by SC Lazar
One could say, with good reason, that the Free Grace movement represents a shift in focus from a traditional Pauline priority in evangelical theology, to a more Johannine one. Put differently, if the Reformation began with a rediscovery of the Pauline corpus and its liberating doctrine of justification by faith apart from works (as taught in Romans and Galatians), one could say the Free Grace movement grows out of a rediscovery of the Johannine corpus, and its clarifying doctrines of eternal life and eternal security (from the Gospel), of abiding fellowship with Christ (in the Epistles), and of eternal rewards in the coming theocratic kingdom (in Revelation). Taken together, these help to cut many of the Gordian knots produced by the Reformers, who, while proclaiming a message of salvation by faith alone, nevertheless made the performance of good works essential to redemption, whether by making it depend on the sacraments (as in Lutheran theology), or by redefining faith to include good works (as with the Anabaptists), or by making works necessary to introspectively determining one’s status among the elect (the Puritans).
By contrast, Free Grace theology, following John, proclaims the unvarnished gift of eternal life, and teaches about both the simplicity of faith and the gravity of works, without thereby conflating the two. Specifically, John teaches us that while eternal life is given freely to anyone who simply believes in Jesus’ promise apart from their works (John 3:36), nevertheless, good works are necessary for maintaining fellowship with God in this life (1 John 2:28), and for determining one’s rewards in the life to come (Revelation 22:12). To be sure, the very same doctrines can be found in Paul, but centuries of (mis)exegesis have buried them in muddy waters, and reading Paul in light of John helps bring these precious truths back to the surface. Proposing this Johannine priority does not involve a Marcionite rejection of the rest of revelation, but a recognition that according to the analogy of faith, John’s plain and positive doctrines illuminate the rest of Scripture.
key2
That’s a good post.
confidential
Where in the Johannine corpus is eternal life assured for those who stop believing in Jesus? Thanks.
SC Lazar
You are asking about the subject of eternal security, and whether it depends on continued faith. And I think the answer to your question is found in Christ’s promise that whoever believes in Him, not only has eternal life in that moment of faith, but will never perish thereafter.
John 3:16 famously says: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
To believe in Jesus means having everlasting life right then, and never perishing thereafter. John 10:28-30 repeats the promise, and explains why we are eternally secure:
“And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.”
Our eternal security depends on Jesus and the Father (being in their hands), not on our own performance. If someone could perish after believing in Jesus, through, say, persistent unbelief or outright apostasy, then Jesus should have said:
“they shall never perish… and no man is able to pluck them out of my hand or my Father’s hand… except for the man who believes and then decides not to believe… he can pluck himself out of our hands, and will perish. Oh, and whoever causes the believer to stop believing, they can pluck them out of our hands too. OK, to be perfectly honest, he who believes might very well perish, and anyone can pluck them out of my hand and my Father’s hand.”
That’s a bit of silliness, I know, but I hope it brings out the unconditional nature of Jesus’ promise: that a believer shall never perish, no exceptions, no conditions.
Three books I’d recommend on this subject are 1) Shall Never Perish, by J.F. Stromeck; (2) Eternal Security, by Charles Stanley; and (3) Secure and Sure, by our own Bob Wilkin.
And this article addresses whether one must continuously believe in order to eternally saved:
http://faithalone.org/magazine/y2006/06jf1.html
Hope this helps!
confidential
Thank you.
J Poulos
I feel the “Grace Message” on the emphasis of ‘faith’ misses the emphasis of ‘know’ that Christ Himself defines what ‘eternal life’ is.
John 17:3 This is ‘eternal life’ to know You the only true God and Jesus Christ Whom thou has sent.
Faith is necessary but not sufficient to ‘know.’ One can have faith and not ‘know’ Him. Might GES consider the fullness of this word ‘know’ to the degree of energy they put into the word ‘faith’
If the goal is ‘knowing’ (John 17:3) why only the means, faith, always the emphasis?
SC Lazar
Hi J Poulos,
You raise an important issue, and I think the answer to your concern was alluded to above. We receive eternal life as a gift by faith. But receiving that eternal life is not the end-all of Christian life. After we believe in Christ, we are called to live for him, and to walk in fellowship with God, by ‘abiding’ in Him in obedience to his commands. I think that’s what John 17:3 is talking about, the deeper ‘knowing’ that comes, not simply by faith, but by a life of faithful abiding, as described in John’s epistles (i.e. 1 John 2:3-11). Some people enjoy the fulness of eternal life more so than others, based on their life of abiding. But its important not to confuse the conditions for receiving eternal life (faith) with the conditions for entering into the fullness of eternal life in our experience (faithfulness).
J Poulos
Hello SC,
You are saying much of what I’m suggesting.
Thank You for responding,
J Poulos
Edwardpf
I am very concerned with this emphasis on John’s Gospel as opposed to the teaching of Paul. There seems to be a shift away from understanding that the Gospel is believing in the death, burial and Resurrection of Christ, that Christ died for one’s sins. Paul stated that anyone who taught any other Gospel was teaching a false one. John’s Gospel is for assurance, not for salvation when it ignores the facts about the death of Christ in the Cross for our salvation and His resurrection. It appears that the GES is preaching a different gospel, that one can believe in Christ for eternal life and not know anything about what Christ did on the Cross for the individual.
SC Lazar
Hi Edwardpf,
I’m afraid I don’t understand your concern. If you read my post carefully, you’ll see that I emphasize the whole of John’s writings, not just the Gospel, as you say. And I specifically state that John and Paul taught the same truths. Moreover, the important facts you mention, such as the atoning death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus are taught by John as much as they are taught by Paul (and by us!). These truths and facts about Christ are absolutely imperative to preach, and most people will only believe Christ’s promise of eternal life after they understand who Christ is, what He did, and why He can follow through on His promise to us. So emphasizing John in no way means leaving those truths about Jesus aside. Given these considerations, I don’t understand why you would think we are preaching another Gospel.
J Poulos
On the above discussion, The Person of Christ encompasses, all who He is. When a person believes in Him, Their Faith is in the One who is All truth about God and this includes His Work.
Not ‘knowing’ His Work relates to knowing Him, cf. John 17:3. But true ‘knowledge’ about Him must encompass all Who He is. (Worship in Spirit and in Truth). Knowing Him has a beginning, ‘faith in Him.’ This is John’s gospel. Still, without Paul’s epistles, our ‘knowledge’ of Him and His work would be incomplete. ‘Knowledge’ which touches on our ‘eternal life.’
Not necessarily about having it but living it.
God is ‘the God of the living.’ Mk 12:27
I hope this adds to the discussion.
J Poulos
Edwardpf
Thank you for your response.
There are many who follow the GES view, claim that one doesn’t need to know anything about the Cross or Resurrection to be saved, they are just means by which people can come to faith in Christ for eternal life and are not necessary.
There is also a shift from receiving Christ as one’s personal saviour, recognizing that He died for your sins and rose again from the dead and receiving eternal life as a result of that, to eternal life being the goal.
The Gospel of John was not written to the Church, we do not seek signs, the Jews do.
The Gospel that John states in Jn.20:31 is a Messianic gospel, by which no one is saved with today. That will be the Gospel preached in the coming Tribulation.
SC Lazar
Hi Edwardpf. I would challenge your interpretation of the GES view. Although Zane Hodges once suggested there was a logical possibility that God could give eternal life to someone who didn’t know very much about Jesus beyond the bare Gospel promise, Hodges strongly insisted in that very same article, that it was practically necessary to preach the cross, etc. The reason being, very few people, and perhaps no one, has ever believed the message of everlasting life without first understanding who Jesus was, what he did, why he died, that he rose again, etc. The cross, indeed the whole life of Jesus, is absolutely central to persuading people to believe the message of everlasting life, or, if you prefer, the doctrine of justification by faith alone. The charge that GES teachers somehow don’t preach that Christ is our personal savior, or deny that we should recognize that He died for our sins, and rose again, is, in my experience, patently false. I’m sorry if you’re experience is any different.
As for your interpretation of John 20:31, I can only say that it is certainly not our view that no one can be saved by that, or that it is only meant for the Tribulation. That seems like a mistaken, and highly idiosyncratic, view.
J Poulos
GES should be challenged to pin down a clear Biblical explanation of ‘eternal life’. I believe it is relevant to the discussion here and to the broader context for scriptural accuracy. I forget the word when a person comes with their own pre-judgments about what a word means but from my experience that is happening with the phrase ‘eternal life.’ I would venture to ask almost any Believer and their first response would be, ‘live forever’. This I believe is taken for granted, that we are all speaking the same language.
Elwell’s Evangelical Dictionary of Theology states, “The nearest approach to a definition is given in John 17:3” then goes on to say, “Eternal life is described in its experiential aspect of knowing God and having fellowship with God through his Son, Jesus Christ.”
Loew and Nida states, “If one translates ‘eternal life’ as simply ‘never dying,’ there may be serious misunderstandings…”
GES and everyone committed to Scriptural accuracy should try to determine what our Lord meant in John 17:3.
That God is eternal is a given and it would follow that His Gift would entail eternality. But God is also Righteous and Love and Wise, and Good, …
Would not these also be involved in ones understanding of the term ‘eternal life?’ If ‘eternal life’ is only understood in the narrow sense of living eternally I think there will continue to be misunderstandings. That God Justifies us means that we are made righteous to ‘know’ Him in every way who He is.
Some thoughts.
J Poulos
SC Lazar
Hi J Poulos. I think you’ll find that the greater portion of GES literature is dedicated to defining what everlasting life will be like. As Bob wrote years ago, in the tract ‘You Can Be Sure’: “eternal life is not merely unending life. It is the life of God. Indeed, John refers to Jesus Christ Himself as eternal life. Eternal life is God’s kind of life. It is life that comes from God. Thus a person who has eternal life has God’s life within him.” Also, Bob has a whole chapter on the word in his new book, The Ten Most Misunderstood Words in the Bible.