Well,
As my conversation with Jim (many thanks Jim) comes to a close for now, it strikes me that my question from my Open Letter of April 2009 is it’s own worthy conversation piece. I guess I have thought we all agree on this question, but as I read through the comments I’m not so sure.
Here’s the question:
CAN ONE BE SAVED BY BELIEVING SOMETHING LESS THAN THE GOSPEL?
Now, I guess I need to ask another one:
IS IT NECESSARY TO PREACH MORE THAN THE GOSPEL?
This question is where this all goes (if you’ve been following the discussions). I guess this is where the GES Gospel controversy lives and dies for me. The clear nature of their view is that it is unnecessary to preach the cross, etc., because it is unnecessary to believe for eternal salvation. For examples see the following,
My Open Letter get to this point: CLICK HERE
I think this is all done if we can answer these questions honestly. They mean that everyone knows where they stand. But, it would be great if the GES Gospel advocates would get it that we know they care about the cross…but, it would also be great if they get it that they don’t believe the cross is necessary to preach.
Then, aren’t we done? And, can’t God sort it out?
What do you think?
FRL
Fred:
Thanks for this new article.
You wrote, “But, it would be great if the GES Gospel advocates would get it that we know they care about the cross…but, it would also be great if they get it that they don’t believe the cross is necessary to preach.”
For what follows I am speaking of not just the GES Crossless gospel advocates like Jim Reitman, Bob Wilkin Bob Bryant, Gary, Antonio, et. al., but their sympathizers as well who give them (GES) a pass.
1) They DO “get it” and a have always known that “we know they care about the cross.” Part of their redirect strategy is to try to claim we are saying they don’t preach the cross, when we never made that blanket charge I am aware of.
The crux of the “Crossless” gospel controversy, which they try to evade at all cost, like Jim Reitman just spent three weeks doing, is that they insist the lost do not have to be aware of, understand or believe in the crosswork of Christ (or His resurrection) to be born again.
2) Your second, “it would also be great if they get it that they don’t believe the cross is necessary to preach.” They get it alright. I’ll get back to you on that. I think I have some confirming documentation.
Lou
Hi Fred,
You asked two questions. Here are my answers.
CAN ONE BE SAVED BY BELIEVING SOMETHING LESS THAN THE GOSPEL?
No.
IS IT NECESSARY TO PREACH MORE THAN THE GOSPEL?
That depends on the those who are being witnessed to.
Are they aware they are sinners? If not then one must help them examine themselves in light of the Scriptures.
Do they understand what the Gospel means? If not then one must help them by revealing any point they have confusion over by the Scriptures. This ought also be done in context to their understanding of the universe. IE what Paul did with those who worshipped the unknown god. Paul did not give credibility to, or depend on their understanding but he explained the truth of the Scriptures through what they understood. I OFTEN do this using science today when witnessing to a North American. When witnessing to a Muslim one would focuse what you’re showing them through a more “spiritual” lense.
Do they know that God exists and that the Christ is God? If not then use their enviornment to show them the “works of His hands” by Creation, by conscience, by prophetic accuracy of the Scriptures…
So to answer your two questions together;
No one can not be saved unless they believe – which is to say have assurance in (trust/faith/belief all together) the Gospel. In order that one can come to that state of assurance you must preach anything and everything they need to have revealed to them.
Preach what they need to believe the Gospel, then they can be saved based on their faith.
I hope this is clear. If I have been unclear in any point PLEASE challenge me on it.
Kev
Kev,
Fair enough. I guess I’d just say that we only have to preach the gospel…but, of course, explaining what the gospel means (helping them bridge the information gap) is what I’d consider still preaching the gospel. In other words, you may have to explain ‘sin’ to someone with a worldview / definition that doesn’t understand sin in terms of affecting a relationship with the living God.
Thanks,
FRL
Hey Fred,
I’d consider it “witnessing” but not so much preaching the Gospel. For example, the Gospel doesn’t make sense from a point of view that holds Evolution or even Theistic-Evolution. So if I were preaching the Gospel and this was a stumbling block for the person I would preach Creation until they got it, then the Gospel would make sense to them.
While I agree with the intent of your post, I would say that when I’m preaching Creation even in support of the Gospel I’m no longer preaching the Gospel itself.
Kev
Fred:
Here is Bob Wilkin,
“Jesus made it clear that the only condition [for salvation] is being convinced that He guarantees eternal life to all who believe in Him. Add anything to that and you have a different gospel.” (Wilkin, JOTGES Autumn 1998)
Rachel, in her commentary on that quote, wrote: “So even Wilkin realizes that he is proclaiming a ‘different gospel’ (he just thinks he’s got the right one). I certainly believe that one needs to understand and believe more than just that some person named Jesus can give you eternal life.”
This is another quote from Bob Wilkin that made its way into the Internet.
“My view is that the Lord Jesus told us what the saving message is and we can’t err by proclaiming the message He proclaimed. Since He rarely even alluded to the cross or the resurrection in His evangelism, it can only be required to believe in it if Jesus’ method of evangelism is no longer valid. Of course, His method is not invalid.”
Hmmm, so if as Wilkin says, the Lord “rarely even alluded to the cross…in His evangelism,” why would Wilkin (GES) believe and insist on always preaching the cross as a necessity in their personal evangelism to the lost?
More to follow…
Lou
Kev,
You said,
So if I were preaching the Gospel and this was a stumbling block for the person I would preach Creation until they got it, then the Gospel would make sense to them.
…………….
I know we agree that preaching supportive stuff isn’t preaching the gospel, which is what I meant, of course.
On the supportive stuff, I am decreasingly impressed with our abilities to overcome stumbling blocks. Often, folks have other issues than “if I could just sort out creationism” that is at the heart of the issue. I mean even with the creation…all the systems are by faith (at some level) since we weren’t there to watch it.
Basically, I’d say “preach the gospel” and see if they believe…then, if they will really tell you what is in the way, get after it. Personally, I have found more success in preaching the gospel rather than handling objections.
Honestly, in my observation of both the text and my experiences…this issue is a cold heart, not an honest and wrestling mind!
Peace,
Fred
Fred,
Could explain what you mean by “cold heart”?
Thanks,
Greg
Greg,
Yep, good question. Here’s what I was thinking about…
“While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light.” When Jesus had said these things, he departed and hid himself from them. Though he had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in him, so that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: “Lord, who has believed what he heard from us, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said, “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them.” Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of him. Nevertheless, many even of the authorities believed in him, but for fear of the Pharisees they did not confess it, so that they would not be put out of the synagogue; for they loved the glory that comes from man more than the glory that comes from God.” (John 12:36-43, ESV)
In About Life and Uganda, I wrote about a woman who asked me to pray for her because her heart was hard and she couldn’t believe. In whatever way we frame it, there is this aspect of human beings that has to do with the need for the ‘eyes of their heart’ to be opened / enlightened (Ephesians 1:18). Whichever picture we use, it still gets to the same thing.
I remember witnessing to my dad before I went on a summer project with CCC. I answered all of his intellectual objections (I had studied him for most of my life)…we came to the end of my answers and he said, “Well, you got me there, but you can’t make me believe.”
So true, I couldn’t make him.
The good news is that he did believe many years later before he died.
Hope this helps with my meaning,
FRL
“Basically, I’d say “preach the gospel” and see if they believe…then, if they will really tell you what is in the way, get after it. Personally, I have found more success in preaching the gospel rather than handling objections.
Honestly, in my observation of both the text and my experiences…this issue is a cold heart, not an honest and wrestling mind!”
I agree so much with this, Fred.
MIssy:
I believe I recall about a year ago that we discussed some of your personal salvation theology. In that discussion didn’t you tell me that you identify with which church; the Worldwide Church of Christ? Was that it, or the off shoot? Which is it?
LM
Missy,
Thanks. I can get misconstrued, but big part of this comes from the number of times I’ve been to Africa. So many are coming to faith that you just aren’t a good steward of the moment to spend a lot of time in a debate. It would be interesting to see what would happen if we all just shared the gospel for a few days…who knows!
Grace,
FRL
Hey Fred,
The roll of “apologetics” in witnessing is often thought to be to “convince” or “correct” people. However, TCC (the ministry I work with) has come to find that apologetics (be that from the Scriptures or some other science) is really just giving the person you’re witnessing to an excuse to listen to the Gospel.
People aren’t convinced of Christ Jesus by Creation, philosophy or what have you. The Gospel alone (through the ministry of the Holy Spirit) convinces a person of Christ.
If apologetics are rightly handled the person you’re witnessing too doesn’t feel as though they need to commit intellectual suicide to believe.
This is really the same thing you were trying to do with Jim. You allow him to express himself, and then show you understand him. Then you can present truth, with both of you knowing that you understand what he’s saying. Now he doesn’t think you are just ignorantly preaching what you want him to agree with. He then knows that you are preaching what is true, because you’ve truly evaluated both it and the alternatives.
Creation is a great witness of the Gospel, because it supports it. However, if your goal is to convince someone that God created the world in 6 days your goal is much lower than that of Evangelism.
The ability to support the truth of the Gospel in various ways gives you the ability to give the sceptic a reason to consider the Gospel.
“Just” preaching the Gospel is great, but the Word (Torah) of God is perfect converting the soul. If we preach the full council of God the Spirit has so much more to work with as He confirms, convicts and convinces.
Kev
Kev,
Boy if you use it that way…more power to you! I’ve just seen a good bit of ‘apologetics’ that never gets to the gospel…and…I’ve seen just sharing the gospel (and focusing on those who want to hear it) to be very successful.
Grace,
FRL
Hey Fred, I know what you mean. I think this discussion has reinforced my understanding of the working of the Body of Christ. That we truly are a “body” of “parts” that work together.
The Scientist doesn’t always make the best Evangelist, and vice versa. However, when the gifted scientist and gifted Evangelist work together… then you add those who intercede, those who give, those who help, those who….
🙂
Kev
Fred,
Thanks for the explanation about your meaning of “cold heart”. Those are some good comments to think about.
You mentioned the example of a woman in Uganda. She asked you to pray for her because she couldn’t believe at that point. Taking that request at face value, would you say that represented a shift in her attitude? And assuming the request is made genuinely, do you believe God would answer it?
Also, with regard to the example of your dad, what is it that changed in his attitude from the time he didn’t believe the gospel to the time he did?
Thanks,
Greg
Greg,
Dad went through a 19 day coma (from alcohol damage). During that time, so he told me, God essentially got his ‘attention’ as it were.
Sad what it takes sometimes…but glad something can take!
Grace,
FRL
Fred, thanks for sharing. Sorry it took so long to reply. I was wondering if you would say that experience changed your dad’s “willingness” to believe?
From the story, it seems like you gave a persuasive case to your dad to begin with. The problem was not the lack of persuasion… it was the lack of willingness to respond in belief until the experience you mentioned. How do you see it?
— Greg
I think you have a fair assessment of the situation. As I reflect on it, however, I was really trying to persuade dad of the nature of the Bible as legitimate / authoritative. Our gospel conversations where more in line with him saying “I just can’t believe that”…I’m certainly better at the conversation about faith in Christ than I was back then!
Thanks,
FRL
Well,
As I’ve looked at these responses I’m pretty sure this is as strategic a question as I had hoped…not much comment from the other side.
I’d encourage all of you who hold the gospel dear to continue to ask this question of others.
CAN ONE BE SAVED BY BELIEVING SOMETHING LESS THAN THE GOSPEL?
Of course, the answer is, “No.” But then, if the ‘no’ is the answer…the next piece is simply to figure out what is the content of the saving message /gospel (not a not-so-useful discussion about minimal and maximal).
Jim suggested that it is the wrong questions, since it is about believing a ‘who’ not a ‘what’ (well, to be fair, he does believe there is some ‘what’ to believe too.
It really is looking to me like this issue is over. A few remaining disciples of the GES Gospel (or something similar) are still about, but they aren’t winning anyone.
So…let get the message of grace out…time quite quarreling and be faithful to share the good news.
God bless,
Fred Lybrand
Fred:
I’ve read your two closing comments apparently posted since it is hopeless to expect a clear, honest answer from Promise-ONLY advocate Jim Reitman. He refused to answer the most simple question that I demonstrated a 9 year old would not hesitate to answer. All you wanted him to do is answer this question, “Jim, what do you believe one must believe to be saved?” From the very first he refused to answer. (Is this man allowed to teach, counsel or guide Bible college students?)
The GES “Crossless” people did not address your final question: CAN ONE BE SAVED BY BELIEVING SOMETHING LESS THAN THE GOSPEL?
Among the reasons why is what we saw from Jim Reitman- they will dodge and evade any question that gets to the heart of their reductionist attack on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Furthermore, your readers should know that the GES also insists there is no specific message called “the Gospel” that the lost must believe to be saved. Greg Schliesmann exposed this egregious heresy in a series at my blog. See- The Technical Meaning of the Term, “THE GOSPEL”
The GES Crossless & Deityless errors is the most extreme form of reductionist heresy ever introduced to the NT church. There is no Scripture and no precious doctrine the will not twist and/or assault to float the Hodges inspired Crossless gospel. For example the GES strips the Lord’s title “the Christ” and “Son of God” to support their Deityless gospel.
“It really is looking to me like this issue is over. A few remaining disciples of the GES Gospel (or something similar) are still about, but they aren’t winning anyone.”
This issue, at least this episode of the issue, was over the moment you ask Jim Reitman for a clear, honest answer to your first question. Like the Crossless people before him and the GES sympathizers he had no intention of ever answering that question in clear, unvarnished terms. Tim (“I DON’T CARE”) Nichols tried to run interference for Reitman’s evasion, partly through chest-thumping, but all he did is reaffirm that he is no more reliable for transparency and/or graciousness than virtually every Crossless person that has posted in these threads.
I also agree with you that, “they aren’t winning anyone,” but I would add, that we are aware of. I can name two people we all know who tragically have been won by them just in the last two years.
We must never give them any room or opportunity to deceive anyone with their “perverse” Crossless gospel heresy. We must remain vigilant as Paul warned the Ephesian elders (Acts 20:28-31). I wrote, Perverse Things Draw Away Disciples to remind believers that the GES is a group of theological extremists that must continually be marked and avoided (Rom. 16:17-18) for the safety of the body of believers they seek to draw away and consequently corrupt with their reductionist heresy.
LM
Fred, earlier I asked about your father’s changed attitude toward God’s word and the gospel. You said my description of “lack of willingness to respond in belief” was an accurate assessment. Maybe you did not have this word “willingness” in mind when you said that, but it was intentional on my part. Do you agree that “willingness” or “volition” then was involved in your dad’s change of responsiveness/belief in the truth?
The way I see it, there has to be both a persuasion from the outside (e.g. a person sharing the gospel; the Holy Spirit drawing the person) and a willingness from inside the person to agree with God’s word.
Do you agree with this?
Greg,
I certainly think we can be persuasive without being manipulative; yet, being persuaded is ultimately within the person. Jesus, Paul, et al, did not persuade every listener…though, I think they hoped to (I speak in human terms). Willingness can be a matter of ‘considering’ whether or not the truth(s) is true (believable). Choosing to believe in the way we use it (like choosing to go to college) doesn’t seem exactly to match the nature of faith. That one becomes persuaded, convinced, or concludes is accurate…and, maybe the human presentation had something to do with it. I, however, remain skeptical—somehow, in it all, God’s kindness in wooing / revealing is decidedly involved. Indeed, His involvement seems to by the key to it all.
Am I close?
Grace,
Fred
Fred, I agree God’s kindness in wooing / drawing is essential. At the same time, I think a person has a choice in how they respond to God’s drawing.
If I were to provide two verses I believe show the Divine aspect as well the human’s choice to believe, I would highlight the following:
Matthew 23:37
“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!
Romans 10:16, 21
(16)But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?…
(21) But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.
Here we see pictures of God pursuing Israel to bring them to Christ, but they, by their own will, refuse. Jesus expressed His will in Mt. 23:37, “how often I wanted (posakis ethelesa)…”.
The involvement of the human will is also implied in the phrase “obey the gospel”. There is a command associated with the gospel (Rom. 10:16a), and the command is to believe (Rom. 10:16b; cf. Acts 16:31; Rom. 1:5; 2Thes. 1:8-10). How do you see the concept of “obedience” in relationship to the gospel if that concept does not refer to the choice to believe it?
Additionally, God’s part is pictured in Rom. 10:21 where He states, “All day long I have stretched forth my hands…” Israel could not accuse God that He failed to do His job of wooing, drawing, and inviting. The problem was in their choice of response, “…to a disobedient and gainsaying people.”
I think the Gospel of John also presents both parts (Divine drawing and human will) as essential to believing (John 1:9, 11; 3:19; 5:40, 44; 6:44; 7:17; 12:32, ect.).
I believe God does His part to draw all people to Christ, but in His sovereignty, He has given people a choice in how they respond to His drawing.
If this isn’t right, what is the conclusion?
1. Believing the gospel does not involve the choice of the person.
2. Believing the gospel involves God’s drawing and persuading a person to believe.
3. Some people do not believe.
Conclusion A: God does not want to draw and persuade some people.
or
Conclusion B: God is incapable of overcoming some people’s intellectual objections.
Do you agree with A or B, or do you see it some other way?
Greg,
If I were arguing with me, I’d ask, “Doesn’t Christ’s invitations to ‘believe in Me’ suggest that the person has a choice in there?”
I’d answer, “Yes.” Somehow volition must be involved, but I still struggle with how one can ‘choose to believe’ something. I can’t create an experiment where that really works (choosing to believe something you know ain’t so).
On the other hand, I can resist believing (like my dad did). Any one can refuse to be open to a new belief…which is certainly willful.
Sleep seems similar on this point. I can choose to stay awake (stand up, ice down my shirt, etc), but I can’t choose to go to sleep (I can only expose myself to the right environment). Maybe these physical examples don’t work, but they do explain my struggle.
As to the options (I’ll get in trouble here):
A. God does not draw and persuade some people (different than saying He doesn’t ‘want to’)
B. God won’t overcome some people’s intellectual objections (different than saying He is incapable)
I really think we are stuck with a mystery here…either God should save everyone because He can…or God has no role (that matters) because people reject Him.
I think Romans 8 and 9 are unavoidable as to the sovereign work of God in all matters (especially salvation)…but as you observe, other verses clearly posit the failure on the part of the person.
It won’t get solved until we are there…but in the meantime we can wrestle! Can everyone get saved? The scriptures seem to say ‘no’. Can anyone get saved who wants to get saved? The scriptures seem to say ‘yes’.
Does God elect? Yes. Do we choose? Yes.
I believe God brings the elect along such that they are persuaded to believe (it is there own faith)…and, that without His work they wouldn’t believe.
Basically, this makes me a ‘bad Calvinist’ (B.B. Warfield would call me this)…but, of course, I’m a ‘bad Arminian’ too…since I believe in eternal security.
What’s a fellow to do?
Grace,
FRL
Fred,
I see an opportunity to draw this conversation to something I’m VERY interested in. In the matter of Evangelism (which is my primary ministry) I need to be aware of what I’m really doing.
I read things like how people can resist clever speaking – such as we read in Ps 58:3-5. This tells me that Evangelism is not solely accomplished by argument.
You said;
I can’t create an experiment where that really works (choosing to believe something you know ain’t so).
That’s a very lucid observation.
On the other hand, I can resist believing (like my dad did). Any one can refuse to be open to a new belief…which is certainly willful.
I don’t know if a person can refuse to believe something. How would you demonstrate that by experimentation and observation?
Someone can refuse to consider something, and can even intentionally sabotage something they know to be true. I don’t think that one can any more wilfully disbelieve something they know to be true than they can believe something they know to be untrue.
The knowing, is believing (not in the Biblical sense).
I think if someone knows something to be true, they can refuse to put their faith in it. In this I believe faith and belief are two different things. I see this demonstrated in Romans 1. They know of God but they refuse to worship Him. (worship being beyond mere faith of course, but can not happen without faith)
So… when we are operating in Evangelism revealing the Gospel is of primary concern. The results have to be “up to God” of course. How do we assist someone in recognizing the difference between not believing and refusing to trust?
Kev
Kev,
Thanks for the questions. I wasn’t as clear as I should have been (sound like a politician!). When I said ‘refuse to be open…’ I was aiming at the thought that someone can avoid getting in a position of coming to believe something…as when people won’t look at the facts. I think you are right in that if one looks at it they can come to believe (despite their desire not to), much like C.S. Lewis’s testimony.
As to ‘know something to be true’ and ‘put their faith in it’— I don’t see them as different things, but I do see different ‘things to believe’ calling for different responses, which we in turn call ‘know’ and ‘trust’, etc. In grappling for a good example I think of the post office. I suppose I could ‘know’ they’ll deliver my mail, but not ‘trust’ them to do so (so I don’t mail my letter…send it FedEx, etc.). But why? Why would I know they will…but don’t trust them to do so? There is surely more to the story.
Of course, I detest hypotheticals…what’s a real example you and I could think about together? I know that believing God is going to answer my prayer is different than believing that prayer works…yet, here too, the content shifts; believing in prayer generally is different in content than believe my (specific) prayer will be answered.
So, what’s something real we all wrestle with that could display the difference between knowing to be true and believing?
Thanks,
FRL
P.S. I’ll move this up to be its own post: Are Faith and Belief Two Different Things…or…The Same?