Theology of Salvation Archives - Page 34 of 35

I am on a panel discussion tomorrow night at the National Conference of the Free Grace Alliance. The panel discussion is related to the death and resurrection of Jesus, and whether a person needs to know and believe these historical facts in order to be born again. My invitation to this discussion is due to the so-called Crossless Gospel controversy. People accuse me of teaching a Crossless Gospel, which is exceedingly strange, since I believe the cross is at the very center of the gospel. Without the cross, there is no Gospel.

Anyway, here are some of the issues to be addressed in this Free Grace Alliance panel discussion.

Is Belief in the Death and Resurrection Necessary?

I am presenting the view that while the death and resurrection of Jesus was necessary for justification to be possible, belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus is not what grants a person eternal life. A person simply needs to believe in Jesus for eternal life to be given it by God. I have written on this in the past. Certainly, the death and resurrection of Jesus are central to the Gospel, but since there is so much Biblical information that is part of the Gospel, one does not have to believe the entire Gospel to be justified.

There is a difference between the mechanism of justification (the death and resurrection of Jesus, along with a myriad of other things) and the message of eternal life (believe in Jesus for it). In other words, there is a difference between the Gospel information, and the Gospel invitation.

I agreed to be on this panel for three reasons.

Clarity in Evangelism

First, I want people to be clear in evangelism. If we have a muddled evangelistic message, all we do is erect barriers which keep people from believing in Jesus for eternal life. The death and resurrection of Jesus are definitely part of what we share in evangelism, but we tell them these things to convince and persuade them to believe in Jesus for eternal life, not because they get eternal life by believing in the death and resurrection of Jesus. It’s a nuance, but a very important one. After all, there are many who believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus, but don’t believe in Him for eternal life.

Hear from the Horse’s Mouth

Second, I know there are a lot of people who are trying to understand the various positions on the Gospel, and there are many people accusing me of believing things I don’t believe.

So I hope to let them hear my position from me rather than from those out there who don’t understand my position but continue to write pejorative and negative things about me. It’s always best when researching a matter to go to the source.

To Understand the Other Views

Third, I see no logical or Biblical consistency in the view of those who are taking the opposing view. Clearly, they think their view is logical and Biblical or they wouldn’t hold it. I am not exactly trying to persuade them to my view, but I do want to try to understand their view. Toward that end, here are the questions I hope to have answered:

If a person must believe in the death of resurrection of Jesus, is it sufficient to believe in the historical facts of these events, or does a person also have to believe in substitutionary atonement?
If a person does have to believe in substitutionary atonement, what if that person holds the ransom to Satan view?
If a person must believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus, do they have to believe that it was by the shedding of blood of Jesus on the cross that sins are forgiven, or can they just believe that it was simply His death that was sufficient? In other words, does a person have to understand that their sins are forgiven “by His blood” and not just by His death?
If a person must believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus, must they believe that Jesus rose in a glorified, eternal, incorruptible body, and that He went on to ascend into heaven, or can they believe that He went on to live, grow old, and die again of old age like the others who were resurrected in Scripture?
If a person must believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus, must they believe that the resurrection is a past, historical event, or can they believe that Jesus will rise from the dead in the future?
If a person must believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus, what was the object of faith for OT people and the apostles who did not (as far as we can tell) believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus? Did the object and content of faith change after the death and resurrection of Jesus?
What passages are there in Scripture which teach that a person must believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus in order to receive everlasting life?
If a person believes that Jesus died on the cross for their sins, and rose again from the dead, but don’t believe that by faith in Jesus they have life that can never be lost, are they justified? (E.g., They say things like “Jesus did his 99%, but I must do my 1%” or “I’m saved now, but if I sin later, I won’t be saved any more” or “I accepted the gift of eternal life, but I can give it back if I don’t abide.”)

In all of my study of the other view, I have yet to read an attempt to answer these questions. Others have noticed this same thing, and we receive daily e-mails and phone calls from people saying they are prayerfully supporting Bob Wilkin, myself, and the ministry of Grace Evangelical Society as we continue to present the offer of eternal life to all who believe in Jesus for it.

Email Questions

Here is one such e-mail:

Jeremy,

By way of introduction, we have been with GES almost since its beginning and had been proclaiming the free grace gospel message for 25 years before that. We were instrumental in formatting the first several years of GES Journal articles for the website and have printed and distributed several thousand pages of GES articles to many pastors and Christian leaders in our area. In other words, we support what you are doing.

We have been keeping up with the ongoing issue of what constitutes the gospel message and are grieved about the possible damage to the cause of Christ that might ensue. We also have supported the ministry at Duluth for quite some time and distributed much of their literature.

I believe that your article, “The Gospel Is More Than ‘Faith Alone In Christ Alone,'” was excellent and it even helped me to “connect the dots” in some of my study on the subject. The open letter on the Duluth website refers to, among other things, this article and mentions two points of disagreement. These comments appeared to me to be a bit pejorative as there was no attempt at biblical refutation or even explanation of the context of your statements.

In addition to the significant biblical evidence that you gave for your position (a position which should be either accepted or proved wrong biblically), is one point that has come up in my study and that I have not seen mentioned anywhere.

It is as follows: In 1st Corinthians 15, we find the classic definition of the gospel which includes the death, burial, resurrection of Christ, and probably the contents of the next few verses. Per verse 15 we see that the resurrection is necessary for our justification, but does not say that belief in it is necessary. Verse 12 and following shows that some of the Corinthian believers did not believe in the resurrection and reiterates the deleterious ramifications of this error. This epistle is written to the Church at Corinth (1:2; 1:7 et al).

Did these believers who already have eternal life then lose their salvation? Did the awareness of their lack then show that they were not true believers in the first place? Or were they eternally saved, carnal believers, who needed to know and apply these resurrection facts so that they may be saved in the sanctification sense and enjoy the resurrection life during their earthly pilgrimage? The first two options are not implied in the context and are disqualified by other scripture. Something similar to the last seems to be more on target.

Unless you are already way ahead of me on this it might be beneficial to also develop this point. No reply to this note is expected as I realize that you have a heavy schedule.

We continue to pray. Keep up the good work (1 Cor. 15:58)

This is an excellent observation and should be developed further. I also want to point out that Peter and the apostles did not believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus until after He died and rose again (cf. Matt 16:20-23; Mark 9:31-32; Luke 9:44-45; 18:31-34; 24:19-26; John 20:9, 24-30). Does this then mean that they were not justified until they believed in the death and resurrection?

I’ll give an update on how things went after the conference.

Do you HAVE to believe in the resurrection? This woman did … sort of …

By Jeremy Myers

17 Comments

I ran into someone this past week who would pose quite a dilemma for some, especially if we are trying to determine if people have eternal life based on what they believe. (NONE of us do that, do we?)

Anyway, I thought it was interesting, so I am throwing it out here for you to weigh in on…

It was a woman who called about some questions related to whether or not she had eternal life.

Asking the Kennedy Questions

As we talked, I asked her some diagnostic questions to help me determine where she was coming from.

I asked her that if she were to die tonight, if she were sure she would go to heaven. When she answered, “Yes” I asked her why. She said something along the lines that since Jesus died for all of her sins, and she has believed in Him, she gets to go to heaven when she dies. Though she could have been a bit clearer, this answer was initially satisfactory.

But I asked some follow-up questions as well, to see if she was in any way relying on her past, present, or future good works in order to earn, prove, or keep her eternal life. For example, I asked her if there was anything she could do in the future that might prevent her from going to heaven when she died. From her answers, she seemed certain that since she did nothing to earn her eternal life, there was noting she could do to lose it either. Though I am not the judge of her spiritual condition, I was once again satisfied with her answer. To the best of my knowledge, she understood that simply by her faith in Jesus, she had everlasting life which could not be lost.

Confused Christology

Then we started to talk about some of her questions, and in the process, she mentioned about how she knows Jesus is going to come again when He rises from the dead.

It was an odd way of phrasing it, and so I asked her what she meant. She stated that she knew Jesus died on the cross 2000 years ago for her sins, and that He was right now in heaven, and He was coming again in the future. I said, “That’s good, but what was it you said about Him rising from the dead?”

She said, “You know…when He comes again. He died, went to heaven, and when He comes again, He will rise from the dead.”

Wait… what?

Apparently, she didn’t know that Jesus had risen from the dead.

I talked a bit more with her about this, and as it turns out, somehow, here in America, she had never been told (or had just never understood) that Jesus had already risen from the dead!!! I didn’t even know this was possible, but I discovered she doesn’t read her Bible, and doesn’t go to a church that teaches the Bible much.

I asked her if she saw The Passion of the Christ, which she had. I asked, “Didn’t you wonder what was going on at the end of the movie when Jesus rose from the dead?” She said she didn’t think anything about it, because all it shows is Jesus with a glow around Him, and so she thought that was supposed to be Him in heaven, which matched her theology perfectly. (Go look at the end of the movie! She’s right. The ending is very vague.)

After taking her to some passages in the Gospels, and then to 1 Corinthians 15 (which Paul partly wrote to prove the resurrection has taken place), she said she now understood and believed that Jesus had already risen from the dead.

Did She Have Eternal Life?

So here is the question: Did she have eternal life prior to understanding and believing that Jesus rose from the dead? I say “Yes.” She was justified the moment she first believed in Jesus for everlasting life. I was able to disciple her some more this week and teach her some things about the Jesus she had believed in that she did not previously know.

However, even though I would say, “Yes, she had eternal life before she believed in the resurrection of Jesus,” there are lots of Christians who would probably say, “No.” They might argue that until she believed in the historical event of the resurrection of Jesus she does not have eternal life. Although she believed in her own sinfulness, the deity of Jesus, His death on the cross, and that she had eternal life in Him alone, she did not have eternal life until she believed the whole package. Even though she believed in a future resurrection of Jesus, this is not sufficient.

To me, this is incredulous. Antonio da Rosa has posed a similar situation as I have encountered here. He stated somewhere (I can’t find it now) that to consign someone like this woman to hell for not knowing all the Biblical facts about Jesus that are on a man-made list is the height of legalism. This woman believed in Jesus for eternal life, and by Jesus’ own promise, whosoever believes in Him, has everlasting life (John 3:16; 5:24; 6:47).

Note as well that on this account, the woman is just like all the disciples of Jesus. The disciples believed in Jesus for everlasting life, but not a single one believed that Jesus would die and rise from the dead until after He died and rose from the dead! Does this mean that none of them really had eternal life until after the resurrection of Jesus?

No, again, this is an example of one of those central doctrines of the Gospel which help a person believe in Jesus for eternal life, but are not required for a person to believe in order to receive eternal life. Don’t get me wrong, without the death and resurrection of Jesus, there is no Gospel. But one does not have to believe the entire Gospel in order to receive eternal life. Most of the Gospel message provides supporting facts and evidence for why and how Jesus can offer eternal life to anyone who believes in Him for it, and how to live in response.

But the single “message of life” in the Gospel is this: Whoever believes in Jesus has everlasting life (cf. John 3:16; 5:24; 6:47).

Does this help you in your evangelism and discipleship endeavors? Does it help clarify the Gospel message? What do you think about this lady who didn’t know Jesus had risen from the dead? Have you ever encountered someone like this?

Is Pastoral Theology Inconsistent Theology?

By Jeremy Myers

8 Comments

I sometimes hear pastors say that they don’t have systematic theology; they have pastoral theology.

As a pastor myself, I used to nod my head in agreement. I too am concerned with the way some theologians seemed too caught up with dotting every theological “i” while neglecting the task of serving others.

However, in recent years, I have come to develop some reservations about the whole “pastoral theology” concept.

Not Pastoral Theology

In the minds of some today, the pastor who claims to have a pastoral theology is often just saying that his theology is not fixed and consistent. Instead, they adjust their theological views to fit the pastoral concern being faced. This approach often leads to contradictions in theology. Like the situational ethics of the 70s, many pastors have a different theology depending on the situation they find themselves in.

Pastoral theology might be better to call it situational theology.

A Conversation with a Pastoral Leader

This was brought to my attention through a recent conversation I had with another pastor. He and I did not see eye to eye on certain issues of soteriology, and it was not long before he expressed some some serious logical contradictions. When I pointed these out to him, he said that he lived with these contradictions because he had “pastoral theology,” not systematic theology.

When pressed to explain the difference, he relayed the following story which he said actually happened to him:

I was in my office and a man came in who was a serial adulterer. He shared that although he is married, for the past seven years he slept with at least one different woman every month. I asked him if he thought he was a Christian, and the man said, “Yes, I accepted Christ as my personal Savior when I was in high school. They told me I was secure forever, and so I know that even though I’m sinning, I’m still going to heaven.”

Personally, I would have stopped and asked the man for further clarification on what he thought he had done in high school. Why did he say, “They told me I was secure forever”? Why didn’t the man point to Jesus’ promise of eternal life? What did he mean when he said, “I accepted Christ as my personal Savior”? Until these questions are answered, it is still uncertain whether or not he has believed in Jesus Christ alone for eternal life. But this particular pastor thought that the man’s statement was fine, and so his story continued:

In such a case, my pastoral heart tells me to put the fear of hell into the man. I told the man that if he was ever saved, he certainly wasn’t saved now. Such adultery was a serious pattern of sin. Unless he repented of his sin, and returned to a monogamous lifestyle, he would not enter heaven.

This is classic Arminian loss-of-salvation theology. It was a little surprising for me to hear these words coming from this man who claimed to be a Calvinist. But he continued his story:

Later that day a different man came into my office. He too admitted to being an adulterer. He was married for seven years, and in that time frequently looked at pornography and had committed adultery twice. He sat in my office with tears streaming down his face, worried that he had lost his salvation and that God would never forgive him.

But I saw that this man had a repentant heart, and he knew that what he had done was sinful. He was a genuine Christian, not in need of chastisement and the fear of hell, but in need of love and forgiveness. I told him that God still loved him, and that Christ had died for all of his sins—past, present, and future—and that there was nothing which could separate him from God. He was secure in the hand of God. Of course, I warned him that he needed to turn from his sin, or else it may prove he was never saved in the first place.

So in one day, this man’s pastoral theology led him to espouse Arminian theology to one person and Calvinistic theology to another. The two systems are contradictory, but he didn’t care, for his theology was “pastoral.” He admitted the two views were contradictory, but only if viewed apart from the individual situations. He molded his theology to fit what he thought the person in front of him needed to hear. This was his pastoral theology.

Inconsistent Pastoral Theology Helps No One

I do not believe such an approach helps anybody. Such contradictions only lead to confusion. This sort of situational pastoral theology does more damage than good, because it allows love for people to drown out the truth of God’s Word. And when truth gets neglected in the name of love, love dies too. It is not loving to tell a lie in a kind way, even if we think the lie is what a person needs. It is far better to “speak the truth in love” (Eph 4:15). It is also far better to be Biblical, rather than pastoral.

Consider the first man. Not only was he not given the clear message about how to receive eternal life, he was also given a false message. If this man was indeed unregenerate, he went away with a message in his head that would make it harder for him to be born again. He was told that to enter heaven, he needed to be monogamous. While there certainly are practical benefits and blessings for monogamy, the Bible nowhere lists monogamy as a condition for going to heaven.

So although this pastor thought he was telling this man what was necessary to get him to change his lifestyle, the message he gave was wrong. How practical, how pastoral was that? Doesn’t God know best?

And what about the second man? He also was given a false message. He may have gone away feeling better, but if he wasn’t already born again, he left this encounter more confused than ever. For although he might have been temporarily encouraged, he too was told to refrain from pornography and adultery if he wanted to go to heaven. Once again, the Bible never says this.

So this situational approach to theology is neither loving, nor pastoral.

When pastoral theology becomes situational theology, it helps no one, and only confused those who hear it. If our goal in pastoral theology is to help those who are in our care to understand God and live according to His Word, wouldn’t it be best to have a theology that is consistent and which doesn’t shift with each new counseling session?

If we want to have true pastoral theology, we would be wise to give people what God said! For example, Jesus gives everlasting life to anyone who believes in Him (John 3:16; 5:24; 6:47; etc.), and a life of obedient discipleship is important for fellowship and rewards. That is an encouraging, loving, and pastoral message. Best of all, it’s true.

Want to learn more about the gospel? Take my new course, "The Gospel According to Scripture."

The entire course is free for those who join my online Discipleship group here on RedeemingGod.com. I can't wait to see you inside the course!

Would you invite this couple back to your church?

By Jeremy Myers

43 Comments

Imagine yourself in church, and as the service starts, a young couple sits down in front of you. You are a bit surprised to see them in church, because you know one of them from work. He is not the kind of guy you think would come to church. But here he is!

As the service starts, the worship leader invites everybody to stand and greet those around them. You do, and warmly greet the couple in front of you. The guy you know from work says they came because you are always talking about how great your church is. You are excited he came because of that, but are a little nervous because you know he isn’t the “churchgoing” type. The couple isn’t married, but is very sexually active, and they don’t have any qualms about public displays of affection. You hope they don’t hold hands or kiss during the service.

But wouldn’t you know it…as the music starts, they put their arms around each other and hold one another close. Then, after a few minutes, they start holding hands. You look around nervously. Not even many married people hold hands when they are in your church, and you are afraid how this couple’s affection will be taken, especially since you know most people know that they are not married.

During the sermon, they sit close enough to each other that they are touching, but that’s about it.

After the service is over, they turn around to greet you again, and say, “You were right! We really liked attending here. I think we will come again next week.”

What would you say to them? Who would you introduce them to? Would you tell them to not hold hands next week? Would you tell them about a six-inch rule for unmarried couples? Would you tell them that sex before marriage was a sin and God did not approve of fornication?

Oh, and before you answer, I forgot to tell you…The couple is gay. It’s two guys.

Now, with that information, what would you say?

P.S. I originally wrote this post 10 years ago! It is interesting to compare the comments that came in back then with the comments that come in today. Be part of the historic conversation and add your own input below!

Are Works the Necessary Result of Justification?

By Jeremy Myers

1 Comment

We often hear that while works are not required for justification, they are the necessary result of justification and true saving faith. I argue that this makes works a condition of eternal life.

Here is the article so you can read it:

Are Works the Necessary Result of Justification?

See this follow-up article here:

The Relationship Between Faith and Works according to Three Systems of Theology

Free Grace Alliance Conference Panel Discussion

Is Belief in the Death and Resurrection Necessary?

Clarity in Evangelism

Hear from the Horse’s Mouth

To Understand the Other Views

Email Questions

Do you HAVE to believe in the resurrection? This woman did … sort of …

Asking the Kennedy Questions

Confused Christology

Did She Have Eternal Life?

Is Pastoral Theology Inconsistent Theology?

Not Pastoral Theology

A Conversation with a Pastoral Leader

Inconsistent Pastoral Theology Helps No One

Would you invite this couple back to your church?

Are Works the Necessary Result of Justification?

Theological Study Archives

Bible Study Archives

Advertise or Donate

Search (and you Shall Find)

Get Books by Jeremy Myers

Schedule Jeremy for an interview

Click here to Contact Me!