Comment by John Malone » 18th July, 2006 @ 11:10:59 AM

I’d like to answer brother Davis’ remarks above, especially because I don’t disagree with him at all, but think he has misunderstood my concerns.

I call you my brother, because you have named the name of the Lord Jesus Christ in such a way that I understand your faith in Him.

As to your first point, we are in complete agreement. In fact, for many years I have taught God’s gift and prize are distinct, as can be heard on my series “God’s Gift and God’s Prize” in the archives of his site.

Discipleship is about the life of the believer, not his inaugural calling.

Secondly, I agree with you, again, completely and verbatim. “Repentance,” (metanoia) is not found in John’s gospel in any of its forms.

Thirdly, I agree that assurance of eternal life is only found by grace through faith, and not in performance of any kind. However, I would disagree with GES people, such as Bob Wilkin, Zane Hodges, and Bob Bryant, who now claim that if a person does not have assurance of eternal life, he has never believed in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Assurance comes by faith in God’s Word, and that faith may not necessarily come with the {revelation|mat 16:17} that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

I am not in favor of adding extra-Biblical requirements to call a brother a brother. But when I read the Scriptures, I discover that in the new birth God DOES identify Jesus Christ to the believer as more than some indistinct “guarantor of eternal life,” as named by Hodges, Wilkin, and Bryant (H,W&B), who might not event be a human being!

Peter found Him to be {“the Christ, the Son of the living God.”|Mat 16:16-17} Thomas found Him to be {“My Lord and my God.”|Jo 20:28} The centurion at the cross found Him to be {“the Son of God.”|Mat 15:39} The thief on the cross found Him to be {“Lord.”|Lu 23:42}

The problem I have with the indistinct “confession of faith” allowed by H,W&B is that is actually necessitates a new doctrine of persistence, but instead of the Calvinistic “persistence in good works,” it supplants it with “persistence in sound doctrine.” Why do I say that? Because ostensibly, HW&B allow that faith in “Jesus the frog” is sufficient so long as the believer regards THAT Jesus (or, in my argumentum ad hominem, “Je”) as “the guarantor of eternal life.” And yet, would I call such a professor, that “Je the frog” is his savior, my brother?

Of course, I would not. The argument that he is MUST be that, while he inaugurally believed in “Je the Frog,” he followed up by learning the Lord Jesus Christ was Who that passage was about, and now has come to a persuasive testimony concerning His person and work. We must have some basic requirement of faith in order to have fellowship together, and God DOES intend for us to have fellowship together! Therefore, there MUST BE a standard by which we can tell our faith, and it is not a works standard.

I would hope brother Davis agrees with this.

Davis then says this: “when we say that a specific knowledge of the person of Jesus Christ is required before the proposition can be believed, we must with absolute certitude define the specific line which must be crossed, and subsequently we must also define what happens to those who defect in some portion of the ‘essential’ presuppositions.”

I will point out that, already, brother Davis has drawn a line short of H,W,&B, by drawing a line at all! When he says “specific knowledge of the person of Jesus Christ,” he implies acceptation of Jesus Christ as a person regardless of the requested specification. That is beyond the doctrine of H,W&B, and even already goes to considering the Lord Jesus Himself.

Its apparent from Scripture that one who acknowledges Jesus Christ is the Son of God, is thereby Lord of that believer. These are the confessions of faith we find either direct or implicit in the mouths of all those who are quoted in their confessions, as given above. “Guarantor of eternal life” is not found.

In my view, whoever brings this faith to me, and does NOT bring denials of His incarnation, is my brother.

In fact, the Bible teaches that knowing HIM is what brings eternal life, not knowing-Him-as-bringing-eternal-life. It may seem like a small distinction, but it is NOT.

In fact, Hodges hypothetical that a lost man inhabits an island all alone and yet is somehow evangelized without another human being is, on its face, completely farcical: a red herring. No one has ever been evangelized except personally by another human being, and the only case where we see someone trying to adduce from the Bible alone Who the Savior is, the Ethiopian Eunuch, was given Divine help by the {sending of Philip.|Acts 8:26-31} This occurs despite the corollary fact we know, that no one can reveal the Lord Jesus Christ to someone except His (and my) Father in heaven. I leave the simultaneous occurence of these two matters to the Author of time and coincidence.

I hope I have made myself clear in this matter, and am willing to be assessed in it.

Comment by Keith Melton » 11th December, 2007 @ 06:03:27 PM

Salvation is caused by faith properly focused on Jesus, as to the following. Who He is, What He has done. What He Provides. All three aspects are needed for salvation. For anyone to improperly focus on one aspect to the neglect of others causes a dangerous imbalance and possible heresy in regards to the particular Gospel about/of Jesus the Christ. Paul’s description of the “Gospel” contains all 3. John’s “gospel” contains all 3. Any “Gospel” presentation lacking these 3 will be lopsided, and conducive to errors.

In addition I would say that anyone who denies any one of these aspects is either an unbeliever or an apostate.

Who Jesus is, God
What has He done, died for the sins of the world, and rose again.
What He provides, eternal life to all who believe in Him.
Salvation must stand on all three of these things or it falls.