? On the GES blog some of the staunch defenders are beginning to ask the real questions of the GES bloggers. One staunch crossless poster was beginning to puzzle over whether a Jehovah’s Witness who does not believe in the deity of Christ and believes that eternal life is life forever on this earth could be truly saved. The fact that one of them would ask that question is ground breaking. I wonder if they will mount a hugh attach on those of us who have posted there or if they will just pull the blog? I bet they would like to pull it now? Someone was over there trying to start a new debate page the afternoon. I questioned if they were just trying to draw those who preach the Cross away from that site. Not that I would recommend it to anyone but just making some observations. Who knows? Just some questions. Just some thoughts.<BR/><BR/>BNazNazhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17569948809440339340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-42536316324621576522007-08-29T18:36:00.000-05:002007-08-29T18:36:00.000-05:00Lou I have just read through this page of your blo...Lou I have just read through this page of your blog. Thanks for posing this question to the men of GES and for hosting this blog. I hope you all don’t mind me posting some thoughts.<BR/><BR/>Jeremy’s argument of Cyrus being called a Christ (messiah) in an OT passage somehow disqualifies the meaning of the word Christ in the NT is preposterous.<BR/><BR/>Just because Jesus is called Adam in the NT means that the word has no meaning now because there was an Adam in the Old? That is truly the weakest argument that you could use anywhere.<BR/><BR/>Sir, do you know that there will be many who claim to be Christ in the future. Does that mean that we cannot believe that “God” or “deity” is intrinsic in the Word. Come on, use your Bible degree and some everyday logic. That is as moot an argument for dismissing the meaning of the word Christ in the Bible as I have ever heard.<BR/><BR/>BretNazhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17569948809440339340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-89826975192112203292007-08-29T16:42:00.000-05:002007-08-29T16:42:00.000-05:00P.S. Jeremy, I also encourage you to check your in...P.S. Jeremy, I also encourage you to check your intellectual elitism. Maybe I'm stupid, but 1Cor. 1:23-28.Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08627415936514319391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-69394887053122578302007-08-29T16:22:00.000-05:002007-08-29T16:22:00.000-05:00Jeremy,Jesus said:"Unless you believe I AM, you wi...Jeremy,<BR/><BR/>Jesus said:<BR/><BR/><I>"Unless you believe I AM, you will die in your sins"</I><BR/><BR/>Based on your explanation, is it not reasonable for me to ask you how to reconcile your view?<BR/><BR/>The conclusion to Jeremy's own interpretation is:<BR/><BR/><I>"You do NOT believe I AM, yet you shall NOT die in your sins"?</I><BR/><BR/>If you want to talk about exegesis we can. For one thing, let's consider all the other <I>ean me</I> statements related to salvation in Scripture to see if they are explaining a "normal" logical step toward coming to salvation or if they are expressing an absolute condition. I think it is absurd to say our understanding of John 8:24 stating an absolute condition is a misunderstanding based on <I>"tradition"</I>. Your view is that this verse is stating a normative logical step (that applies to some) toward salvation but not an essential condition for all. The only way a person could reach this conclusion is if he is blinded by his own tradition.<BR/><BR/>Your comments on "the Christ" and "the Son of God" reflect a total lack of Scriptural understanding. We didn't even get to this. You want to come in and drop a bomb that "the Son of God" is a term that does not refer to Deity and you do not want to answer for it!? Unbelieveable!! <BR/><BR/>You can criticize me for basing my view on <I>"traditional"</I> misdefinitions, but you do not want to see or deal with the Scriptures that I may have to demonstrate the true Scriptural meaning?<BR/><BR/>BTW, why are you expressing frustration about this discussion with me? You came in here and made some bold statements. I asked you a reasonable question in light of the text of John 8:24. I even said if you did not want to answer, we could move on.<BR/><BR/>-- GregGreghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08627415936514319391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-44058015467788840662007-08-29T14:35:00.000-05:002007-08-29T14:35:00.000-05:00Kevl:Some good thoughts on the post above.It must ...Kevl:<BR/><BR/>Some good thoughts on the post above.<BR/><BR/>It must be made clear that Zane Hodges is the originator and lead advocate for the “<I>Crossless</I>” gospel. Men from Wilkin right down to da Rosa take their cues from him. <BR/><BR/>The extremes to which this doctrine has lead are shocking. I am going to have more to say on Jeremy’s mistreatment of the Lord’s title the “<I>Son of God</I>” in a new article.<BR/><BR/>They claim Scripture lead them to their position, but in fact they have followed the Hodges' interpretation of the Bible, which is and has lead them into error.<BR/><BR/>To reiterate: Hodges is at the root of the “<I>Crossless</I>” gospel. To think he has not been behind the scenes in the recent debate would, IMO be naïve.<BR/><BR/><BR/>LMLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-57788093346865968852007-08-29T14:25:00.000-05:002007-08-29T14:25:00.000-05:00Lou,While reading this article http://www.middleto...Lou,<BR/><BR/>While reading this article http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/doctrine/hodgesov.htm<BR/><BR/>I was surprised to see this statement about Zane Hodges-<BR/><BR/><I><B>Hodges goes so far as to say that it is "totally illicit" (illegal!) to appeal to 1 John 5:4-5 in order to understand who the "overcomer" really is (Grace in Eclipse, p.108). </I></B><BR/><BR/>This book is Circa 1987! It seems that Zane has had issues with proper biblical interpretation for a long time and we are simply seeing the fruit of it now. <BR/><BR/>I very much dislike tearing a person down publicly. Naming names is often not nearly as effective as just preaching good doctrine. But with this movement reaching the momentum that it is.. I think it's important to see the root causes. <BR/><BR/>Maybe, if people could look at the underlying causes they could see past the paradigm. <BR/><BR/>Jeremy closed his discussion here with an exhortation about us believing "traditional misunderstandings". While I am in no way going to judge Scripture by orthodoxy (where would that have left Luther after-all?) I think we need to be wary when someone is departing from proper exegesis and hermeneutic. Good doctrine always comes from good study. And vice versa. <BR/><BR/>KevKevlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18080346872086553798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-22869419459825579172007-08-29T14:15:00.000-05:002007-08-29T14:15:00.000-05:00Hi Jeremy, Sorry to see you leave without reconcil...Hi Jeremy, Sorry to see you leave without reconciliation and unity. <BR/><BR/>I really do hope you do not feel as though I have mischaracterized you or your beliefs. I have tried never to state what you believe but only to quote you and respond to what I believed you were saying. I may have stated what I thought you believe on occassion but I would like you to know that if I did I know it would not have been my intention to twist it. What advantage would there be in that?Kevlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18080346872086553798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-7527276499903972102007-08-29T13:08:00.000-05:002007-08-29T13:08:00.000-05:00Greg and Kev (along with Lou and whoever else...)T...Greg and Kev (along with Lou and whoever else...)<BR/><BR/>Tell you what. I'm not getting anywhere with you since you ignore my explanations of the text and refuse to answer my questions, and I imagine you feel the same way about me. <BR/><BR/>I feel like I'm talking to brick walls who have neither read nor understand the Scriptures. Your arguments and exegesis of Scripture appear to me to be based on traditional misunderstandings of key terms and verses in Scripture. They are completely unpersuasive to me. Again, I'm sure you feel the same way about me. <BR/><BR/>One thing I do ask is that you try to refrain from misrepresenting me and my beliefs. I have been blasted on this site and other sites for mispresentations of your view, and each time, after reconsidering the evidence, I have apologized. I feel that nearly everything written about me on this site is a complete misrepresentation of me and what I believe. If you are not going to really take the time to understand what I believe, don't make up my theology for me. On a similar note, I thorougly reject the "crossless gospel" label since I am in print and on audio as saying that the cross is central to the gospel. If you continue to use that label, it is nothing more than a smear tactic and a straw man fallacy. <BR/><BR/>The bottom line is that neither one of us is getting anywhere with the other. So, I am going to get back to the mission God has called me to, and teach the Word, invite people to believe in Jesus for everlasting life, and disciple those who believe. <BR/><BR/>I know what I believe, and to the best of my ability, I am trying to conform my theology to Scripture, not depending on tradition. I am sure you are trying to do the same thing. <BR/><BR/>So tell you what, go ahead and write about me, criticize me, call me a heretic, whatever. I don't really care. Ignore me if you want. I will be corrected by Jesus when I stand before him at the Judgment seat. Whether I am right or wrong in my theology, I will let Him tell me. But one thing I know for sure. He will not be happy with me if I waste any more of my time debating you. <BR/><BR/>I mean, I found myself neglecting my wife and children last night becuase I was composing a response to Kev. God was not pleased with me and I repent of this sin. <BR/><BR/>Finally, if you really want to know what I believe in these areas, just listen to what I teach on my website, <A HREF="http://www.tillhecomes.org" REL="nofollow">Till He Comes.</A> Eventually, I will be teaching on John 4, John 8, and whatever other passages you have questions about.Jeremy Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01778420126998625079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-46885376450931373492007-08-29T04:59:00.000-05:002007-08-29T04:59:00.000-05:00Hi Jeremy you said "Regarding Isa 45:1, all I can ...Hi Jeremy <BR/><BR/>you said <I>"Regarding Isa 45:1, all I can say is that it sure is a good thing the original author and audience wrote, spoke, and read English so they weren't confused by the Hebrew word "messiach" which is there in the Hebrew."</I><BR/><BR/>Yup you're obviously right. Hebrew words only have one meaning. Usage and context do not affect the intended meaning. <BR/><BR/>You closed with <I> "Maybe you want to change you exegesis of the passage now to make it so that either Jesus doesn't explicitly reveal that He is God, or so that she doesn't understand what Jesus is saying. Of course, as soon as you do this, you ruin the argument that a person has to know, understand, and believe that Jesus is divine in order to be justified." </I><BR/><BR/>Oh how clever! :) I'm tempted to turn this into a personal attack.. really I am. I admit this to be as transparent as I can be. <BR/><BR/>I guess I'll just answer with Scripture. <BR/><BR/>The whole chapter is just a tad more complicated than the way you portray it. <BR/><BR/>She has a conversation with Him. She perceives that He is a Prophet - and He was. He does not correct her. The conversation continues and He tells her "who speak to you am He." of the Messiah. <BR/><BR/>Now did she believe He was God? Look at what the people of her town said in verse 42 "It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is indeed the Savior of the world."<BR/><BR/>Clearly this can not indicate just a Prophet or even a Cyrus or Mose like messiah. It means The Christ, The Messiah - God Himself. <BR/><BR/>Sorry I shant not recant until Scripture reveals that I should. I have no issue at all with being shown I am wrong - I more than welcome it. But reasonings have no authority over Scripture.<BR/><BR/>KevKevlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18080346872086553798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-79335157737402508432007-08-29T03:50:00.000-05:002007-08-29T03:50:00.000-05:00Jeremy, just wanted to know if you planned to dire...Jeremy, just wanted to know if you planned to directly respond to my question:<BR/><BR/><I>When Jesus said "Unless you believe I AM, you will die in your sins," did this apply only to Jews or also to Samaritans and Gentiles?</I><BR/><BR/><I>Am I correct that, according to your view, it could be said to the Samaritans: "You do NOT believe I AM, yet you shall NOT die in your sins"? If so, how do you maintain the veracity of Christ's words in John 8:24?</I><BR/><BR/>If you decline to answer, I will note that, and we can move on to the next point.<BR/><BR/>-- GregGreghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08627415936514319391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-2677814297771086062007-08-28T21:28:00.000-05:002007-08-28T21:28:00.000-05:00Kev,Regarding Isa 45:1, all I can say is that it s...Kev,<BR/><BR/>Regarding Isa 45:1, all I can say is that it sure is a good thing the original author and audience wrote, spoke, and read English so they weren't confused by the Hebrew word "messiach" which is there in the Hebrew. <BR/><BR/>Regarding John 4, let us assume that your condescending explanation of the passage to me is correct. Notice that I am not saying that your explanation is incorrect. I may very well agree with your exegesis, but for now, let's just assume you are correct. <BR/><BR/>The verses you referred to came from John 4:10-15. If you are correct, then Jesus was telling the woman that He was God come in the flesh. Let's assume, as you argue, that she understood what Jesus was saying, and she understood the Scripture passages He was most likely referring to in Jer 2:13, 18; 17:13. These are two very big IFs, which for now I will grant. <BR/><BR/>If all of this is true from John 4:10-15, what do you make of the woman's statement in John 4:19, "Sir, I perceive you are a prophet." <BR/><BR/>If Jesus had just told her that He was God, and shown her by references to Scripture that He was God, isn't her response in 4:19 rather odd? Isn't she, in a nice sort of way, consciously denying His deity? Isn't she saying, "Well, I understand what you are claiming about being God, but I don't believe it. At most, you are a prophet." <BR/><BR/>Let me put it another way. If she understood what Jesus was saying, and if she believed it, 4:19 is an insult to Jesus. If somone tells you "I am God, and here is Scripture to prove it" and you believe them, you don't say "I see that you are a prophet." No, you fall down and worship that person.<BR/><BR/>In the following verses, Jesus stops talking about being living water and being God, and just tries to get her to see that He is more than a prophet, He is the Messiah.<BR/><BR/>This she apparently comes to believe (John 4:29, 39). <BR/><BR/>So, Kev, if your exegesis is correct, here we have discovered an answer to Lou's question. Here we have a biblical example of a person who is presented with the Scriptural truth that Jesus is God, rejects it, but still believes in Him as the Messiah, the Christ. <BR/><BR/>Maybe you want to change you exegesis of the passage now to make it so that either Jesus doesn't explicitly reveal that He is God, or so that she doesn't understand what Jesus is saying. Of course, as soon as you do this, you ruin the argument that a person has to know, understand, and believe that Jesus is divine in order to be justified. <BR/><BR/>Quite a dilemma...Jeremy Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01778420126998625079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-78078152811444046652007-08-28T17:31:00.000-05:002007-08-28T17:31:00.000-05:00Jeremy, I have much to say about your response but...Jeremy, I have much to say about your response but would like to focus on one issue at a time for the sake of managability. You said:<BR/><BR/><I>"Why does Jesus want people to know that He is God? Becuase, as I have spelled out before, if a person does not believe that Jesus is God, it will be nearly impossible for them to believe in Him for everlasting life.<BR/><BR/>But what justifies a person is not that they believe Jesus is God, but that they believe in Him for everalsting life. The fact that He is God brings them to a point where they can believe in Him for everlasting life. This is what Jesus' statements in John 8 reveal. They don't believe in Him because they don't believe He is God."</I><BR/><BR/>You are starting from the premise that all one needs to believe is that there is someone called "Jesus" who guarantees eternal life by faith alone. You said it will be "nearly impossible" for one to believe in "Jesus" for eternal life if he does not believe He is God. Yet, you gave examples of people you thought fit this category. That calls into question the plausibility your entire argument, and it obviously raises Lou's question. <BR/><BR/>In regards to Jesus' statement, <I>"Unless you believe I AM, you will die in your sins."</I> you stated:<BR/><BR/><I>"This is what Jesus' statements in John 8 reveal. They don't believe in Him because they don't believe He is God."</I><BR/><BR/>You appear to admit that John 8:23-24, 28 refer to His deity. Am I correct?<BR/><BR/>Yet, you argue that believing He is God is only a logical step toward believing in Him for eternal life rather than conceding it is essentially involved in believing in Jesus Christ, the Son of God for eternal life.<BR/><BR/>When Jesus said <I>"Unless you believe I AM, you will die in your sins,"</I> did this apply only to Jews or also to Samaritans and Gentiles? <BR/><BR/>Am I correct that, according to your view, it could be said to the Samaritans: <I>"You do NOT believe I AM, yet you shall NOT die in your sins"?</I> If so, how do you maintain the veracity of Christ's words in John 8:24?<BR/><BR/>-- GregGreghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08627415936514319391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-54836905626524295152007-08-28T16:52:00.000-05:002007-08-28T16:52:00.000-05:00Jeremy -I appreciate your exposition - it gives me...Jeremy -<BR/><BR/>I appreciate your exposition - it gives me a lot to think about. I'm starting to see how this all fits together. Thanks for taking the time to give such a thorough, Biblical answer.<BR/><BR/>JLJon Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16942165441339559170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-40269326261884979952007-08-28T16:44:00.000-05:002007-08-28T16:44:00.000-05:00Hi Jeremy, You said "You are right that in John, t...Hi Jeremy, <BR/><BR/>You said <I><B>"<BR/>You are right that in John, the terms "Christ" and "son of God" are in apposition, but if neither "Christ" nor "Son of God" inherently refer to deity, then it is quite likely that in the days of Jesus, someone could believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God, and NOT understand, know, or believe that He is divine.</I></B><BR/><BR/>Yup that's why the Pharisees and Scribes didn't care when He said He was the Son of God... this is why they never accused Him of blasphemy when He said such...<BR/><BR/>It's pointless to argue this with you. You need to read the Gospels. <BR/><BR/>Isa 45:1 firstly I couldn't find a translation that actually translates this as "messiah" let alone "the Messiah" Shouldn't tell us to look at the Hebrew unless what you're saying is actually there - we're gonna look. This is "God's anointed for a purpose" much like Jesus was anointed "for a purpose" which is why when we read "The Christ" we need to see the purpose. <BR/><BR/>Further John 4.<BR/><BR/>Do I really need to lead you through this? I suspect I shouldn't... <BR/><BR/>Jesus says "if you knew the gift of God and Who it is Who asks you..." and then goes on to talk about "living water" that would keep you from being thirsty again. Ever wonder what "living water" means? It doesn't mean the water is alive. What is the gift of God? It is the water and the bread and the quail given to Israel in the wilderness. She knew this. She was apparently familiar with the Scriptures from her confession. <BR/><BR/>Jesus just identified Himself as able to give the gift of God that would give life - and not just temporal life. Eternal Life. Now who can "give" the "gift of God" - God only. <BR/><BR/>KevKevlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18080346872086553798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-6072256213020071162007-08-28T15:29:00.000-05:002007-08-28T15:29:00.000-05:00Greg, Thank you. Finally some texts to discuss. Re...Greg, <BR/><BR/>Thank you. Finally some texts to discuss. <BR/><BR/>Regarding the biblical usage of the term "Christ" I did not get this from some "GES Mantra" but from the lexicons and word study tools that are available in any Bible college or Seminary. Even without the Lexicons and word study tools (since they sometimes make mistakes) a word study that can be done by anybody will reveal that since Cyrus is called the Messiah in Isa 45 (check the Hebrew), the term cannot and does not inherently refer to deity. Extrabiblical literature confirms this as well. <BR/><BR/>Regarding the term "Son of God" the Biblical usage doesn't fit your claim either. After all, we have the "sons of God" in Genesis 6, as well as the statement in Hos 1:10 that Israelites were sons of God. Even from the mouth of Jesus, we are told that we will be sons of God (Matt 5:9). The argument that these are plurals and when used of Jesus it is singular won't work due to the most basic of grammatical rules that plurals are used when referring to groups, and singulars are used when referring to a single entity. <BR/><BR/>You are right that in John, the terms "Christ" and "son of God" are in apposition, but if neither "Christ" nor "Son of God" inherently refer to deity, then it is quite likely that in the days of Jesus, someone could believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God, and NOT understand, know, or believe that He is divine. <BR/><BR/>Nevertheless, as you point out with a few references from John, one of the points Jesus was trying to make (which John reveals over and over through his gospel) is that Jesus truly was divine. Through His teachings and His miracles, Jesus was trying to prove that He wasn't just the Messiah, the son of God...He actually WAS GOD in the flesh. This is the whole point of His words in John 8. <BR/><BR/>Why does Jesus want people to know that He is God? Becuase, as I have spelled out before, if a person does not believe that Jesus is God, it will be nearly impossible for them to believe in Him for everlasting life. <BR/><BR/>But what justifies a person is not that they believe Jesus is God, but that they believe in Him for everalsting life. The fact that He is God brings them to a point where they can believe in Him for everlasting life. This is what Jesus' statements in John 8 reveal. They don't believe in Him because they don't believe He is God. <BR/><BR/>Once again, this passage does not deal with Lou's question. He wants to know about somebody who doesn't believe Jesus is divine, but does believe in Him for eternal life. Nobody in this passage falls into that category. Most of them don't believe He is divine, and so also don't believe He has eternal life. There are some who apparently believe both (8:30). <BR/><BR/>So does belief that Jesus is God justify somebody? No. But it certainly helps bring a person to the point where they can believe in Jesus for everlasting life. <BR/><BR/>This is how I understand John 8. <BR/><BR/>Now I would like to see your explanation of John 4. I did not get this from Zane Hodges. I didn't even know he talked about this passage in his article. This woman didn't understand the deity of Jesus, nor the death and resurrection of Jesus. Was she not justified when she believe in Him?Jeremy Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01778420126998625079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-75658893800411098192007-08-28T14:41:00.000-05:002007-08-28T14:41:00.000-05:00Jeremy:For over an hour I have pondered how I migh...Jeremy:<BR/><BR/>For over an hour I have pondered how I might reply to your latest post. Initially, I had something quite different in mind, but I have prayed and believe the less said the better.<BR/><BR/>“<I>If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men</I>,” (<B>Rom. 12:18</B>).<BR/><BR/>For several days it has been apparent that the possibility for any productive interaction with you has ceased to be possible. <BR/><BR/>From here I will address the “<I>Crossless</I>” gospel, and when I refer to your egregious doctrinal errors it will primarily be in third person.<BR/><BR/><BR/>LM<BR/><BR/>PS: I am only vaguely familiar with John. Jeremy paints with the <I>guilt-by-association</I> broad brush.Lou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.com