Here is a brief follow-up to one of the thoughts in my last post about faith and fruit:
Many Christians think that Jesus taught that we can tell whether people are truly believers or not by looking at their "fruit." Actually, this is not what Jesus said. Jesus said that false prophets, not false believers, can be told by their fruits (Matthew 7:15-16). Also, in the context of Matthew 7, it is clear that fruits does not refer to good or bad deeds, because in verse 15 Jesus said that these false prophets would come in sheep's clothing. In order for that to be true, they must outwardly look like true prophets. This would primarily refer, not to their physical appearance, but to their actions.
Even using basic logic, it should be clear that a false prophet may live an outwardly moral life. The fruit by which false prophets may be identified is the fruit of their mouths, or what they teach. In fact, in the book of Luke, it is quite clear that this is what Jesus meant by referring to "fruits." In Luke 6:44 Jesus says that every tree is know by its fruit. Then in Luke 6:45 he interprets this figurative language by saying that what people say indicates what is in their hearts. So, a false prophet or false teacher can be identified, not by his outward morality or lack thereof, but by whether what he says lines up with God's word.
Jesus didn't talk about knowing true or false believers by their fruits at all, but even if we did want to apply what He said about false prophets to trying to ascertain whether someone is a believer, we would have to evaluate people's spiritual condition by what they say, not by whether or not we see good works in their lives. If a person can clearly state that he is going to spend eternity with God because he has believed in Jesus, there is no reason to question that, even if his life is lacking in some areas. On the other hand, if a person is unclear as to whether he will make it to heaven, or has his trust in anything besides Jesus to get him there, we may validly conclude him to be either unsaved or saved but subsequently confused, no matter how good of a life he lives.
More on faith and fruit in a while, in the meantime, any thoughts on this?
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Faith, Fruit and Fad Diets
Being that it is early in the New Year, many people out there have bought diet books and are a few days into a new diet program. I myself have, in the past, followed a couple of different diet plans, sometimes to lose a little weight myself or to try and gain more energy, other times to be a “diet buddy” for my wife if she was on one (By the way, my wife tells me that a skinny spouse does not make the best dieting buddy). Not only have I been on a few diets, I’ve read a few diet books, and one thing I’ve noticed is that all of them seem to promise, not only weight loss, but also improved energy levels and a greater quality of life in general. Some of them even go into great detail about how much energy and hunger, or lack thereof, you should be experiencing at each stage of the diet. Of course, the problem is, not every diet plan delivers what it promises. If I am following a diet program and it says I should be feeling unbounded energy, and I am not, what can I conclude? Normally, I have concluded that the diet in question made greater claims for itself than were realistic. In other words, I decided that particular diet didn’t work.
Unfortunately, many people understand the Bible to be making claims much like some diet books. Their understanding of the fact that the Bible says that all who are in Christ are new creatures and of what Jesus meant when He said “You will know them by their fruits” is that if you have truly believed, a certain amount of “fruit” in your life is guaranteed. Now, I don’t think that the Bible actually teaches that fruit is inevitable in the lives of every believer, but I know that many people do. The problem is, what happens when it doesn’t work? What happens to the person who has been told that if he will only believe in Jesus or “give his life to Jesus,” or whatever the case may be, he will no longer be able to habitually sin but will have the fruit of the Spirit in his life, but then who does continue to have problems with sin or doesn’t see the fruit of the Spirit in his life? Unless that person studies the Bible and concludes that what he has been taught is incorrect, he only has two options as far as I can see. One option is to conclude, like with a diet program that doesn’t deliver all that it claims, that the Bible doesn’t work. The other is to conclude that he hasn’t really been following the program correctly. Maybe he didn’t really believe in the right way. Maybe it was only “head faith” and not heart faith. Either way, this person will be plagued with uncertainty, either about the reliability of the Bible, or about whether or not he is really saved.
The reality is, there are many people who have believed in Jesus but who don’t evidence the fruit of the Spirit. There are also many regenerate people, in fact I believe all of them, who still struggle with sin. Many, indeed, sin often enough that their sin might be called “habitual.” However, I don’t believe this runs counter to what the Bible actually teaches. The Bible is not like a diet program that doesn’t live up to its claims, it is just that many people misunderstand what it says in this area of fruit. I believe that the Bible teaches that the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23) is produced only when we walk in the Spirit (Galatians 5:18), and not that all believers do that. When Jesus said “you will know them by their fruits (Matthew 7:16), he was speaking of identifying false teachers, not true or false believers. Incidentally, I believe He was talking about identifying them by what they say, not necessarily by how they act, but more on that later. I intended to put this post out there to generate some thought, and will try to follow it up later with some thoughts about specific verses dealing with fruit and whether it is inevitable in the life of every believer.
Unfortunately, many people understand the Bible to be making claims much like some diet books. Their understanding of the fact that the Bible says that all who are in Christ are new creatures and of what Jesus meant when He said “You will know them by their fruits” is that if you have truly believed, a certain amount of “fruit” in your life is guaranteed. Now, I don’t think that the Bible actually teaches that fruit is inevitable in the lives of every believer, but I know that many people do. The problem is, what happens when it doesn’t work? What happens to the person who has been told that if he will only believe in Jesus or “give his life to Jesus,” or whatever the case may be, he will no longer be able to habitually sin but will have the fruit of the Spirit in his life, but then who does continue to have problems with sin or doesn’t see the fruit of the Spirit in his life? Unless that person studies the Bible and concludes that what he has been taught is incorrect, he only has two options as far as I can see. One option is to conclude, like with a diet program that doesn’t deliver all that it claims, that the Bible doesn’t work. The other is to conclude that he hasn’t really been following the program correctly. Maybe he didn’t really believe in the right way. Maybe it was only “head faith” and not heart faith. Either way, this person will be plagued with uncertainty, either about the reliability of the Bible, or about whether or not he is really saved.
The reality is, there are many people who have believed in Jesus but who don’t evidence the fruit of the Spirit. There are also many regenerate people, in fact I believe all of them, who still struggle with sin. Many, indeed, sin often enough that their sin might be called “habitual.” However, I don’t believe this runs counter to what the Bible actually teaches. The Bible is not like a diet program that doesn’t live up to its claims, it is just that many people misunderstand what it says in this area of fruit. I believe that the Bible teaches that the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23) is produced only when we walk in the Spirit (Galatians 5:18), and not that all believers do that. When Jesus said “you will know them by their fruits (Matthew 7:16), he was speaking of identifying false teachers, not true or false believers. Incidentally, I believe He was talking about identifying them by what they say, not necessarily by how they act, but more on that later. I intended to put this post out there to generate some thought, and will try to follow it up later with some thoughts about specific verses dealing with fruit and whether it is inevitable in the life of every believer.
Monday, December 20, 2010
A Resource Tip About E-sword
I wanted to take a break today from the type of articles I’ve been posting and just post a tip about the E-sword program, in case anyone reading this blog isn’t aware of the program and its features. E-sword is a free Bible study program with purchasable add-on translations, commentaries and dictionaries. Even with just the free tools, though, it is a very helpful program and the best one I know of that you can download for free. When I was doing translation work, I had a couple of fancier programs available to me, but they were only for people working directly in Bible translation, so I don’t have access to them anymore. Even though E-sword may not be as fancy, it has some great features. I know there are also some good study tools available online, but I like being able to use the tools whether I am online or not, and being able to save notes to my computer.
Basically, E-sword has one window for Bibles, one for commentaries or your own notes, and one for dictionaries. Within the Bible window you can toggle between translations, put up to four translations parallel with each other, or compare one verse between all of them. Included in the free resources is the KJV with Strong’s numbers. Clicking on the Strong’s number takes you immediately to the entry for the word in Strong’s or in Thayer’s Lexicon, which is also a free resource. You can perform searches based on words, phrases, or the Strong’s numbers. For those who know some Greek, there are also a few different Greek texts available for free, including a Majority Text (Robinson Pierpont) with Strong’s numbers on all the words. There are also free translations available in several other languages besides English.
I have really enjoyed all these features, but have especially appreciated the study notes tab in the commentary window, which allows me to make notes on any verse and keeps them linked to that verse. There is also a topic notes tab that allows you to make notes on a topic, rather than the notes being linked to one verse. Most of the articles I have posted on this blog have been written in the topic notes feature, which has allowed my to type my notes in one window, while looking at the scriptures in another window.
Adding a purchasable Bible translation, like the NKJV or NIV, costs between $15 and $20 per translation, and there are also commentaries like the Bible Knowledge Commentary or J. Vernon McGee’s “Through the Bible” notes available for purchase, and some dictionaries like Vine’s. The neat thing about the commentaries is that they stay linked with whatever verse you click on in the Bible window.
E-sword has been a big help to me in my Bible study, and I thought I should pass on the tip for anyone else who might not be aware of it. If you are interested in downloading it, go to E-sword.net and then go to the “downloads” bar. You first have to download the basic program, then you can download each feature that you want to use. The free ones download immediately, and the purchasable ones take you to another site where you can buy them and then download them. Maybe everyone already knew about this, but I hope it’s a help to someone.
Basically, E-sword has one window for Bibles, one for commentaries or your own notes, and one for dictionaries. Within the Bible window you can toggle between translations, put up to four translations parallel with each other, or compare one verse between all of them. Included in the free resources is the KJV with Strong’s numbers. Clicking on the Strong’s number takes you immediately to the entry for the word in Strong’s or in Thayer’s Lexicon, which is also a free resource. You can perform searches based on words, phrases, or the Strong’s numbers. For those who know some Greek, there are also a few different Greek texts available for free, including a Majority Text (Robinson Pierpont) with Strong’s numbers on all the words. There are also free translations available in several other languages besides English.
I have really enjoyed all these features, but have especially appreciated the study notes tab in the commentary window, which allows me to make notes on any verse and keeps them linked to that verse. There is also a topic notes tab that allows you to make notes on a topic, rather than the notes being linked to one verse. Most of the articles I have posted on this blog have been written in the topic notes feature, which has allowed my to type my notes in one window, while looking at the scriptures in another window.
Adding a purchasable Bible translation, like the NKJV or NIV, costs between $15 and $20 per translation, and there are also commentaries like the Bible Knowledge Commentary or J. Vernon McGee’s “Through the Bible” notes available for purchase, and some dictionaries like Vine’s. The neat thing about the commentaries is that they stay linked with whatever verse you click on in the Bible window.
E-sword has been a big help to me in my Bible study, and I thought I should pass on the tip for anyone else who might not be aware of it. If you are interested in downloading it, go to E-sword.net and then go to the “downloads” bar. You first have to download the basic program, then you can download each feature that you want to use. The free ones download immediately, and the purchasable ones take you to another site where you can buy them and then download them. Maybe everyone already knew about this, but I hope it’s a help to someone.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
The Gospel and Justification
Hi all,what follows are some notes I put together to send to Diane as we were discussing whether the gospel of the kingdom and the gospel refer to two different things, and whether the word "gospel" is used to refer to the preaching of eternal life/justification. Specifically, we were discussing the use of the terms in Acts and the gospels. It is basically a follow-up to what I have previously written on the gospel and the gospel of the kingdom, with a little bit more about what has led me to my conclusions. I thought maybe it would be profitable to put it on the blog for anyone else out there who is interested in the discussion. So, for any who are interested, here it is-
I have put together the following notes to discuss two questions: First, does the word “gospel” include justification truths, or only truths for Christian growth? I understand that the word gospel does not only refer to justification, but it is my contention that it is a broad term which does include truths about justification. Second, is the Gospel of the Kingdom different than the gospel? Does it refer only to the national reception of the kingdom by Israel, or to a broad spectrum of truths about the kingdom, including individual entrance by faith?
Following are some cases where I believe it is clear that the word “gospel” is being used to refer to justification.
- Ephesians 1:13- “In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise…” Even if the word "trusted" is taken out of this verse, as it is not in the Greek, it clearly refers to a chain of events in which the Ephesians heard the "gospel of their salvation," believed in Christ, and were sealed with the Holy Spirit. So, in this case, the gospel has to at least include the initial justification truths which they heard. I realize the word gospel does not appear alone here, but in the phrase, "gospel of your salvation." Still, it seems like a clear example of euangelion (the noun for gospel) being used to refer to justification truths. I also recognize that "salvation" could theoretically not be referring to justification in this context, but since the response to the hearing is believing and being sealed with the Spirit, it seems clear that it is referring to justification.
- Galatians 1:8-9- Paul uses the word "gospel" here and elsewhere in the book to refer to the message which he had taught and was trying to defend. In the context (see especially 2:16), it is clear that the primary truth he was writing to defend was the truth of justification by faith in Jesus.
- 1 Corinthians 4:15- ...for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.
- This seems to clearly label the truths which led to the Corinthians believers being born again as "the gospel."
So, though Paul obviously used the word gospel in a much broader sense than only to refer to truths leading to justification, it seems clear to me that he did use the word to include the teaching of justification by faith.
Now, what about the book of Acts?
- In Acts, Luke mostly uses the verb form, euangelizo, rather than the noun. In the book of Luke, he only used the verb, never the noun. The verb is often translated simply as "preached" in English, but it is a closely related word and should be considered. As far as the noun goes, in Acts 15:7, Luke records Peter using the noun form "gospel" to refer back to the message which he preached to Cornelius and his family. This was a justification message, and the context in Acts 15 is also dealing with the Gentiles being justified by faith alone. So, here is at least one place where Luke used the noun to refer to justification truths. Of course, we know that Luke was a disciple of Paul, so it is to be expected that he would use terminology with the same meanings as his mentor, and it seems clear to me that Paul used the word broadly, to include either justification or sanctification truths, or both, depending on the context.
If we expand our look at the book of Acts to include the verb form, there are also some cases where it seems to clearly refer to preaching justification/eternal life through faith in Jesus. For example:
- Acts 5:42- "They did not cease teaching and preaching (euangelizo) Jesus as the Christ." Preaching Jesus as the Christ biblically has to mean telling people the good news (gospel) that He is the one who gives eternal life to all who believe in Him.
- Acts 8:35- "Philip...preached (euangelizo) Jesus to him." This preaching resulted in the Ethiopian eunuch believing in Jesus and being baptized., so again, must refer to preaching justification by faith.
So, here is my chain of logic: Paul used the word gospel to include either or both justification and sanctification truths. Luke, a disciple of Paul, also used it that way, at least when he wrote the book of Acts. When Luke used either the noun or verb form of the word in Acts, he gave no indication that it meant something different than the verb had meant in his first book. So, this implies to me that among the churches, the word "gospel" was a known term that didn't need explanation, and was used to include both justification and sanctification truths. Therefore it would have been understood that way in verses like Luke 20:1, where it says that Jesus "preached the gospel" in the temple.
Gospel in the synoptics-
Though there are no verses in the synoptics which clearly use the word gospel to refer to justification, there are a few places, even in Matthew and Mark, where it seems to be used more broadly than what dispensationalists have thought of as the gospel of the kingdom.
- Matthew 26:13 and Mark 14:9 both say "wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world, what this woman has done will also be told as a memorial to her." The fact that Jesus said "this gospel," seems to imply that the same "gospel" His disciples had heard Him preach would be preached worldwide. Therefore, even Matthew seems to be using the word here in a broader sense than simply "the kingdom is available to Israel if they repent and believe in the Messiah." He is referring to the story of Jesus being told worldwide.
- Mark 16:15- Jesus commissioned the disciples to "preach the gospel" in the whole world. Again, worldwide proclamation implies a message broader than simply that the kingdom was available to Israel. And we know that what the apostles did in response to this commission was to preach the whole story about Jesus, starting with justification by faith in Him.
- If you test the hypothesis that the word "gospel" only refers to sanctification truths, or that in the synoptics it only refers to the good news that the kingdom was available to Israel as a nation, there are many places that don't seem to fit. On the other hand, if you test the hypothesis that "the gospel" refers to the whole story of Jesus, with one or another aspect of it sometimes more to the forefront, I believe it fits in every case.
What about "the gospel of the kingdom," specifically?
First of all, in the book of Acts, preaching the kingdom and preaching about Jesus seem to be used interchangeably, or at least in the same context, which indicates to me that terminology such as "the gospel of the kingdom," (though it is not specifically used in Acts) or "preaching the kingdom" were being used in a broad sense. For example:
- Acts 8:12- Philip "preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ," resulting in people believing and being baptized. The word "preached" here is euangelizo, so this could be translated as "preached the good news of the things concerning the kingdom of God and of the name of Jesus Christ." Admittedly, this could have been two different things he was preaching about, but even so, at least part of what Philip was proclaiming to non-Jewish (Samaritan) people in an initial message which resulted in faith was referred to as "things concerning the kingdom of God." This is very similar terminology to "gospel of the kingdom" being used by a writer of one of the synoptic gospels, in a way that is probably much more broad than simply referring to the nation of Israel potentially receiving the kingdom, since it was being preached to non-Jews in what we would call an “evangelistic” message.
- Acts 19:8- Paul's preaching in the synagogue for three months is called "reasoning and persuading concerning the things of the kingdom of God." The context is Paul preaching to unsaved people (Jews and some Gentiles), many of whom became hardened and "did not believe," so it seems like this terminology must be broad enough to cover truths regarding individual entrance into God's kingdom (and justification) by faith in Christ.
- Acts 20:25- Paul here refers to his ministry among the Ephesians as "preaching the kingdom of God." If preaching the kingdom in the gospels referred only to announcing the national aspects of the kingdom to Israel, it would seem strange for Paul to then use the same terminology to refer to his teaching to the church in this dispensation. If, however, this term is broad enough to also cover individual entrance into the kingdom (like John chapter 3) and rewards in the kingdom, then it would make sense for Paul's teaching to be called "preaching the kingdom of God."
- Acts 28:23- In Paul's preaching to the Jews in Rome, testifying of the kingdom of God and persuading them concerning Jesus seem to be parallel thoughts.
I realize that the specific phrase "gospel of the kingdom" is not used in any of these cases, but I believe they do show that teaching about the kingdom was seen in a broad sense that would have included not only the national aspects of the kingdom, but also individual entrance by faith and individual reward based on faithfulness. If terminology like this was being used that broadly in the book of Acts, it seems likely that it was also being used broadly by the writers of the gospels, who were writing for the church.
The Parable of the Sower-
- As I said before, this was the clincher for me. Restating what I said previously in my brief article, in Matthew 13:19, Jesus is recorded as saying that the seed sown represents "the word of the kingdom." Then in Luke 8:12, Jesus says that the seed which falls by the wayside represents those who hear the word, but the devil comes and takes away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved. So, by comparing these two records of the one parable, we can see that Jesus Himself indicated that "the word of the kingdom" included truths which could be believed resulting in salvation. The whole context of the seed springing up also indicates that this "salvation" refers to justification. So this indicates to me that preaching the kingdom included, but was obviously not limited to, information about how someone could enter the kingdom by being born again.
The other argument I made in my article, which I do think bears some weight, is the fact that we know from the gospel of John that Jesus did preach the message of eternal life broadly throughout Israel. We know that, first of all because some of the recorded instances in John were given in public messages, and secondly because throughout the book of John we see that many people believed in Jesus, even when the specific message that was preached to them is not recorded. So, when Jesus traveled around teaching, He must have taught about eternal life and/or justification by faith in Him. That is the only way people could have believed in Him in the biblical sense. Therefore, when the synoptic gospels say that He went around "preaching the gospel of the kingdom," it either has to refer to only part of what Jesus went around preaching, in which case the synoptic gospels would be virtually ignoring the fact that Jesus taught about eternal life, or it has to be a broad enough term to cover the message of eternal life as well and other truths. I think the other uses of similar terminology which I have pointed out make it clear that the second option was actually the case.
If my conclusions are correct, I think it helps make more sense of the synoptic gospels, because it would mean that they at least make broad reference to Jesus preaching eternal life. With my previous understanding, I had to assume that Matthew, Mark and Luke chose to virtually ignore that aspect of Jesus’ teaching. It also makes sense of the fact that Jesus indicated that the “gospel of the kingdom” will be preached in all the world during the tribulation (Matthew 24:14). This would seem strange if the terminology only referred to the national aspects of the kingdom, but not if it was a broad term which included any preaching about the kingdom.
I have put together the following notes to discuss two questions: First, does the word “gospel” include justification truths, or only truths for Christian growth? I understand that the word gospel does not only refer to justification, but it is my contention that it is a broad term which does include truths about justification. Second, is the Gospel of the Kingdom different than the gospel? Does it refer only to the national reception of the kingdom by Israel, or to a broad spectrum of truths about the kingdom, including individual entrance by faith?
Following are some cases where I believe it is clear that the word “gospel” is being used to refer to justification.
- Ephesians 1:13- “In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise…” Even if the word "trusted" is taken out of this verse, as it is not in the Greek, it clearly refers to a chain of events in which the Ephesians heard the "gospel of their salvation," believed in Christ, and were sealed with the Holy Spirit. So, in this case, the gospel has to at least include the initial justification truths which they heard. I realize the word gospel does not appear alone here, but in the phrase, "gospel of your salvation." Still, it seems like a clear example of euangelion (the noun for gospel) being used to refer to justification truths. I also recognize that "salvation" could theoretically not be referring to justification in this context, but since the response to the hearing is believing and being sealed with the Spirit, it seems clear that it is referring to justification.
- Galatians 1:8-9- Paul uses the word "gospel" here and elsewhere in the book to refer to the message which he had taught and was trying to defend. In the context (see especially 2:16), it is clear that the primary truth he was writing to defend was the truth of justification by faith in Jesus.
- 1 Corinthians 4:15- ...for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.
- This seems to clearly label the truths which led to the Corinthians believers being born again as "the gospel."
So, though Paul obviously used the word gospel in a much broader sense than only to refer to truths leading to justification, it seems clear to me that he did use the word to include the teaching of justification by faith.
Now, what about the book of Acts?
- In Acts, Luke mostly uses the verb form, euangelizo, rather than the noun. In the book of Luke, he only used the verb, never the noun. The verb is often translated simply as "preached" in English, but it is a closely related word and should be considered. As far as the noun goes, in Acts 15:7, Luke records Peter using the noun form "gospel" to refer back to the message which he preached to Cornelius and his family. This was a justification message, and the context in Acts 15 is also dealing with the Gentiles being justified by faith alone. So, here is at least one place where Luke used the noun to refer to justification truths. Of course, we know that Luke was a disciple of Paul, so it is to be expected that he would use terminology with the same meanings as his mentor, and it seems clear to me that Paul used the word broadly, to include either justification or sanctification truths, or both, depending on the context.
If we expand our look at the book of Acts to include the verb form, there are also some cases where it seems to clearly refer to preaching justification/eternal life through faith in Jesus. For example:
- Acts 5:42- "They did not cease teaching and preaching (euangelizo) Jesus as the Christ." Preaching Jesus as the Christ biblically has to mean telling people the good news (gospel) that He is the one who gives eternal life to all who believe in Him.
- Acts 8:35- "Philip...preached (euangelizo) Jesus to him." This preaching resulted in the Ethiopian eunuch believing in Jesus and being baptized., so again, must refer to preaching justification by faith.
So, here is my chain of logic: Paul used the word gospel to include either or both justification and sanctification truths. Luke, a disciple of Paul, also used it that way, at least when he wrote the book of Acts. When Luke used either the noun or verb form of the word in Acts, he gave no indication that it meant something different than the verb had meant in his first book. So, this implies to me that among the churches, the word "gospel" was a known term that didn't need explanation, and was used to include both justification and sanctification truths. Therefore it would have been understood that way in verses like Luke 20:1, where it says that Jesus "preached the gospel" in the temple.
Gospel in the synoptics-
Though there are no verses in the synoptics which clearly use the word gospel to refer to justification, there are a few places, even in Matthew and Mark, where it seems to be used more broadly than what dispensationalists have thought of as the gospel of the kingdom.
- Matthew 26:13 and Mark 14:9 both say "wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world, what this woman has done will also be told as a memorial to her." The fact that Jesus said "this gospel," seems to imply that the same "gospel" His disciples had heard Him preach would be preached worldwide. Therefore, even Matthew seems to be using the word here in a broader sense than simply "the kingdom is available to Israel if they repent and believe in the Messiah." He is referring to the story of Jesus being told worldwide.
- Mark 16:15- Jesus commissioned the disciples to "preach the gospel" in the whole world. Again, worldwide proclamation implies a message broader than simply that the kingdom was available to Israel. And we know that what the apostles did in response to this commission was to preach the whole story about Jesus, starting with justification by faith in Him.
- If you test the hypothesis that the word "gospel" only refers to sanctification truths, or that in the synoptics it only refers to the good news that the kingdom was available to Israel as a nation, there are many places that don't seem to fit. On the other hand, if you test the hypothesis that "the gospel" refers to the whole story of Jesus, with one or another aspect of it sometimes more to the forefront, I believe it fits in every case.
What about "the gospel of the kingdom," specifically?
First of all, in the book of Acts, preaching the kingdom and preaching about Jesus seem to be used interchangeably, or at least in the same context, which indicates to me that terminology such as "the gospel of the kingdom," (though it is not specifically used in Acts) or "preaching the kingdom" were being used in a broad sense. For example:
- Acts 8:12- Philip "preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ," resulting in people believing and being baptized. The word "preached" here is euangelizo, so this could be translated as "preached the good news of the things concerning the kingdom of God and of the name of Jesus Christ." Admittedly, this could have been two different things he was preaching about, but even so, at least part of what Philip was proclaiming to non-Jewish (Samaritan) people in an initial message which resulted in faith was referred to as "things concerning the kingdom of God." This is very similar terminology to "gospel of the kingdom" being used by a writer of one of the synoptic gospels, in a way that is probably much more broad than simply referring to the nation of Israel potentially receiving the kingdom, since it was being preached to non-Jews in what we would call an “evangelistic” message.
- Acts 19:8- Paul's preaching in the synagogue for three months is called "reasoning and persuading concerning the things of the kingdom of God." The context is Paul preaching to unsaved people (Jews and some Gentiles), many of whom became hardened and "did not believe," so it seems like this terminology must be broad enough to cover truths regarding individual entrance into God's kingdom (and justification) by faith in Christ.
- Acts 20:25- Paul here refers to his ministry among the Ephesians as "preaching the kingdom of God." If preaching the kingdom in the gospels referred only to announcing the national aspects of the kingdom to Israel, it would seem strange for Paul to then use the same terminology to refer to his teaching to the church in this dispensation. If, however, this term is broad enough to also cover individual entrance into the kingdom (like John chapter 3) and rewards in the kingdom, then it would make sense for Paul's teaching to be called "preaching the kingdom of God."
- Acts 28:23- In Paul's preaching to the Jews in Rome, testifying of the kingdom of God and persuading them concerning Jesus seem to be parallel thoughts.
I realize that the specific phrase "gospel of the kingdom" is not used in any of these cases, but I believe they do show that teaching about the kingdom was seen in a broad sense that would have included not only the national aspects of the kingdom, but also individual entrance by faith and individual reward based on faithfulness. If terminology like this was being used that broadly in the book of Acts, it seems likely that it was also being used broadly by the writers of the gospels, who were writing for the church.
The Parable of the Sower-
- As I said before, this was the clincher for me. Restating what I said previously in my brief article, in Matthew 13:19, Jesus is recorded as saying that the seed sown represents "the word of the kingdom." Then in Luke 8:12, Jesus says that the seed which falls by the wayside represents those who hear the word, but the devil comes and takes away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved. So, by comparing these two records of the one parable, we can see that Jesus Himself indicated that "the word of the kingdom" included truths which could be believed resulting in salvation. The whole context of the seed springing up also indicates that this "salvation" refers to justification. So this indicates to me that preaching the kingdom included, but was obviously not limited to, information about how someone could enter the kingdom by being born again.
The other argument I made in my article, which I do think bears some weight, is the fact that we know from the gospel of John that Jesus did preach the message of eternal life broadly throughout Israel. We know that, first of all because some of the recorded instances in John were given in public messages, and secondly because throughout the book of John we see that many people believed in Jesus, even when the specific message that was preached to them is not recorded. So, when Jesus traveled around teaching, He must have taught about eternal life and/or justification by faith in Him. That is the only way people could have believed in Him in the biblical sense. Therefore, when the synoptic gospels say that He went around "preaching the gospel of the kingdom," it either has to refer to only part of what Jesus went around preaching, in which case the synoptic gospels would be virtually ignoring the fact that Jesus taught about eternal life, or it has to be a broad enough term to cover the message of eternal life as well and other truths. I think the other uses of similar terminology which I have pointed out make it clear that the second option was actually the case.
If my conclusions are correct, I think it helps make more sense of the synoptic gospels, because it would mean that they at least make broad reference to Jesus preaching eternal life. With my previous understanding, I had to assume that Matthew, Mark and Luke chose to virtually ignore that aspect of Jesus’ teaching. It also makes sense of the fact that Jesus indicated that the “gospel of the kingdom” will be preached in all the world during the tribulation (Matthew 24:14). This would seem strange if the terminology only referred to the national aspects of the kingdom, but not if it was a broad term which included any preaching about the kingdom.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Making a decision for Jesus
I was thinking the other day about the common thinking among evangelical Christians that when we talk to unsaved people about the Lord, we need to push for a decision or provide them with an opportunity to respond to the gospel. Actually, I think that’s true, but in a different way than most people think.
The other day I met a man named David who was standing outside the grocery store asking for money or food. After I helped him with a little food (whether that’s a good or bad thing, I’ll let you judge), I started talking with him about his situation and about the Lord. What I found was that, while he agreed that there probably is a God, he didn’t see how he could trust someone he couldn’t see. When I was done talking to him, I did push him a little to make a decision, but it wasn’t to decide to believe in Jesus. Rather I gave him a book of John and a “The Best News You’ll Ever Hear” tract, and asked him to read them with an open mind to see what God has to say about the free gift of eternal life.
Since everyone who has so far read this blog and made comments already shares my same basic beliefs, I realize that I am “preaching to the choir” here, but I thought my conversation with David was a good example of the futility of trying to make someone decide to believe. How can a person who is not sure there is a trustworthy God decide to believe that the Bible is His infallible word and that He truly offers eternal life through faith in His Son? It is through exposure to truth and considering it with an open mind that people find themselves believing something. A person believes in Jesus when he becomes convinced that His offer of eternal life to all who believe is true and reliable.
While a person cannot make himself believe in Jesus or in anything else, God in His word does have strong things to say against those who reject Jesus in spite of the evidence. John 3:36, for example, says that the wrath of God abides on the person who does not believe the Son. “Does not believe” in this verse is one Greek word, apeitheo, and is better translated “disbelieves” or “rejects.” Throughout the book of John and the other gospels, Jesus repeatedly rebukes the Pharisees because of their refusal to believe. So it seems that, while a person cannot choose to believe something they are not convinced of, they can choose not to believe because they refuse to even consider the evidence. On the positive side, they can decide to weigh the evidence with an open mind, and that is the type of decision I believe we should ask people to make. If a person does show interest, but is not yet convinced of the truth of Jesus’ claims, I believe that inviting them to study the word further together is also a good type of decision to push for. If a person does decide to study the issue out and weigh the evidence, then God can use His word in that person’s heart to draw them to faith in Christ.
I would welcome any of your thoughts as well on the types of decisions we should or should not ask unsaved people to make.
The other day I met a man named David who was standing outside the grocery store asking for money or food. After I helped him with a little food (whether that’s a good or bad thing, I’ll let you judge), I started talking with him about his situation and about the Lord. What I found was that, while he agreed that there probably is a God, he didn’t see how he could trust someone he couldn’t see. When I was done talking to him, I did push him a little to make a decision, but it wasn’t to decide to believe in Jesus. Rather I gave him a book of John and a “The Best News You’ll Ever Hear” tract, and asked him to read them with an open mind to see what God has to say about the free gift of eternal life.
Since everyone who has so far read this blog and made comments already shares my same basic beliefs, I realize that I am “preaching to the choir” here, but I thought my conversation with David was a good example of the futility of trying to make someone decide to believe. How can a person who is not sure there is a trustworthy God decide to believe that the Bible is His infallible word and that He truly offers eternal life through faith in His Son? It is through exposure to truth and considering it with an open mind that people find themselves believing something. A person believes in Jesus when he becomes convinced that His offer of eternal life to all who believe is true and reliable.
While a person cannot make himself believe in Jesus or in anything else, God in His word does have strong things to say against those who reject Jesus in spite of the evidence. John 3:36, for example, says that the wrath of God abides on the person who does not believe the Son. “Does not believe” in this verse is one Greek word, apeitheo, and is better translated “disbelieves” or “rejects.” Throughout the book of John and the other gospels, Jesus repeatedly rebukes the Pharisees because of their refusal to believe. So it seems that, while a person cannot choose to believe something they are not convinced of, they can choose not to believe because they refuse to even consider the evidence. On the positive side, they can decide to weigh the evidence with an open mind, and that is the type of decision I believe we should ask people to make. If a person does show interest, but is not yet convinced of the truth of Jesus’ claims, I believe that inviting them to study the word further together is also a good type of decision to push for. If a person does decide to study the issue out and weigh the evidence, then God can use His word in that person’s heart to draw them to faith in Christ.
I would welcome any of your thoughts as well on the types of decisions we should or should not ask unsaved people to make.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
An Old Man Who Changed His Mind (A Little)
Okay, maybe one more post for now about repentance, and then perhaps we’ll move on to another topic. I don’t have much of a plan for where we go after this. This will be a shorter post and anecdotal, but it is something I have thought about a lot in connection with how much a person must or must not change his mind in order to believe in Jesus.
In our ministry in Papua New Guinea, one couple we worked with was an old, frail couple named Dua and Agnes who were nearly on their deathbeds. Their lives consisted of moving outside into the sun when the weather was nice, going inside into their little hut which they shared with some pigs when it was raining or the sun was too bright, and waiting for their family to bring them food. We used to go and visit with them, take them some food, and teach them from the Bible.
Dua and Agnes had been well steeped in animistic Catholicism and put all their hope of heaven in the Catholic system. But as I taught them, one thing that kept coming up from Dua, the husband, was that when he was a young man he had stolen a pig and had never gotten caught or paid any compensation for it, and he was worried that maybe that sin would send him to hell.
As I taught Dua, I taught a lot about how we as fallen people are helpless sinners and are unable to keep God’s laws or do anything to save ourselves. But when I would ask him about being a sinner, it always seemed to come back to that stolen pig. I don’t know how much Dua ever grasped the depth of his sinfulness outside of that one sin, but to the best of my knowledge he did understand that Jesus had paid for his sins and that Jesus alone would freely save him. And to the best of my knowledge, Dua did believe in Jesus as the One who would indeed save him and give him eternal life.
Now, the reason I have thought a lot about Dua in regard to repentance is that I have heard people who believe that repentance refers to a change of mind say that a person must understand that he is a helpless sinner before he can truly believe in Jesus. Many would say that a person could not truly believe in Jesus if he was only scared about the consequences of one particular sin, rather than seeing himself as a sinner completely beyond remedy. There was a time when I would have agreed with them. But now I realize that it must either be true or not true that a person can entrust his eternal destiny to Jesus and be secure.
I understand that God’s law was intended to point out sin and that God desires that all of us would understand the depth of our sin and thus the depth of His mercy. I also understand that a deep awareness of sin often leads people to faith in Christ. At the same time, I saw in Dua an example of a person whose understanding of such an important biblical theme was very limited, and yet who, as far as I could tell, believed that Jesus would give him eternal life. As I think about Dua, it makes me wonder, how much do any of us truly understand the depths of our sinfulness? When can we ever say our minds have been changed enough?
The fact remains that no matter how much more a person needs to understand about himself, about his sin, about Jesus and about his relationship with God, Jesus told us “whoever believes in Me, has eternal life.” That is the promise of our Lord, and we can take that to the bank.
Just some thoughts to ponder in connection with thinking about repentance as a change of mind. Any thoughts?
In our ministry in Papua New Guinea, one couple we worked with was an old, frail couple named Dua and Agnes who were nearly on their deathbeds. Their lives consisted of moving outside into the sun when the weather was nice, going inside into their little hut which they shared with some pigs when it was raining or the sun was too bright, and waiting for their family to bring them food. We used to go and visit with them, take them some food, and teach them from the Bible.
Dua and Agnes had been well steeped in animistic Catholicism and put all their hope of heaven in the Catholic system. But as I taught them, one thing that kept coming up from Dua, the husband, was that when he was a young man he had stolen a pig and had never gotten caught or paid any compensation for it, and he was worried that maybe that sin would send him to hell.
As I taught Dua, I taught a lot about how we as fallen people are helpless sinners and are unable to keep God’s laws or do anything to save ourselves. But when I would ask him about being a sinner, it always seemed to come back to that stolen pig. I don’t know how much Dua ever grasped the depth of his sinfulness outside of that one sin, but to the best of my knowledge he did understand that Jesus had paid for his sins and that Jesus alone would freely save him. And to the best of my knowledge, Dua did believe in Jesus as the One who would indeed save him and give him eternal life.
Now, the reason I have thought a lot about Dua in regard to repentance is that I have heard people who believe that repentance refers to a change of mind say that a person must understand that he is a helpless sinner before he can truly believe in Jesus. Many would say that a person could not truly believe in Jesus if he was only scared about the consequences of one particular sin, rather than seeing himself as a sinner completely beyond remedy. There was a time when I would have agreed with them. But now I realize that it must either be true or not true that a person can entrust his eternal destiny to Jesus and be secure.
I understand that God’s law was intended to point out sin and that God desires that all of us would understand the depth of our sin and thus the depth of His mercy. I also understand that a deep awareness of sin often leads people to faith in Christ. At the same time, I saw in Dua an example of a person whose understanding of such an important biblical theme was very limited, and yet who, as far as I could tell, believed that Jesus would give him eternal life. As I think about Dua, it makes me wonder, how much do any of us truly understand the depths of our sinfulness? When can we ever say our minds have been changed enough?
The fact remains that no matter how much more a person needs to understand about himself, about his sin, about Jesus and about his relationship with God, Jesus told us “whoever believes in Me, has eternal life.” That is the promise of our Lord, and we can take that to the bank.
Just some thoughts to ponder in connection with thinking about repentance as a change of mind. Any thoughts?
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Repentance as a Change of Mind
Many people who believe that eternal life is received by faith alone in Christ alone will also say that repentance is necessary for salvation. They harmonize these two views by saying that repentance simply means a change of mind and is basically synonymous with faith. This is based on the fact that the Greek word metanoia is constructed of the words "after" and "mind." So, those who hold that view agree with proponents of Lordship Salvation that repentance is necessary for eternal salvation, but disagree with them regarding the definition of repentance. Though I for several years held to this position, over time it has become obvious to me that there are some serious problems with this view, and that it is more biblically consistent to see repentance as involving turning from sin, but as not being a requirement for eternal salvation.
Weaknesses of the "Change of Mind" Position
One easily apparent weakness of the position that "repent" simply means to change one's mind is the fact that there are many uses of the word in the New Testament which either refer to or strongly imply a change in actions. This is important, because words in languages are defined by their usage, not simply by the parts by which they are made up. So once it is granted that repentance is a requirement for receiving eternal life, it is very difficult to maintain the idea that good works are not a part of the equation, at least as an "inevitable result" of repentance. Here I will give just a few examples.
In Luke 17:3, Jesus spoke of forgiving a brother who has sinned against you if he repents. It seems clear that the brother being spoken of here doesn't simply change his mind about his behavior and continue in it, but actually turns away from what he has done, at least for a time. In Acts 26:20, Paul is recorded as saying that he taught people that they needed to "repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance." So if Paul is here summarizing his teaching of how to have eternal life, then not only did he fail to mention faith, but good works seem to play an integral part, at least in showing the reality of repentance. In 2 Cor. 12:21, speaking to believers, Paul talked about his fear of having to deal with those who had not repented of the sins which they were practicing. Again in this context, it is clear that more than a change of mind is in view. Paul wanted the believers in Corinth to stop practicing those sins, and knew he would have to deal harshly with them if they had not. Revelation 9:20-21, speaking of unbelievers during the tribulation period, says that they would not repent of their idolatry and other sins. Again, the point is not simply that they would not change their minds and recognize that they were sinners, but that they were determined to persist in those sins.
In addition to the problem that there are several passages in which repentance clearly refers to abandoning some kind of sinful behavior, there is the problem that biblical Greek dictionaries nearly always refer to repentance as in some way involving turning from sin. For example, Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words says, "this change of mind involves both a turning from sin and a turning to God." Louw and Nida's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament defines repent as "to change one's way of life as the result of a complete change of thought and attitude with regard to sin and righteousness." Other lexicons are similar. While it is possible that all the Greek scholars involved in these works were misguided by their theology, it still makes it difficult to maintain or promote a position which requires that every Greek dictionary is wrong, not to mention every English Bible translation since the English word repent, used in every major translation, also carries the idea of turning from sins.
The other major weakness in the change of mind position is also a weakness in the view that repentance as a turning from sin is necessary in order to receive eternal life, and that is the fact that John, the one book of the New Testament which was written to lead unbelievers to faith in Christ, does not mention repentance at all. Nor is repentance mentioned in the book of Galatians, which was written to defend the true gospel, or in Ephesians, or in any section of Romans which deals with justification. Surely if repentance, no matter which way it is defined, was a necessary part of receiving eternal life, it would have been mentioned in the one book of the New Testament which was specifically written to bring people to faith in Christ, and would have been present in the apostle Paul's discussions of justification.
Problems With the Implications of the "Change of Mind" Position
Initially, when I started to study out the issue of repentance and whether it refers to more than a change of mind, I was focussed only on the usage of the word in scripture and which definition fit the data better. However, over time, I began to realize that there were logical problems with the change of mind view which I had not previously seen. One of these issues is that it introduces subjectivity into the reception of eternal life. Most of the references to repentance, if they are referring to a change of mind, do not specify what people must change their minds about. So how could anyone know if he had adequately changed his mind about the right things? If the word "repent" was understood to mean "turn from your sins," then it would make sense that it would often appear in scripture without any further clarification. But if it meant "change your mind," then people would need to know exactly what they needed to change their minds about.
The other thing I realized about defining repentance as a change of mind and seeing it as a prerequisite for eternal life is that it actually presents two requirements for eternal life, rather than the single requirement of believing in Jesus which is presented so clearly in the book of John and in the epistles. When I held to the change of mind view, I would have said that repentance and faith were basically synonymous, but at the same time I would have said that unless a person had adequately changed his mind about God's holiness, his own complete sinfulness, and the identity of Christ, he would not be saved. That means that I was viewing these changes of mind as prerequisites to saving faith, and faith and prerequisites to faith cannot be the same thing.
When repentance is viewed as a change of mind, it is often said that it is synonymous with faith, but it is difficult to see how changing one's mind about sin, for example, and believing in Jesus Christ for eternal life can mean the same thing. If we make a change of mind about sin into propositions, it might look something like this, "I used to think that any wrong I had done was not a big deal. Now I have changed my mind and know that my sins are offensive to God and have cut me off from Him." While this kind of thinking certainly should prepare a person to believe in Christ, it should be easy to see that it is not the same as believing in Him, and therefore cannot be synonymous with faith. Also, it is quite possible for someone to have this kind of change of mind about sin without believing in Jesus for eternal life. This then becomes two requirements for salvation.
Even if repentance is defined specifically as a change of mind about Christ, rather than about sin or self, it is difficult to see how it is synonymous with faith. A person who has changed his mind about Christ might say, "I used to believe that Jesus was just a great teacher, but now I have changed my mind and believe that He is God." Again, this might prepare a person to believe in Christ for eternal life, but is not the same thing as believing. Many people believe that Jesus is God without believing in Him in the biblical sense of believing in Him for eternal life. Thus they have "changed their minds" about Him, but have not believed. If one can do one without the other, they cannot be synonymous.
So how many requirements for eternal life are there? Is it enough for a person to believe in Jesus Christ for eternal life or eternal salvation, or must he first meet certain prerequisites by changing his mind about God's holiness, his own inability, the offensiveness of sin, and the identity of Christ? Again, these areas may be psychological prerequisites for most people, but that is different than presenting them as biblical prerequisites to faith and then trying to say that they aren't really an additional requirement besides faith.
Conclusion
Most unsaved people have at least one major issue about which they will need to change their minds in order to believe in Jesus. Some have many issues. But I do not believe that these changes of mind leading up to faith are what the Bible refers to when it says "repent." In the Old Testament, the people of Israel were never called on by the prophets to change their minds, but they were often called on to turn from their evil ways in order to turn aside God's temporal judgment. In the same way, in the New Testament, Jews and Gentiles, believers and unbelievers are in different contexts called on to "repent," or turn from their sins, but this is a different issue than "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved." The changes of mind which might need to take place in order to lead someone to faith in Christ will take place as they are exposed to truth, if they are open to it, but this is a different issue than repentance.
Weaknesses of the "Change of Mind" Position
One easily apparent weakness of the position that "repent" simply means to change one's mind is the fact that there are many uses of the word in the New Testament which either refer to or strongly imply a change in actions. This is important, because words in languages are defined by their usage, not simply by the parts by which they are made up. So once it is granted that repentance is a requirement for receiving eternal life, it is very difficult to maintain the idea that good works are not a part of the equation, at least as an "inevitable result" of repentance. Here I will give just a few examples.
In Luke 17:3, Jesus spoke of forgiving a brother who has sinned against you if he repents. It seems clear that the brother being spoken of here doesn't simply change his mind about his behavior and continue in it, but actually turns away from what he has done, at least for a time. In Acts 26:20, Paul is recorded as saying that he taught people that they needed to "repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance." So if Paul is here summarizing his teaching of how to have eternal life, then not only did he fail to mention faith, but good works seem to play an integral part, at least in showing the reality of repentance. In 2 Cor. 12:21, speaking to believers, Paul talked about his fear of having to deal with those who had not repented of the sins which they were practicing. Again in this context, it is clear that more than a change of mind is in view. Paul wanted the believers in Corinth to stop practicing those sins, and knew he would have to deal harshly with them if they had not. Revelation 9:20-21, speaking of unbelievers during the tribulation period, says that they would not repent of their idolatry and other sins. Again, the point is not simply that they would not change their minds and recognize that they were sinners, but that they were determined to persist in those sins.
In addition to the problem that there are several passages in which repentance clearly refers to abandoning some kind of sinful behavior, there is the problem that biblical Greek dictionaries nearly always refer to repentance as in some way involving turning from sin. For example, Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words says, "this change of mind involves both a turning from sin and a turning to God." Louw and Nida's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament defines repent as "to change one's way of life as the result of a complete change of thought and attitude with regard to sin and righteousness." Other lexicons are similar. While it is possible that all the Greek scholars involved in these works were misguided by their theology, it still makes it difficult to maintain or promote a position which requires that every Greek dictionary is wrong, not to mention every English Bible translation since the English word repent, used in every major translation, also carries the idea of turning from sins.
The other major weakness in the change of mind position is also a weakness in the view that repentance as a turning from sin is necessary in order to receive eternal life, and that is the fact that John, the one book of the New Testament which was written to lead unbelievers to faith in Christ, does not mention repentance at all. Nor is repentance mentioned in the book of Galatians, which was written to defend the true gospel, or in Ephesians, or in any section of Romans which deals with justification. Surely if repentance, no matter which way it is defined, was a necessary part of receiving eternal life, it would have been mentioned in the one book of the New Testament which was specifically written to bring people to faith in Christ, and would have been present in the apostle Paul's discussions of justification.
Problems With the Implications of the "Change of Mind" Position
Initially, when I started to study out the issue of repentance and whether it refers to more than a change of mind, I was focussed only on the usage of the word in scripture and which definition fit the data better. However, over time, I began to realize that there were logical problems with the change of mind view which I had not previously seen. One of these issues is that it introduces subjectivity into the reception of eternal life. Most of the references to repentance, if they are referring to a change of mind, do not specify what people must change their minds about. So how could anyone know if he had adequately changed his mind about the right things? If the word "repent" was understood to mean "turn from your sins," then it would make sense that it would often appear in scripture without any further clarification. But if it meant "change your mind," then people would need to know exactly what they needed to change their minds about.
The other thing I realized about defining repentance as a change of mind and seeing it as a prerequisite for eternal life is that it actually presents two requirements for eternal life, rather than the single requirement of believing in Jesus which is presented so clearly in the book of John and in the epistles. When I held to the change of mind view, I would have said that repentance and faith were basically synonymous, but at the same time I would have said that unless a person had adequately changed his mind about God's holiness, his own complete sinfulness, and the identity of Christ, he would not be saved. That means that I was viewing these changes of mind as prerequisites to saving faith, and faith and prerequisites to faith cannot be the same thing.
When repentance is viewed as a change of mind, it is often said that it is synonymous with faith, but it is difficult to see how changing one's mind about sin, for example, and believing in Jesus Christ for eternal life can mean the same thing. If we make a change of mind about sin into propositions, it might look something like this, "I used to think that any wrong I had done was not a big deal. Now I have changed my mind and know that my sins are offensive to God and have cut me off from Him." While this kind of thinking certainly should prepare a person to believe in Christ, it should be easy to see that it is not the same as believing in Him, and therefore cannot be synonymous with faith. Also, it is quite possible for someone to have this kind of change of mind about sin without believing in Jesus for eternal life. This then becomes two requirements for salvation.
Even if repentance is defined specifically as a change of mind about Christ, rather than about sin or self, it is difficult to see how it is synonymous with faith. A person who has changed his mind about Christ might say, "I used to believe that Jesus was just a great teacher, but now I have changed my mind and believe that He is God." Again, this might prepare a person to believe in Christ for eternal life, but is not the same thing as believing. Many people believe that Jesus is God without believing in Him in the biblical sense of believing in Him for eternal life. Thus they have "changed their minds" about Him, but have not believed. If one can do one without the other, they cannot be synonymous.
So how many requirements for eternal life are there? Is it enough for a person to believe in Jesus Christ for eternal life or eternal salvation, or must he first meet certain prerequisites by changing his mind about God's holiness, his own inability, the offensiveness of sin, and the identity of Christ? Again, these areas may be psychological prerequisites for most people, but that is different than presenting them as biblical prerequisites to faith and then trying to say that they aren't really an additional requirement besides faith.
Conclusion
Most unsaved people have at least one major issue about which they will need to change their minds in order to believe in Jesus. Some have many issues. But I do not believe that these changes of mind leading up to faith are what the Bible refers to when it says "repent." In the Old Testament, the people of Israel were never called on by the prophets to change their minds, but they were often called on to turn from their evil ways in order to turn aside God's temporal judgment. In the same way, in the New Testament, Jews and Gentiles, believers and unbelievers are in different contexts called on to "repent," or turn from their sins, but this is a different issue than "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved." The changes of mind which might need to take place in order to lead someone to faith in Christ will take place as they are exposed to truth, if they are open to it, but this is a different issue than repentance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)