tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post3071978380704266158..comments2024-02-27T03:28:22.684-06:00Comments on In Defense of the Gospel: False Paradigms of the “Crossless” Gospel, #2Lou Martuneachttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comBlogger64125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-80874342132017812742007-08-31T14:16:00.000-05:002007-08-31T14:16:00.000-05:00Dear FGD:No, I'll leave it, I know you meant well....Dear FGD:<BR/><BR/>No, I'll leave it, I know you meant well.<BR/><BR/>I would encourage Bob Wilkin to take advantage of this opportunity. After all, he has been pressing for a debate/open forum on the issue, and you are providing a neutral site/venue. <BR/><BR/>I am beginning to believe one of us who rejects the Hodges/Wilkin "<I>Crossless</I>" gospel would be very willing to engage Bob at your site.<BR/><BR/>Thanks,<BR/><BR/><BR/>LouLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-2715599196403629872007-08-31T13:35:00.000-05:002007-08-31T13:35:00.000-05:00My apologies. That was not my intention. Please ...My apologies. That was not my intention. Please delete my posts. Thank you.erratabothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00495622987915444910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-66036190319487530042007-08-31T13:20:00.000-05:002007-08-31T13:20:00.000-05:00Mr. FGD:It is usually not in good taste to encoura...Mr. FGD:<BR/><BR/>It is usually not in good taste to encourage folks, especially a contributor (Greg), at one blog to go to another site and take an on-going discussion to the other site. <BR/><BR/>I am beginning to warm to the idea of your site hosting a debate between Bob Wilkin and anotner man from the opposing view.<BR/><BR/>In the meantime, feel free to particpate here.<BR/><BR/>Thanks,<BR/><BR/><BR/>LouLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-14496224583429654442007-08-31T11:22:00.000-05:002007-08-31T11:22:00.000-05:00Greg,You seem to make a compelling case, based on ...Greg,<BR/><BR/>You seem to make a compelling case, based on Romans 10:9-10, that an understanding and explicit belief that God raised Jesus from the dead is an essential component of justifying faith. Why don’t you throw out a challenge to formally debate the matter online and see if anybody will accept the challenge. While you certainly are under no obligation to do so, I have set the proposal up on <A HREF="http://freegracedebates.blogspot.com/2007/08/resolved-romans-109-10-does-or-does-not.html" REL="nofollow"> Free Grace Debates </A> in the event you’re so inclined to argue for the affirmative.erratabothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00495622987915444910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-84894654249329318712007-08-31T07:05:00.000-05:002007-08-31T07:05:00.000-05:00How can that be true when Paul said "the message o...<B>How can that be true when Paul said "the message of the cross" </B><BR/><BR/>The message of the Cross is sacrificial and one of selflessness. Jesus came as a humble servant and gave Himself up to die on the Cross. This is a fact and though God letting the creature put Him to death may seem like foolishness to those with a hardened heart - it is extremely beautiful to those who open themselves up to this truth.<BR/><BR/>That is the drawing power of the Cross.Jon Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16942165441339559170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-76842929800545539072007-08-30T01:50:00.000-05:002007-08-30T01:50:00.000-05:00Brother Danny,I am going to make a longer post bec...Brother Danny,<BR/><BR/>I am going to make a longer post because I believe your heart is opened and I am personally concerned about you. I realize the long post will turn off some people, but this is for you.<BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/><BR/><I>But yes, justification/eternal life in 10:10 is conditioned on believing that Jesus is raised from the dead. Greg, stick with me here.</I><BR/><BR/>Danny, let me stop right here and comment. The fact that you are about to argue that justification is NOT conditioned on believing that Jesus is raised from the dead should raise a red flag in light of your comment above.<BR/><BR/>Let me say that I understand your respect for the men behind GES. Some of their writings, particularly Hodges on James 2, were instrumental in bringing me to "free grace". I understand exactly how their "bare minimum of saving faith" is sort of a neatly-packaged proposal. I understand their arguments about the Gospel of John. The problem is, their conclusions do not line up with Scripture. Serious mental gymnastics are needed to somehow make their view jive with several verses. Romans 10:9-10 is one of them. The result is violence against God's Holy Word.<BR/><BR/>You continued:<BR/><BR/><I>In Romans 10:10, believing that Jesus is raised from the dead means being justified (and thus resulting in eternal life). I don't dispute that. Since most of Christendom believes that Jesus is raised from the dead, while denying justification by faith at the same time, Paul obviously has justification by faith in mind when he makes that statement, since he states that Jesus was raised for our justification earlier in Romans 4:25. Like I said before, the normal, God-commissioned way for someone to believe Jesus' Promise of eternal life is to first understand how he secured that gift - by dying for our sins and being raised, thus giving him the authority to freely give us eternal life. </I><BR/><BR/>You are saying the phrase <I>"if...believe you believe in your heart God raised Him from the dead"</I> is the normal means by which a person comes to believe in Jesus' promise of eternal life. However, you are saying there can be exceptions. You are saying a person can get saved while NOT believing God raised Him from the dead.<BR/><BR/>Danny, why is your paradigm so important to protect that you can't just admit the obvious? If this verse conditions eternal life on believing Jesus is raised from the dead, why not just admit it is essential to believe God raised Him from the dead? Why not admit that after Jesus was raised, this is part of the gospel that is essential to believe for salvation? Believing Jesus is raised from the dead is essentially involved in believing in Jesus for eternal life. The Jesus we are to believe in is the Jesus who was raised from the dead.<BR/><BR/>The fact there are all these verses that predicate salvation upon believing certain truths yet you guys explain them away should raise a red flag.<BR/><BR/>You just admitted Rom. 10:9-10 conditions eternal life on believing Jesus is raised from the dead. Yet, you argue that is normative step toward believing the promise, not an absolute condition. <B>That is a red flag.</B><BR/><BR/>Jeremy Myers just made the same argument on John 8:24 where Jesus said, <I>"Unless you believe that I AM, you will see in your sins."</I> He admitted this predicated salvation on believing Christ's deity, but only in the sense of a normative logical step toward believing the promise. He gave an example of people he said did NOT believe "I AM" yet were saved. In other words, the conclusion is <I>"You DO NOT believe I AM, yet you shall NOT die in your sins."</I> That turns the verse flat on its face. <B>That is a red flag.</B><BR/><BR/>Jon Lee made the same argument on 1Cor. 1:17-23 which equates <I>"the gospel"</I> with <I>"the message of the cross"</I>. As you know, Danny, dozens of passages predicate salvation upon believing <I>"the gospel"</I> not PART of "the gospel" (cf. 2Thes. 1:8). It seems Paul thought the gospel was completely perverted if ANY part of it were changed or taken away (Gal. 1:6-9). 1Cor. 1:18 indicates it is <I>"the message of the cross"</I> that divides the saved and the lost. If this isn't exactly true, why did not Paul just say it is <I>"the guarantee of everlasting life to all believers"</I> that divides the saved and the lost? In 1Cor. 1:21, Paul indicates it is by the message of the cross it has pleased God to <I>"save those who believe"</I>. Danny, if you read this passage carefully, you will see this isn't just the "normal way" God wants to save people. It is the ONLY way. Yet, Jon says the message of the cross is just an instrument to convince the lost to believe the promise. The Bible conditions salvation upon believing the message of the cross. Jon Lee says the message of the cross is just a normal way of drawing people but not essential. <B>That is a red flag.</B><BR/><BR/>In regards to <I>"the message of the cross"</I>, let me ask a question. Jon Lee says that this is just a normal people to draw people to the offer but non-essential itself. How can that be true when Paul said <I>"the message of the cross"</I> and <I>"Christ crucified"</I> was <I>"to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness"</I>? If Paul insisted on preaching this when it was a stumblingblock, it must have been an essential stumblingblock. Christ's work is essentially wrapped up in His identity. That is why He can now be called <I>"Christ crucified"</I> (1Cor. 1:23; 2:2).<BR/><BR/>Danny, if our view is true, how could we possibly prove you wrong? Every time a verse clearly shows what the lost must believe to be saved, you guys just keep saying that is a normative, logical step toward believing the promise but not essential itself! How can you prove your contention exegetically from these passages themselves? I suspect you cannot. I suspect you will need to resort to GES mantra.<BR/><BR/>Allow me to return to your comments on Romans 10.<BR/><BR/>I think you are exactly right about justification by faith alone being connected, in Paul's mind, with what he says in Romans 10:9-10. In fact, this immediate section started with how <I>"the righteousness of faith speaks"</I>. He incorporated a Hebrew idiom from the OT that speaks of the impossibility of a task. In light of Christ's completed work, we should not seek justification by the impossible task of keeping the law. We should rest upon Christ's completed work. The righteousness of faith appeals to and rests upon the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who <I>"was delivered up for our offenses and raised for our justification"</I> 4:25). If you follow Paul's thought from 9:30-10:10, I think you will find further support for your point above the connection between these concepts. <BR/><BR/>All this refutes the common GES argument, <I>"People believe Christ was raised from the dead and remain unsaved. Therefore, this is not salvific truth"</I>. However, Paul assumes in Rom. 10:9-10 and other places that you believe the significance of what he is saying. Paul did not have Christ's resurrection isolated from the other truths of the gospel. Danny, this is an important point. No truth of the gospel is "salvific" if it is isolated from the other essential truths of the gospel. For example, crossless gospel advocates say, <I>"Many people believe Jesus is God yet remain unsaved. So this is not salvific."</I> Danny, did you know that not even <I>"eternal life by faith alone"</I> is salvific? If you isolate this truth by itself, even in your view, it is not "salvific". Even Zane Hodges says John 6:47 by itself is insufficient without 43a which names "Jesus". So it is not legitimate for crossless advocates to isolate a single truth, say unsaved people believe it, then claim "it is not salvific". We could say the same about another element of the GES view. They claim the name "Jesus" is essential yet many people believe the Savior's name is "Jesus" yet remain unsaved. Therefore, it is not essential. <BR/><BR/>Danny, the lost must believe "the gospel". Christ's resurrection is the pinnacle of the gospel. It implies the other truths as well. If He was raised from the dead, obviously He died. If He died, He obviously came in the flesh. We are not to put our faith in a non-human spirit or some Messiah yet to come like Israel. It implies His work on the cross is completed and accepted by God. It proves He is the Son of God Rom. 1:4). What you will see over and over, Danny, is that the gospel is centered and grounded upon the real, historical fact of Christ's death and resurrection which is mentioned in 1Cor. 15:3-4 and upon which the gospel centers upon. The gospel does not center upon how man can experience some sort of eternal, godless pleasure that is allowed for in the crossless view. It centers upon what God has done through His Son in real history to reconcile the world to Himself. There is NO saving "gospel" apart from this. Period.<BR/><BR/>According to the Scriptural pattern, the offer of eternal life only flows from the objective truths of the gospel. In all the verses that actually identify the actual content of faith necessary for salvation, they emphasize either the real historical work of Jesus Christ or the essential elements that identify the Person of Jesus Christ. It is essential to believe the Son of God (divine) came in the flesh to die for our sins, rise again, and so that we could be eternally reconciled to God on the basis of faith in Him alone. Scripture supports this over and over. I am praying you will repent, Danny. I know this is not a decision you take lightly. But it is essential. I truly believe that Jesus Christ is personally very concerned with everything at stake for His Church in this unfortunate controversy.<BR/><BR/>I will leave you with a question, not so much to answer, but to think about.<BR/><BR/>In Romans 10:9-10, why summarize the gospel by which a man "believes into righteousness" with a non-essential element!? This would have been a perfect place to say, "If a man believes in His heart that Jesus guarantees eternal life by faith alone." When Scripture talks about the gospel, it emphasizes Christ's historical redemptive work because this is what it is centered upon and the offer of eternal life only flows from this.<BR/><BR/>Sincerely,<BR/>GregGreghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08627415936514319391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-64181461039189094282007-08-29T03:38:00.000-05:002007-08-29T03:38:00.000-05:00Hi Danny, the other day I spent some time replying...Hi Danny, the other day I spent some time replying to your post, thought I posted it, and when I looked it wasn't there! That's okay though, I take that as Providential. I have been pressed for time the last few days but will reply to you soon.<BR/><BR/>-- GregGreghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08627415936514319391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-40405775681612175552007-08-28T17:46:00.000-05:002007-08-28T17:46:00.000-05:00Hi Greg. I'm sure you saw my response. I think y...Hi Greg. I'm sure you saw my response. I think you know that I believe that Romans 10:10 contains both eternal life/justification (believe unto righteousness) and confess unto salvation [in this life]. Regardless, I hope you noticed that I affirmed that Paul is saying that believing Jesus is raised from the dead is indeed saving faith, since Paul is obviously thinking of people who believe Jesus is raised specifically for their permanent justification. :) <BR/><BR/>I also want to say that I can no longer answer with an affirmative "yes" that a person who rejects the Deity can be saved. I'm not sure, but leaning toward the view that rejecting the Diety can't lead to saving faith. Of course, I already stated that I find it highly unlikely that anyone who rejects the Diety would actually believe the promise of eternal life. I can't answer with an affirmative "no" either. But again, I've always believed that a person who rejects the deity is unliley to believe the promise. And I always have and always will proclaim the Death/Resurrection.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-19273956805213985222007-08-28T16:51:00.000-05:002007-08-28T16:51:00.000-05:00You're right Greg this is not at all about tempora...You're right Greg this is not at all about temporal. <BR/><BR/>Thanks for sending me back to it.<BR/><BR/>KevKevlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18080346872086553798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-55157195216492340042007-08-28T14:57:00.000-05:002007-08-28T14:57:00.000-05:00Kev, I know where you're coming from. Please pray...Kev, I know where you're coming from. Please pray for me in terms of understanding and communicating on this issue. I'll do the same for you.<BR/><BR/>As far as Rom. 10, notice the interchange of "righteousness" and "save" in 9:30-10:4. Regardless of how one takes "save" in 10:10, everybody, as far as I know, agrees that "believe unto RIGHTEOUSNESS" refers to justification, which is also when a person is saved from hell. You probably know this already, but the term "righteousness" and "justify" are translations of different forms of the same Greek word.<BR/><BR/>-- GregGreghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08627415936514319391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-32962822981906894062007-08-28T04:56:00.000-05:002007-08-28T04:56:00.000-05:00Thanks Greg, I'm very much enjoying your posts. I'...Thanks Greg, <BR/><BR/>I'm very much enjoying your posts. I've been on a wild ride of learning for two years. The last 6 months or so seem to have been about getting rid of religion and man's theology and bringing in God's Truth. <BR/><BR/>I still have a lot of ideas that are caused by what I've been taught by men in my head. I've been purging them as I find them.. but sometimes they are so incidious that I can't recognize that they are there. <BR/><BR/>I'll be looking into the temporal vs eternal aspects of Rom 10. Vs 10 does seem to make it of eternal and not temporal. <BR/><BR/>Thanks,<BR/>KevKevlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18080346872086553798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-28677764281831721222007-08-28T01:08:00.000-05:002007-08-28T01:08:00.000-05:00Kev, you said:"...If you do something then you are...Kev, you said:<BR/><BR/>"<I>...If you do something then you are saved does not equate to if you don't do that you are not saved...Romans 10:9-10 is not proclaiming the whole Gospel or even the Gospel. It's a heart issue that he's dealing with. It can apply to both temporal and Eternal Salvation. In order to truly make those statements you'd have to have believed the Gospel - which is what saves a person.</I><BR/><BR/>Kev, notice in my original question to Danny I said this: <I>"Danny, for right now, I am not asking you what it means to confess Jesus is Lord. I want to direct your attention to the phrases 'believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead' and 'with the heart one believes unto righteousness...'</I><BR/><BR/>Although I disagree with the temporal salvation view on this passage, I specifically avoided the word "save". At this point, I don't think it would be profitable for me to deal with this issue on the blog boards.<BR/><BR/>Notice that I specifically pointed out <I>"believe unto righteousness..." (v. 10)</I>. This certainly refers to justification, not temporal salvation (cf. Rom. 9:30-10:4). I do not know of anybody who denies that.<BR/><BR/>The immediately preceding verse (v. 9) describes the content of "believeth" as: <I> "believe in thy heart that God hath raised him from the dead..."</I> I agree with you and Danny that this does not detail all the aspects of the content of faith, but it certainly shows the resurrection is involved.<BR/><BR/>I think <I>"believing God raised Him from the dead"</I> is the pinnacle of the gospel. His death meant nothing if He was not raised. The fact that God raised Him from the dead also implies the other truths of the gospel - that He died for our sins, that He is man, that He is God, and justification is by faith alone. If you follow Paul's statements in Rom. 1:4, 3:19-26, 4:22-35, and 9:30-10:9, you can see how the whole gospel is summarized (though not detailed) in the 10:9 <I>"...God raised Him from the dead"</I> (Rom. 10:9).<BR/><BR/>My question to Danny regarded this particular phrase.Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08627415936514319391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-91169925943694786242007-08-27T03:06:00.000-05:002007-08-27T03:06:00.000-05:00Lou, good point. It is amazing most crossless gosp...Lou, good point. It is amazing most crossless gospel advocates do not realize the significance of the connection between "the Christ" and "the Son of God" which go together throughout all Scripture including the Gospel of John (e.g. John 20:31).<BR/><BR/>Psalm 2:2-7, 12:<BR/>The kings of the earth set themselves, And the rulers take counsel together, Against the LORD and against <B>His Anointed (Messiah/Christ)</B>, saying, "Let us break Their bonds in pieces And cast away Their cords from us." He who sits in the heavens shall laugh; The LORD shall hold them in derision. Then He shall speak to them in His wrath, And distress them in His deep displeasure: "Yet I have set My King On My holy hill of Zion." "I will declare the decree: The LORD has said to Me, 'You are <B>My Son</B>, Today I have begotten You....kiss the <B>Son</B>, lest He be angry and you perish.<BR/><BR/>Psalms 45:6-7:<BR/>Your throne, <B>O God</B>, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom. You love righteousness and hate wickedness; Therefore <B>God</B>, Your God, has <B>anointed</B> You With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.<BR/><BR/>Matthew 22:42-45:<BR/>"What do you think about the <B>Christ</B>? Whose <B>Son</B> is He?" They said to Him, "The Son of David." He said to them, "How then does David in the Spirit call Him 'LORD,' saying: 'THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, "SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, TILL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES YOUR FOOTSTOOL" '? If David then calls Him 'LORD,' how is He his Son?"<BR/><BR/>Heb. 1:8<BR/>But to the <B>Son</B> He says: "YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER...<BR/><BR/>These verses and many more contradict the GES assertion that "Christ" simply means "guarantor of eternal life" but has nothing to do with Deity. Jeremy Myers claimed this when he scolded you on 1John 2:22-23 which actually interchanges "Christ" and "Son".<BR/><BR/>The point about the essential connection between God-Savior is repeated in scores of passages. This is also Christ's point when He said:<BR/><BR/>"And He said to them, "You are from beneath; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I AM, you will die in your sins." (John 8:23-24)<BR/><BR/>"When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and that I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me, I speak these things." (John 8:28)<BR/><BR/>The background for these statements is this:<BR/><BR/>"You are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that you may know, and believe me, and understand that I MYSELF AM. Before me there was no God formed, and after me there shall be none. I AM, I AM the LORD [Jehovah/the I AM]: and there is no Saviour besides me." (Isaiah 43:10-11).<BR/><BR/>Like you said, an understanding of Christ's Saviorhood must flow from an understanding of His Deity. For salvation, he cannot be believed in as one without the other.<BR/><BR/>-- GregGreghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08627415936514319391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-29995149190498755012007-08-26T08:27:00.000-05:002007-08-26T08:27:00.000-05:00Kevl/All:Jesus "Christ" has to be deity if He is t...Kevl/All:<BR/><BR/>Jesus "Christ" has to be deity if He is the Savior and as the "<I>Crossless</I>" advocates say, the "Guarantor of eternal life."<BR/><BR/><BR/>LMLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-72221825030811374792007-08-26T07:37:00.000-05:002007-08-26T07:37:00.000-05:00I suspect the answer to my description of John 20:...I suspect the answer to my description of John 20:30-31 will be that John only told the things so that you'd believe He is the Christ. <BR/><BR/>The answer to that is actually in my post - Who is the Christ? What does it mean to be "The Christ"?Kevlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18080346872086553798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-69092384485487551692007-08-26T07:12:00.000-05:002007-08-26T07:12:00.000-05:00Hi Danny, Greg - and everyone else who are being q...Hi Danny, Greg - and everyone else who are being quiet. :)<BR/><BR/>Greg's up first. Greg I'm learning a TON from you in this whole discussion. But, when we use Romans 10:9-10 in this way (and I have too) we make the same mistake that the Lordship camp makes. <BR/><BR/>If you do something then you are saved does not equate to if you don't do that you are not saved. <BR/><BR/>For example if you drink orange juice you will drink water. But this is not to say that if you drink water you'll drink orange juice. <BR/><BR/>Romans 10:9-10 is not proclaiming the whole Gospel or even the Gospel. It's a heart issue that he's dealing with. It can apply to both temporal and Eternal Salvation. In order to truly make those statements you'd have to have believed the Gospel - which is what saves a person. <BR/><BR/>Danny, <BR/><BR/>I'm gonna be even worse with you. :) hehe I am enjoying your comments. I think you're wrong, but I enjoy that you are willing to work this through. <BR/><BR/>You said <I><B>Again, this whole fight is over an abnormal, hypothetical situation. </I></B><BR/><BR/>My best advice - drop it then. I don't think this hypothetical situation is even possible - BUT my real reason for tell you to drop it is that none of those we are to emulate even gave it consideration. Why would we?<BR/><BR/>The whole sentence reads <BR/><B>John 20:30-31</B> 30Many other signs therefore also Jesus did before his disciples, which are not written in this book;<BR/><BR/> 31but these are written that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life in his name. <BR/><BR/>"but these things are written" <BR/><BR/>John doesn't separate these things from who He is. <BR/><BR/>The Christ is God's Annointed who John the Baptist taught is the Lamb of God. The two are connected. He is God's Anointed to be the Lamb of God. <BR/><BR/>John is proclaiming you need to know the Christ to be saved not just believe in some word or name for eternal life.<BR/><BR/>KevKevlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18080346872086553798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-1963963971625058552007-08-26T03:32:00.000-05:002007-08-26T03:32:00.000-05:00Hi Greg. First let me say that Romans 10:9-13 dist...Hi Greg. First let me say that Romans 10:9-13 distinguishes justification/eternal life from some sort of "salvation" that I'll get to explain. But yes, justification/eternal life in 10:10 is conditioned on believing that Jesus is raised from the dead. Greg, stick with me here. In Romans 10:10, believing that Jesus is raised from the dead means being justified (and thus resulting in eternal life). I don't dispute that. Since most of Christendom believes that Jesus is raised from the dead, while denying justification by faith at the same time, Paul obviously has justification by faith in mind when he makes that statement, since he states that Jesus was raised for our justification earlier in Romans 4:25. Like I said before, the normal, God-commissioned way for someone to believe Jesus' Promise of eternal life is to first understand how he secured that gift - by dying for our sins and being raised, thus giving him the authority to freely give us eternal life. All of us crossless folks do proclaim the Cross/Resurrection because it shows how Jesus purchased the gift and why it is free (and we've been ordered to do so by Scripture). :)The whole crossless debate is over a hypothetical, special case, which doesn't happen all that often. <BR/><BR/>So yes, preaching the Death and Resurrection is the God-ordained way to deliver the message of eternal life by faith alone. The person who believes that Jesus is raised for his justification, believing that through His Death/Resurrection Jesus has given him eternal life, is indeed saved. <BR/><BR/>But notice that the "salvation" in Romans 10:9-13 is distinguished from justification. The normal way a person believes unto righteousness is by believing that Jesus was raised from the dead (knowing that he has eternal life as a result of Jesus being raised for his justification). Justification is a pre-requisite to the "salvation" of Romans 10:9-13. A person receives this "salvation" by meeting two requirements. First, the person has to have eternal life. He gets eternal life by believing that Jesus is raised from the dead for his permanent justification. Then he confesses that Jesus is Lord, which is the same as calling on the name of the Lord. Romans 10:14 makes it clear that believing precedes calling. All throughout Scripture, and even in Romans 10:10, believing makes one righteous/brings eternal life. Calling the name of the Lord is something one who has already believed the saving message does. He does this to receive another kind of "salvation". A Christians calls on the name of the Lord to be delivered from some sort of persecution. The confessing of Romans 10:9 and calling of 10:13 is the same thing. Romans 10:13 quotes Joel 2:32, where Jews are calling on the Lord to be delivered. And it's obvious that Joel 2 has nothing to do with eternal salvation. And I'm sure the confession has to do with confession in both word/deed. So the person who believes unto righteousness receives justification, and then he can call on the name of the Lord to be saved from whatever danger he faces. This is directed toward the Jews since Romans 9-11 is dealing primarily with them. Paul's desire was for the Jews to be saved, which is describing much more than just eternal salvation. They need to be justified by believing in Jesus, and they need to call/confess to be "saved" from calamity.<BR/><BR/>OK, I think I wrote enough. :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-81425112064191241052007-08-26T02:45:00.000-05:002007-08-26T02:45:00.000-05:00Danny, I have a question for you.Crossless gospel ...Danny, I have a question for you.<BR/><BR/>Crossless gospel advocates say that a man need not believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ to be saved. <BR/><BR/>Yet Romans 10:9-10 indicates: <I> "that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and <B>believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead</B>, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness..."</I><BR/><BR/>Danny, for right now, I am not asking you what it means to confess Jesus is Lord. I want to direct your attention to the phrases <I>"believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead"</I> and <I>"with the heart one believes unto righteousness..."</I><BR/><BR/>I would like to ask you to change your view in order to yield to the statement of Scripture. This verse indicates it is essential to believe in Christ's resurrection for salvation.<BR/><BR/>However you respond, please do not relay the false paradigm "Catholics believe He was raised, so it cannot be necessary". Catholics also believe His name is "Jesus" yet you claim that is necessary. We can't discount a verse like this by resorting to some other man-made argument. How do you understand it?<BR/><BR/>If you need time to study and pray about it, I understand.<BR/><BR/>-- GregGreghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08627415936514319391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-46170878315608732242007-08-26T02:36:00.000-05:002007-08-26T02:36:00.000-05:00Danny, I have a couple brief comments in response ...Danny, I have a couple brief comments in response to 2Cor. 5:20-21 and faith. I may reply to your other posts and comments later.<BR/><BR/>Crossless gospel advocates teach a person can be saved while not believing Jesus came to earth, that He is the Son of God, that He died for our sins, and that He rose again -- as long as he believes in someone named "Jesus" for eternal wellness.<BR/><BR/>Danny, I agree with your comment that reconciliation to God is to be understood as a permanent reconciliation to God. On the flip side, "everlasting life" is also to be understood as a permanent reconciliation to God, not just some eternal godless existance that the crossless gospel allows for. I commented on this briefly in the Paradigm #1 article. The Gospel of John, in harmony with the rest of Scripture, presents "eternal life" not just as some sort of generic well-being but a reconciled relationship to God.<BR/><BR/>You posted some comments by Dr. John Niemela on whether faith is active or passive. Let me explain the Scriptural view like this: faith involves both God's persuading and man's choice to agree. Dr. Niemela errors in the comments you posted because he denies a person's choice is involved in terms of responding to the Truth that compells a response. <BR/><BR/>First, Dr. Niemela admits the undeniable that the imperative command expects a volitional response: <I> "Commands to believe do expect a volitional response." </I><BR/><BR/>Let me stop there. If you admit faith involves a "volitional response" then it is double-talk to say that faith does not involve a decision.<BR/><BR/>Dr. Niemela finds himself trapped with this clear point about the imperative command to believe. He then evades the obvious: <I> "The unbeliever obeys the command [to believe] by exposing himself or herself to biblical truth, allowing God’s word to make its persuasive case."</I><BR/><BR/>This is obviously false. Exposing oneself to Biblical truth is not the same as choosing to agree with that truth, which is clearly conveyed in the command to believe.<BR/><BR/>What does Dr. Niemela think it means to obey the command to "BELIEVE"? He gives examples: open the Book... talk to Christians... expose yourself to the message. Danny, you said the command to believe means a person must make a decision to either search the Scripturs, read the Bible, listen to a Gospel presentation, etc.<BR/><BR/>There are many people who make a decision to search the Scriptures, read the Bible, and listen to Gospel Presentations that never get saved. So if "believe" only means "put yourself in a position where you can hear the word", then the promise <I>"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved" </I>is not true. Does a person receive salvation when he "puts himself in a position to hear the word?" or when he believes? When he believes. Obviously, the imperative to believe means something beyond putting yourself in a position to hear. It means to agree with that truth. <BR/><BR/>It is amazing that a man like Dr. Niemela who would argue against the false definitions Lordship advocates give to "believe", i.e., "yield, obey" will then give a darn near similar definition himself when he defines it as search the Scriptures, go to church, talk to Christians, ect. Danny, you know that is NOT what the word "believe" means.<BR/><BR/>If the "imperative" to "believe" meant to search the Scriptures or seek truth, why didn't the speaker just say "seek truth"? Why didn't the speaker just say "put yourself in a position where you are ready to hear God's word?"<BR/><BR/>Dr. Niemela then makes the same argument Zane Hodges made about the fact you can't just choose to believe something you empirically know is false. I already explained why that is a false argument. The issue of believing the gospel is not a matter of empirical, intellectual persuasion. The Lord is already working to persuade. It is not unreasonable to ask a man to choose to believe the gospel because the Word compells a response yet allows men to choose how they will respond, i.e., by accepting that truth or rejecting that truth. The command to "believe" means to accept that truth.<BR/><BR/>Dr. Niemela is bordering on half-truth because the issue of salvation does involve God convicting, drawing, and persuading man-kind. The gospel does make its persuasive case. But men have a choice in how they respond.<BR/><BR/>The command "believe" involves a choice not just to hear the gospel but to agree with it. That is a fact that even brilliant men like Dr. Niemela and Zane Hodges may talk around but will never be able to escape.<BR/><BR/>Men can choose whether to agree with the truth or suppress it (cf. Rom. 1:18ff). It is double-talk to say man's volition is involved in suppressing it but that it is not involved in accepting it. <BR/><BR/>"And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." (Revelation 22:17)<BR/><BR/>-- GregGreghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08627415936514319391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-57155782858250555622007-08-26T01:23:00.000-05:002007-08-26T01:23:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08627415936514319391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-62833870191964049922007-08-25T23:02:00.000-05:002007-08-25T23:02:00.000-05:00Hi Kevl. According to John 20:31, believing that ...Hi Kevl. According to John 20:31, believing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God gives one life. Martha believed this, therefore she received eternal life, probably before Jesus even asked her. I would say she had already believed and already had life before Jesus asked her the question. Jesus just asked her if she believed His words with the future readers in mind.<BR/><BR/>Another thing Kevl. All of us "crossless" advocates proclaim the Death and Resurrection. This whole fight is over a hypothetical situation that none of us, "crosless" or "crossful", find to be normal. We all preach the Cross and Resurrection because that is what Jesus and Paul commissioned us all to do. Most people will not believe until they know about the Death/Resurrection. Again, this whole fight is over an abnormal, hypothetical situation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-51625353555583688182007-08-25T22:32:00.000-05:002007-08-25T22:32:00.000-05:00Hi Danny,We are not told that she was saved for he...Hi Danny,<BR/><BR/>We are not told that she was saved for her faith of John 11:25-27. <BR/><BR/>To say this is how she got saved is to force a understanding onto the Text. Not to allow the Text to guide our understanding.<BR/><BR/>I am encouraged to see you working the truth of the Gospel through. Do not be fearful of recanting on past ideas. If the new idea is Biblical the old idea needs to be crucified. <BR/><BR/>KevKevlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18080346872086553798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-12567351501506576602007-08-25T20:09:00.000-05:002007-08-25T20:09:00.000-05:00Jon, Jesus doesn't give life through His virgin bi...Jon, Jesus doesn't give life through His virgin birth. Since Jesus actually gives us eternal life through His Death and Resurrection, believing we have eternal security through His Death and Resurrection alone is indeed saving faith. Even Zane admitted that most people will not believe Jesus' promise unless they first understand the Death and Resurrection. Now, you know I agree with you that a person can believe Jesus' promise without understanding the Death/Resurrection, but that's not normal anymore. Many of the Jews in ancient times, including the time of Christ, did believe that, but it's not normal anymore. And since Paul urged us to always present the Cross/Resurrection, we must always do so. Plus,I know you always present the Cross anyway, so this whole fight is over hypotheticals. I didn't believe Jesus' promise of eternal life until I first understood the Death/Resurrection. I believed His promise because of the persuasive power of the Cross. Therefore, in a very real sense, I believe I have eternal life through His Death/Resurrection. You believe this too. :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-62772875913929176352007-08-25T20:02:00.000-05:002007-08-25T20:02:00.000-05:00Forgot one more thing Greg. In John 20:31, John D...Forgot one more thing Greg. In John 20:31, John DOESN'T say, "These things are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that you may then make a decision to place your faith in Him for eternal life." From John 11:25-27, it is clear that believing Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God entails believing that you will never die because of Jesus. In John 11:25-27, Jesus doesn't ask Martha if she would like to place her faith in Him. <BR/><BR/>He simply states that as the Resurrection and the Life, those who believe in Him, though they die, they will live, and that whoever believes in Him will never die. He then asks her if she believes *THIS* She responds "Yes, I believe THAT you are the Christ, the Son of God, who is to come into the world" And that's saving faith according to 20:31.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-64437591007300168872007-08-25T19:44:00.000-05:002007-08-25T19:44:00.000-05:00Hi Greg. Let me apologize for my mishandling of 2...Hi Greg. Let me apologize for my mishandling of 2 Corinthians 5:20-21. You're right that Paul was urging the Corinthians to act as Ambassador's for Christ, imploring the world to be reconciled to God. Since he was talking to believers who understood eternal security, the Corinthians should indeed urge the world to be permanently reconciled to God. We know reconciliation happens by faith. But faith and the Resurrection are not specifically mentioned in that passage, so Paul was just giving the gist of the message - the Corinthians would have to explain more. Remember, us "crossless" advocates still preach the Cross/Resurrection. This whole fight is over hypotheticals that none of us find to be the norm. Many FGers who reject the "crossless" gospel still hold that faith is passive. They believe that a person must understand the Divinity, Death, Resurrection to be saved, but they may still see faith as passive.<BR/><BR/>The imperative command to believe does not make believing a decision. When the Bible commands somone to believe, it is commanding them to put themselves in a position where they are ready to hear God's word. A person must make a decision to either search the Scripturs, read the Bible, listen to a Gospel presentation, etc. Once the person makes the decision to be open to God's word, the Spirit works, and because the person decided to be receptive, they end up being persuaded that they have eternal life in Christ. <BR/><BR/>Here's Dr. John Niemela from his presentation "A Veiled Reference":<BR/><BR/>[Quote]<BR/>Now one of the things [i.e., questions] that is often alleged when we speak about a passive or a stative idea of faith is, “Well, how do we deal with the fact the Bible commands belief? ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved’ [is a] command. That sounds like I have to do something. That sounds like I have to make a decision. That sounds like I have to do something.”<BR/><BR/>Commands to believe do expect a volitional response. There is no denying that. But the volitional response is in a slightly different area than we might think. The unbeliever obeys the command [to believe] by exposing himself or herself to biblical truth, allowing God’s word to make its persuasive case.<BR/><BR/>We look at the Gospel of John, and the Gospel of John is arranged around eight signs that are designed to prove to the reader that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing this, a person may have life in His name.<BR/><BR/>God’s word is persuasive. The unbeliever who exposes himself to God’s word and seeks not to put up barriers, seeks not to add to the veil, but seeks to come to an understanding, a fair understanding of what it really is saying, is someone who is open to be persuaded. That’s all that a person can do—make themselves open to be persuaded. Because what happens when we decide to believe something that we know isn’t true? We’re “making belief.” We have to know that it is true before we can believe it. The point that we have understood it to be true, we have believed it. But we have to be open to allow it to persuade. And the unbeliever is in that same situation. The command is to put ourselves in a position of being able to be persuaded by the word. If a person says, “I’m open to the word,” and he never opens the Book, and never talks to Christians, and never does anything to be exposed to the message, he can say he’s open all day, but is he? <BR/><BR/>The concept is: in order to be persuaded, we have to have the word in a position to be able to affect us. The issue for the unbeliever is to be open to God’s truth that is revealed by the Spirit. When he or she becomes persuaded that Christ has irrevocably given him or her everlasting life, he or she has believed.<BR/>[End Quote]Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com