Sometimes people will say that saving faith is trust in a person. What does that mean, exactly? Here is John W. Robbins explaining when that expression makes sense, and when it does not:
“Long before the neo-orthodox theologians thought of saying that faith is an encounter with a divine person rather than assent to a proposition, preachers who ought to have known better taught that faith is trust in a person, not belief in a creed…‘trust in a person’ is a meaningless phrase unless it means assenting to certain propositions such as ‘I believe in God the Father Almighty…and in Jesus Christ his only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead.’ Trust in Christ, unless it means belief of these propositions, is totally without value. ‘Christ’ means these propositions—and a lot more, to be sure, but at least these” (John W. Robbins, “What Is Faith?” in Against the World: The Trinity Review, 1978-1988, p. 121).
In other words, the phrase trust in a person or believe in a person is meaningless because the popular meaning commits a category error. You can no more believe in a person than you can smell a number or weigh the color blue.
However, you can believe propositions about a person—and that’s where the phrase can make sense. You can believe that person is trustworthy, or reliable, or has promised you everlasting life.
There’s a similar problem with the expression “personal relationship with Christ.” What is that supposed to mean? Here is Robbins again:
“As for having a ‘personal’ relationship with Christ, if the phrase means something more than assenting to true propositions about Jesus, what is that something more? Feeling warm inside? Coffee has the same effect…” (Ibid.)
Robbins goes on to muse that having a personal relationship with Christ might mean something like shaking His hand, or eating with Him as the disciples did. But Robbins notes that millions of believers have not had a personal relationship with Christ in that sense, and yet, they have believed in Him and Jesus called them blessed. In other words, having a personal relationship with Jesus is not a salvific issue, as the disciples themselves show:
“The difference between Judas and the other disciples is not that they had a ‘personal’ relationship with Jesus and he did not, but that they believed—that is, assented to certain propositions about Jesus—while Judas did not believe those propositions. Belief of the truth, nothing more and nothing less, is what separates the saved from the damned. Those who maintain that there is something more than belief are, quite literally, beyond belief” (Ibid.).
Jim Poulos
GES needs to start articulating the phrase ‘eternal life’ or ‘everlasting life.’ So much of GES’s theology and literature is built around this term but is built without much scriptural backing. Without that backing, understanding it is left to the people’s imagination. Imagination without scripture is what is being argued of about of others weak theological flaws in so many of the articles here.
The passage around the verse, John 17:3, “And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent,” should be core. Since that meaning is rooted in none other than Jesus’ own understanding.
Bob Evans
Since human life is portrayed as being eternal in Scripture, it is not a matter of having eternal life, but where and with whom you will be experiencing that eternal life.
Is knowing the only true God, and Jesus Christ Whom God has sent sufficient to have eternal life.
The precise content of knowing God may not be biblical nor sufficient since nothing specific is stipulated in Jn 17:3. Further information from the passage must be gleaned. One can profess to know God in any number of ways that are biblical, but if it does not include accepting as true that He has provided for one eternal life through the atonement for sins by His one and only Son, Jesus Christ – if that is absent – that will not lead to having eternal life with Him.
Jim Poulos
Bob,
This is what I’m saying: you’re using the phrase ‘eternal life’ to explain ‘eternal life.’ In logic this is called circular reasoning by using the word to define the word. That is a problem that should be fixed. The phrase ‘eternal life/everlasting life’ needs to be explained from its biblical context. The phrase has a biblical history and biblical context. We can easily define it in our own terms to satisfy us but that is ‘thinking like men not as God is showing us.’
Knowing Jesus and God the Father is about knowing Him, His work and being involved in that work. That is where the word ‘koinonia’ (fellowship comes from). It is involved together in a work, whether God’s work or man’s work. But all that involves what ‘eternal life’ entails.
But in replying to you, I hope it would challenge you and particularly GES to take up this challenge. Because as I mentioned, so much of GES theology is built around this phrase. They should sense the need to root the understanding of ‘everlasting life’ in scripture.