I’m in the dinosaur club. I don’t use Facebook.
But I have friends who do.
Diane sent me a comment that was posted on a Free Grace discussion group:
John 3:16 is a great verse for initial salvation. But John 1:12 is just as clear about how to become a child of God. We have the authority to become a child of God by believing in Jesus’ Name. Notice the verse does not mention eternal life. If that was an indispensable factor to initial salvation, the verse missed the indispensable factor.
I love the fact that the writer did not say that John 1:12 teaches that we are born again by receiving Jesus, that is, by inviting Him into our lives. He is correct that John 1:12 makes it clear that the issue is believing in His name. In John’s Gospel, to believe in His name (John 1:12; 2:23; 20:31) is synonymous with believing in Him (John 3:16; 6:35, 47; 11:25-26).
However, I am bothered by three things he wrote.
First, why talk about initial salvation on a Free Grace discussion group? That is the language of Lordship Salvation. Salvation, if understood as everlasting life, is final the moment one believes. Why not just say, “John 3:16 is a great verse to lead someone to believe in Jesus for everlasting life”? Oh, wait! That would be implying that we believe in Jesus for everlasting life. Speaking of salvation is broader. A person might think that salvation can be lost and still believe in Jesus for his “salvation.”
Second, while the verse does not mention the words everlasting life, it does mention becoming a child of God. And the next verse, John 1:13, refers to being born of God. Anyone who knows John 3 knows that to be born of God is to be born again. And the Lord indicates in John 3 that being born again is another way to speak of having everlasting life. John 1:12-13 does mention the bullseye. It is not missing the indispensable factor.
Third, I am surprised that people who identify as holding to Free Grace theology think that Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Arminianism, and Lordship Salvationism all proclaim a message, which, if believed, results in everlasting life––even though the person who believes that message does not believe that his salvation is secure until and unless he perseveres in faith and good works until death.
There is a danger here. The danger is called pluralism or postmodern relativism. This view is not very different from saying that Buddhism can be true for the Buddhist and Christianity can be true for me. The Buddhist can be saved by practicing the five precepts, and I can be saved by believing in Jesus for everlasting life.
What some who claim the name Free Grace are saying is that while they have been born again by believing in Jesus for everlasting life, others are born again by turning from their sins, surrendering to Christ’s lordship, and committing to serve Jesus for the rest of their lives. One thing is true for them. Something radically different is true for others.
The idea that everlasting life is superfluous informationi is startling to me. I hope it is for you as well. To keep grace in focus we must continue to recognize that the bullseye is the Lord Jesus’ promise of everlasting life to the believer. There are not multiple bullseyes.
i The words eternal life and everlasting life occur seventeen times in John’s Gospel. Another seventeen times the word life by itself refers to everlasting life. That is thirty-four references to everlasting life in the only evangelistic book in the Bible. Then there are synonymous expressions such as born again, child of God, never hunger, never thirst, never die, never perish, and never be cast out. To call everlasting life superfluous is like calling belief superfluous. John’s Gospel is as much the Gospel of everlasting life as it is the Gospel of belief.
