One of the dangers of writing articles and books for over thirty years is that people notice if you contradict yourself. I plead guilty. I have not always been as clear as I wish I had been.
Here is an email with a genuine concern about what I believe:
I am fairly new to GES and I have introduced some of my friends and acquaintances to your organization and the Free Grace Theology teachings. Some are very open and receptive and want to learn more. Some have actually been turned as they are seeing the light of God’s truth in Scripture supporting FG assertions. However, some have flatly and outright rejected the FG views in a polite and irenic way while some are vehemently angered and judgmental about it.
I have a friend who has asked me to pose a question to you. He has been studying old articles from the GES data bank and is confused (as I am) about what we think are conflicting messages from you about what believing in Jesus exactly means in order to be saved. The question specifically is this. What is it that a person has to believe Him for?
As we understand it, a person, in order to be saved, needs to believe that Jesus can impart and guarantee everlasting (eternal) life that is permanent and irrevocable, to those who believe in Him for it. (From your blog titled “What Does It Mean to Believe in Jesus,” July 2018). In that same article, you also said that by believing all or any of the other wonderful, marvelous and glorious truths about Him, His virgin birth, His deity, His death on the cross, burial and resurrection does not save anyone. It should lead them to believe in Him for everlasting life. (I believe this to be God’s truth as it is revealed in Scripture.)
However, he has pointed me to two articles authored by you, in which you say something contrary (or appears like it) to the assertions stated above. I’ve italicized the perceived contradictions in both articles for emphasis. Your statements seem to indicate that “believing that Jesus died and paid the penalty for our sins is necessary to be believed for salvation.”
The first article was titled “Are There False Professors? If So, How can We Identify Them?” August 1989. Here’s the excerpt:
[When] I talk to people about the gospel, I ask them questions. Do they believe in eternal security? Are they sure they have eternal life? Why should God let them into heaven? How would they share the gospel with someone else? If they indicate that they are sinners who are eternally secure by grace because Jesus died and paid the penalty for all of their sins, I conclude that they are saved. If not, I am unsure as to whether they are a confused believer or whether they never were saved in the first place. In any case I then attempt to make sure that they now understand the gospel and accept it.
The second article was titled (“Is Following Christ a Condition of Eternal Life?” April 1990). Here’s the excerpt: “Once we come to trust in Christ alone as the One who paid the full and complete payment for all our sins, we have ETERNAL life. We will never perish.”
Are we misreading and misunderstanding these statements? Or are these your old views that now have evolved and changed to the current ones shown in the July 2018 article. It would be greatly appreciated if you could clarify this for us. Thank you and keep up the great work of this ministry. I continually lift you and GES up in prayer.
I founded GES in 1986. The first newsletters went out that summer. A year later I left my teaching position at Multnomah School of the Bible (now University) and went full time with GES.
From the start I believed that assurance is of the essence of saving faith. That is, I was convinced back in 1986 that one had to believe in Jesus for ever-lasting life in order to be born again. Back then I probably would have said that believing in the finished work of Christ on the cross meant that you were believing in Him for everlasting life, since He paid it all. I thought then that a person might believe that Jesus died for him and rose again and yet still not be born again because he believed in some form of works salvation. But once a person believed that Jesus’ work is finished, then he could not believe in works salvation.
Notice that in the August 1989 article I ask two questions about assurance of everlasting life. That shows my belief even then that assurance is of the essence of saving faith. I do mention that they are sure “because Jesus died and paid the penalty for all of their sins.” I do not think that was incorrect. The cross of Christ is the ultimate proof that the promise of life for the believer is true.
However, in the April 1990 article your friend found, I say something different, something I do not agree with today: “Once we come to trust in Christ alone as the one who paid the full and complete payment for all our sins, we have ETERNAL life. We will never perish.” First, I should have spoken of believing in Christ alone, not trusting in Christ alone. There is potential confusion in speaking of trust. See this April 6, 2018 blog. Second, I should have referred to everlasting life as what we believe in Jesus for. Third, I make it appear that the object of saving faith is the finished work of Christ.
Over the years I’ve come to see that it is possible to believe in the finished work of Christ on the cross and at the same time to believe in Lordship Salvation or even straight-up works salvation.
What it means to believe in Jesus is to believe in Him for everlasting life. See John 3:16; 5:24; 6:47; 11:25-27; 20:31; Acts 16:31; 1 Tim 1:16. Believing in the finished work of Christ should lead people to believe in Him for what He promises, everlasting life. But the finished work of Christ is not the promise of life. It is sadly possible to believe the former and not the latter.
I should mention in closing that there are probably many other statements I’ve made over the years that I no longer think are crystal clear. So has my evangelistic message changed? Yes and no. Yes, I am clearer now than I used to be. No, my basic message has always been that if we believe in Jesus we have everlasting life which can never be lost. I’ve always stressed assurance of everlasting life.
Thanks for the great question.
Alvin
I think Bob I’ve understood you as saying, whoever believes in Jesus for everlasting life is saved if they are believing in Him alone, or the equivalent.
I know Zane said that you don’t have to believe those exact words, “eternal life” to be saved but you could believe in Him for your justification or salvation if you understood as being saved forever. But, it’s easy to get confused using those terms. And why not use what Jesus used in the Gospel of John which was written to the unbeliever that they may have life. Zane said that sometimes it’s possible they understand without those exact words eternal life.
It’s the bullseye, the clearest stream to drink from (message of life).
I believe that the key in believing in the finished work of Christ on the cross is understanding “the Christ.” If you are understanding it in that way, that He “has saved you forever” by paying for all your sins, than your born of God.
This is the equivalent of believing in Jesus for everlasting life. The Christ is broader than eternal life, that is He is the One who guarantees the believers eternal well-being.
Jesus did use the serpent being lifted up on a pole as an example of Jesus being lifted up. And the OT makes clear we are to look to Jesus for salvation. I know with myself at age 12 I found myself believing that Jesus had paid for all my sin so I didn’t have to go to hell. I was filled with joy over this, it was a simple childlike faith where God had opened my heart (understanding).
I believe the pressure of sin can drive an unbeliever to the cross, and that God opens the heart to understand Jesus finished work in that way. That is believing in Him as the Christ, the One who has guaranteed your eternal destiny. It only takes a moment in time, and you have already passed from death into life, even though a moment later you could think of some kind of work you think you should do, like confess Him before men.
I know the important thing is not when you believed in Him as the Christ, but that you did. I took Zane very serious when he said, maybe you were saved later than you think?
Tell me where I’m going wrong here, if I am?
Pam
Lordship salvationists use the same vocabulary we do, but they don’t mean the same thing. They may say they believe in the finished work of Christ, but they don’t. If they did, they’d not tie old tin cans (meaning, their works) to the cross the way they do. They redefine “finished” much as they redefine “faith”: finished doesn’t mean completely finished, and faith includes works.
To rest in the finished work of Christ means full assurance of salvation. The LS crowd doesn’t rest in the finished work of Christ; thus, they don’t have assurance. Lordship salvationists use the same vocabulary we do, but they don’t mean the same thing. Too many of them are like Catholics, but without Mary and the wafer.
Leo Z
Pastor Bob,
Thank you for your concise and a clear response to the question at hand. Your candor and transparency in approaching this inquiry is an impressive display of character steeped in humility. For that, I commend and applaud you.
Keep up the great work you are doing for The Lord. As always, I continue to pray for you and the GES ministry.
Ray Mitchell
I think the word trust in english usually means full and complete confidence the same as the work believe, and usually does not indicate hope or have some doubts, though at times it does. I think of it more like “I trust my lawyer to do a great job”. “I am giving you this pile of money to hold for me a few days until I come back from my trip because I trust you to hold on to it and not steal any of it.”
Dictionary.com defines trust as:
“1. reliance on the integrity, strength, ability, surety, etc., of a person or thing; confidence.
2. confident expectation of something; hope.
3. confidence in the certainty of future payment for property or goods received; credit: to sell merchandise on trust.
4. a person on whom or thing on which one relies: God is my trust.”
Three of Four seem to define it as complete confidence with no doubts. One of them (#2) throws in the idea of hope in, after it said “confident expectation of something”. Thus about 75% to 87% of these definitions are complete confidence.
Merriam Webster.com first definition of Trust is:
“Assured reliance on the character, ability, strength, or truth of someone or something.”
It even uses the word “assured” a form of assurance.
In my opinion the word trust is a great equivalent for belief or faith since if one believes in Jesus for eternal life they are trusting in Jesus totally to give them eternal life and keep His promises. I guess there are many people who have been using the word trust as a synonym for hope too often in some circles, which in that case would make the word trust a bad word to use for faith. My experience of hearing trust has been mostly complete reliance and confidence and expectation, not hoping for something.
Leo Z
I suggest that the use of the word “trust” instead of “believe” in the context of eternal salvation, is in a sense, a two edged sword that can cut both ways.
If used as a pure synonym for “believe” or to linguistically assist in English to convey the essence of what it means to believe in Jesus, I think it works just fine.
The usage of trust in The Bible for the most part is in the context of relying on the Lord’s faithfulness and ability to provide temporal aid, guidance and deliverance (Psalm 56:3; Psalm 91:1-2; Psalm 112:7; Psalm 118:9; Psalm 143:8; Proverbs 3:5-6; Proverbs 28:25; Proverbs 29:25; Isaiah 26:3-4; Daniel 6:23; Jeremiah 17:7-8). When used in conjunction with the word “salvation”, it normally refers to deliverance from difficulties and problems encountered in the here and now (e.g. war, sickness, death etc.).
“Believe” (and faith) are the preferred words (mostly “believe”) used in the context of eternal salvation. I could be wrong, but I’ve never come across a passage that uses trust in that context. If there are some, it is not the norm but an exception. Our English translations of the Bible, even the contemporary (biased) translations used by most Lordship Salvation proponents, (i.e. the NIV, ESV and NLT) uses the word “believe” and not “trust” in passages related to eternal salvation (e.g. Genesis 15:6; Luke 8:12-13; John 3:16-18; John 5:24; John 6:47; John 11:25-27; Acts 16:30-31; Romans 4:3; Romans 10:10a; 1 Timothy 2:15-16; 1 John 5:1; 1 John 5:10-13). If The Bible prevalently uses “believe” as the preferred word in this context, then we too should be consistent with God’s Word and as a general rule use it in all our discussions of eternal salvation especially when we evangelize the unregenerate individual.
Another distinction (if this line of reasoning counts) is that in Scripture, a regenerate person is referred to as a “believer” rather than a “truster”, although the two words are synonymous.
Here is the big issue with the use of the word trust. When it is used (by Lordship Salvationists) as a word that connotes and implies “complete surrender” or “all out commitment” to the Lordship of Christ as an added condition to “believing” for eternal salvation. In this usage, it is asserted that simply “believing” in Christ for eternal life is not enough without the extra act of “trusting” Christ added on to it. “Believing” is relegated to being just a mere mental assent to factual matters about Jesus and the salvation he offers and guarantees. It needs the component of “trusting” Him (which is seen as a personal act of appropriation) as an added step to make complete the salvific transaction. This is notably seen when people use the “sitting on the chair”, “getting in the wheelbarrow across Niagara Falls on a tight rope” and other similar illustrations when evangelizing the unsaved.
My understanding is that “to believe” in something or someone already includes the aspect of trust in it. In the case of God’s saving message, I would take it as redundant to say, that you need to believe in Jesus then subsequently also trust Him to be saved. I say redundant because believing in Him is tantamount to trusting Him. To believe in Him is to trust Him for life everlasting.
“Believe” keeps God’s “message of life” simple and clear. “Trust” sometimes muddles it.
Daz Clement
I’m seeing aseveral blogs and youtube-like postings that are claiming you ate teaching folks canbe saved by “believing in Jesus”, but that “belief” is completely ignorant. In other words, that a person does not need to know and believe anything at all about Jesus as God, His life, death, ressurection, victory, atonement. If this is an accurate representation of your teachings, what exactly is such a saved person believing when they “brlieve in Jesus”. Belief means some form of understanding, some sort of acquiescence. If it isn’t synonymous with believing in the Gospel, what EXACTLY is duch a person actually “believing”?
Is it as simple as, “Hey, dude Jesus, I’ve been told you can save me, but other than that, I don’t know you from Buddha or Adam. Regardless, I’m going to believe you can and do save me. I’m totally clueless as to why I should believe you can (will or how you can), but I’m believing it anyway. My belief is completely ignorant except for believing you, a stranger to me in every aspect, will save me.”?