Clear examples of false belief in John & Epistles...?

[cyberjosh]

John speaks alot about belief in his Gospel and said expressly that he wrote it that people might believe. However we also see John's use of "belief" in a more questionable sense than he often uses it. While Jesus was at the Passover, John tells us, many people saw his signs and "believed in his name," but Jesus, for his part, refused to entrust himself to these "believers" because "he knew all people" (2:23-24). John seems to mean by this that Jesus knew their faith to be inauthentic. This does not describe the promised abiding in Him, and He in them given in the "bread of life" discourse in John 6. Jesus said, "If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."Â Jesus seems here to want to distinguish between his true disciples who follow him and those who believe shallowly, and follow after him yet do not abide in him. Could that be the dead faith which James mentions? Is this what transpired in John 2?

Later as Jesus was speaking with the people again, "many believed on him"Â (John 8:30). "Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, 'If you abide in my word, then you are truely disciples of Mine'" (John 8:31). So after they "believed"Â on him then Jesus tells them that they must then abide in him to be true disciples. Is he testing their belief to see if it is genuine (to see if they will stumble at a "hard teaching"Â [John 6:60 & 66] and prove themselves "unbelievers")? But let us also consider the fact that these same Jews who "believed", whom Jesus spoke to, immediately thereafter degenerated in their mood to unhappiness with Jesus' words (8:33), then resorted to name-calling (claiming that he had a demon, 8:48), and then subsequently attempted to stone him (8:59). This type of "belief" looks a lot like unbelief.

A final example in John of a false belief, in which it is used atleast in a questionable sense, is in John 12:42-43 which says:

"Nevertheless many even of the rulers believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they were not confessing Him, for fear that they would be put out of the synagogue; for they loved the approval [Lit. Glory - Greek: Doxa] of men rather than the approval [Glory - Doxa] of God."

This is an odd mix of praise (for actually "believing") and a rebuke, but ultimately in John's theology it is no good because note Jesus' own words earlier:

"How can you believe, when you receive glory [Doxa] from one another and you do not seek the glory [Doxa] that is from the one and only God? " (John 5:44)

The context of John 5:44 makes it clear that it was a rhetorical question and that the answer is that they couldn't believe and seek glory [praise, approval] from other men at the same time, because they are contrary pursuits. And because the men in John 12:43 loved the glory of men more they did not confess Jesus.

Surprisingly this parallels the supposed "Jewish Christians" in Galatians (the false teaching "Judaizers" who supposedly believed in Christ but mixed works of the law in with the faith) because Paul says at the end of his epistle:

"Those who desire to make a good showing in the flesh try to compel you to be circumcised, simply so that they will not be persecuted [Parallel John 12:43 - 'not be put out of the Synagogue'] for the cross of Christ. For those who are circumcised do not even keep the Law themselves, but they desire to have you circumcised so that they may glory [or boast - Parallel seeking glory and praise from men] in your flesh." (Galatians 6:12-13)

This also evidences that they are not of God because, "whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God." (James 4:4)

What are your thoughts on this. Do you agree with my assessment of what seems to be falsely called "belief" (or non-genuine belief)?

 

[Drew]

My immediate reaction is that I agree with your take on this matter. I assume that you therefore believe that a one-time act of mental assent to the proposition that Jesus has died for one's sins and is Lord of the Universe is not really salvific (sufficient for salvation). Am I correct in my speculation about your view on this?

 

[golfjack]

reply

Can we really know Jesus through the Gospels of Matt. Mark, Luke, and John? I contend we can know the real Jesus by what is written in the Book of Revelation. Does anyone agree?



May God bless, Golfjack

 

[Guest]

Re: reply

Can we really know Jesus through the Gospels of Matt. Mark, Luke, and John? I contend we can know the real Jesus by what is written in the Book of Revelation. Does anyone agree?



May God bless, Golfjack

Why are you limiting it to one book? I would contend that you can know Jesus throughout the WHOLE bible.

 

[cyberjosh]

I assume that you therefore believe that a one-time act of mental assent to the proposition that Jesus has died for one's sins and is Lord of the Universe is not really salvific (sufficient for salvation). Am I correct in my speculation about your view on this?

Absolutely. And John 12:42-43 proves that belief is incomplete (or insufficient) without confession. "If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved" (Romans 10:9)

And thank you for the affirmation of my view. I've been wanting to discuss this for a while now. I hope this will stimulate more discussion. I also have a horrifically (yeah really) long(er) study of this here if anyone dare take the time to tackle it (I won't blame you if you decline).

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[golfjack]

reply

Let's just say that I know Jesus as Lord of lords and King of kings. I don't worship a Jesus that is on a cross yet.


Josh, It seems to me that you are getting into legalistic things about salvation. It's quite simple to me and that is one must be born again aznd use Romans 10:9-10 to become a Christian. As you probably know, I believe the only way one can lose salvation is to publically deny Christ after they are saved and fulfill the conditions of Hebrews 6:4-6. The Bible says that some Jewish believers did this, and committed the unpardonable sin Hebrews 10:26-30.



May God bless, Golfjack

 

[cyberjosh]

Josh, It seems to me that you are getting into legalistic things about salvation. It's quite simple to me and that is one must be born again aznd use Romans 10:9-10 to become a Christian. As you probably know, I believe the only way one can lose salvation is to publically deny Christ after they are saved and fulfill the conditions of Hebrews 6:4-6.

That is a position I am willing to accept if it can be scripturally proven. That is why I asked all those systematic questions in the other thread I've created in the Bible Discussion area. I would love to just simply believe that and put my mind at ease but I'm seeing areas of Scripture that are very difficult to reconcile concerning salvation and whether you are able to lose it or not - and it is aggravating me to death because I know that there must be a reconcilliation, but I have to pay dues to all of Scripture. Thus my systematic study in the other thread.

I hope you see my sincerity in this issue. And I do not desire to be legalistic in the least. So if you can help me figure out what is bugging me so much in the other thread I would much appreciate it.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[cyberjosh]

I don't worship a Jesus that is on a cross yet.

What do you mean? And why push the Gospels away? They are extremely important or they would not have been written.

 

[golfjack]

reply

Josh, You have asked me for my opinion about what is bothering you. I hope you take this in love. I believe you should approach this situation with your heart and not so much with your brain. Ask God for answers and trust that small voice that answers your questioins. Also, don't give into thoughts that are so doubting. You know the devil will do anything to side track your ministry. I will pray for you and you just rebuke that seed of doubt in the Name of Jesus.



May God bless, Golfjack

 

[TanNinety]

Ah Josh, you have been doing your homework and quite impressive. We christians, I believe have quite cleverly removed action out of belief and faith. We tag the underlying action that is required for faith and belief as abominable 'work' and deny it. James addresses this very well teaching that faith and action are inseparable and you cannot have one without the other. Each on its own is dead. I agree with your post with my claim that the underlying action that should be coupled with faith is - believing in the message of Christ and walking accordingly which Christ obviously required of His disciples like you pointed out. I do not see a reason why this had to/has changed post calvary.

 

[cyberjosh]

Ah Josh, you have been doing your homework and quite impressive.

Thank you. I take it you read some of my larger thread? [Edit: Yeah, I remeber now, we talked in my original, larger thread - would you like to continue there?]

We christians, I believe have quite cleverly removed action out of belief and faith. We tag the underlying action that is required for faith and belief as abominable 'work' and deny it. James addresses this very well teaching that faith and action are inseparable and you cannot have one without the other. Each on its own is dead. I agree with your post with my claim that the underlying action that should be coupled with faith is - believing in the message of Christ and walking accordingly which Christ obviously required of His disciples like you pointed out.

True. I agree.

I do not see a reason why this had to/has changed post calvary

Well what I was really wondering was if the presence of the Holy Spirit post-calvary changed anything. I mean we really equate salvation with the regeneration and indwelling of the Holy Spirit so I was wondering how we can bridge the lines between them (when they didn't have the Spirit) and us. Because I think the Holy Spirit gives us more power to overcome things than the disciples often had avaiable to them (Peter falling away for example - would that have happened if Peter had the Spirit in him?). Do you agree? Do you see my point?

Please tell me your thoughts.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[mutzrein]

Re: reply

Can we really know Jesus through the Gospels of Matt. Mark, Luke, and John? I contend we can know the real Jesus by what is written in the Book of Revelation. Does anyone agree?



May God bless, Golfjack

I know Jesus by what is written in my heart - not by words written in a book.

 

[francisdesales]

Re: reply

Can we really know Jesus through the Gospels of Matt. Mark, Luke, and John? I contend we can know the real Jesus by what is written in the Book of Revelation. Does anyone agree?

Why would you say that? The Gospels clearly teach who God is through the actions of Jesus Christ. How does Revelation change that?

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Well what I was really wondering was if the presence of the Holy Spirit post-calvary changed anything. I mean we really equate salvation with the regeneration and indwelling of the Holy Spirit so I was wondering how we can bridge the lines between them (when they didn't have the Spirit) and us. Because I think the Holy Spirit gives us more power to overcome things than the disciples often had avaiable to them (Peter falling away for example - would that have happened if Peter had the Spirit in him?). Do you agree? Do you see my point?

I don't think the Holy Spirit was "less powerful" in the Old Testament than the post-Resurrection. It is that He became more manifest to more people. In the OT, only a select few received the Holy Spirit in such visible ways, such as Saul or the individual prophets. However, as the OT predicted and Peter notes in Acts, the Spirit is now being poured out on ALL men AND women. We KNOW that the Spirit was active BEFORE the resurrection - not only because of such men as Saul, but ALSO because the just existed. There were numerous righteous people before the Resurrection - and this can be attributed to the Spirit. Where there is love, there is the Spirit. Even before the Resurrection.

As to why Peter did what He did and God's Spirit was not within him, we can only say that God had a reason. The Kingdom was advanced in the lesson to him and to us as a result of his turning away and subsequent return to Christ.

Remember, the Spirit acting in the OT prophets, those who "foresaw" the Christ. They were powerful in their belief in God and their obedience to God's Law - summed up in love of God and love of neighbor. The "post-Resurrection" Church had a greater access to this Spirit. For example, Christ breathes on the Apostles in John 20, giving them the power to forgive sins through the Spirit's presence. This was not the case before the Resurrection. Yom Kippur was the day of Atonement. Now, anyday can be the day of Atonement for an individual as they accept Jesus Christ and ask for forgiveness of their sins.

Regards

 

[cyberjosh]

As to why Peter did what He did and God's Spirit was not within him, we can only say that God had a reason. The Kingdom was advanced in the lesson to him and to us as a result of his turning away and subsequent return to Christ.

I know you haven't been participating in my other thread, which is connected to this one (because they both come from my mother thread which I had to break down so people could swallow it easier), but I just thought of what might be a suitable explanation. In my other thread I had been agonizing over how to reconcile the perseverance of the disciples (sticking with Jesus) to obtain the Holy Spirit (because Jesus only promised the Spirit to them on the basis that they had been with him from the beginning - perseverance - which I mention in the OP of that other thread), but it suddenly hit me right before I read what you said that since the Gospels were written for Christians post-calvary and since it obviously was intended to apply to the saints of that day (for their benfit), who had the indwelling Spirit, it might be possible that the Gospel writers (especially John) wrote & included those details as types of believing & living the Christian life under the influence of the indwelling Spirit. Just like the OT had types (shadows of things to come) which don't directly and equivalently apply to us they represent a specific truth or operation of something. Not to say the accounts are inadequate in and of themselves (like how just because many Davidic prophecies applied to the Messiah doesn't mean it didn't happen in a typical and real way to David - same with Jeremiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, etc...) and certainly I would not apply this to the entire gospel only specific themes/details. The disciples didn't have the Spirit in the Gospels, but they had Jesus. Their walk with Jesus in the confines of the Gospel applies to us post-calvary in the Church Age as a whole, they are parallel but not completely equivalent (because we have the Spirit but not Jesus physically among us).

Do you think the "Type" interpretation/application of the Gospel is plausible? It would explain so many difficulties and differences in the disciple's experience and ours. Tell me your thoughts. This may be wrong, but I just thought I'd refine the argument by the fire.

God Bless,

~John

 

[cyberjosh]

For additional consideration of my above proposition allow me to present a definition of a type from a Biblical hermenutic paper on types:

Unlike a symbol, a type is always something real, with an intelligent agent involved. Types suggestively represent something else in a limited way, and point to it as an antitype to be fulfilled, e.g. the exodus as a type of salvation. In order to be a type, there must be a notable point of resemblance between it and the antitype, evidence that it was indeed designed by God to point to what is typified, and it must prefigure something future. Types are related to similes and parables in that they all consist of formal comparisons, whereas in metaphors, allegories and symbols the comparisons are implicit.

The events that transpired in the Gospels were during a temporal (thus limited in context) transitional period when our Lord walked this earth and it does indeed have much resemblance to our experience, though different in key ways (and some even say Acts was transitional). I'm not saying it is symbol, an alegory or any other such rediculous notion but rather that the way the writers of the Gospel employed their factual presentation of the Gospel and Jesus' saving power may have been typical (having the attribute of a "type") of how God works in our life now though he is not present. Even Jesus had to work his disciples into this transition (chapters 13-15 in John's Gospel). So I wonder if this is not a plausible explanation of certain differences in our experience and the disciple's experience???

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[AVBunyan]

Folks – regarding this belief and believe issue:

1. Why do you go back prior to Calvary, before Christ died for sins, when God was dealing with Israel as a nation to discuss saving faith for today?

2. You must first determine what one is to believe today under Paul today vs. what one was to believe under the kingdom age in the Gospels - they are different.

I’ll go ahead and answer the questions.

Back then, prior to Calvary, under the kingdom age what one was to believe was different than today:
John 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.
Under the Gospels – the message centered on who Christ was – Christ at was the Messiah and the son of God.

Today – Paul told you to believe the gospel as defined in I Cor. 15:1-5.
Under Paul – the message was and is centered on what Christ did – Christ died for our sins.

One is not saved today by believing who Christ is but by believing what Christ did.

israel's issue then was they did not believe Christ was their Messiah nor the son of God - bad news for them.

God bless

 

[cyberjosh]

One is not saved today by believing who Christ is but by believing what Christ did.

I would contest that. 1 John is closely paralleled to John's Gospel and the theme of knowing Jesus (intimately, knowing who he is) is still quite prominent. And the theme of knowing God still rings true from Jesus' words "this is eternal life, that they may know you" (John 17:3). It is no different today, and the revelation of Jesus Christ is what brings about spiritual life. I don't think that is the reconcilliation we are looking for, because it neglects other doctrines.

1. Why do you go back prior to Calvary, before Christ died for sins, when God was dealing with Israel as a nation to discuss saving faith for today?

Do you mean that the Gospel was presented in two different ways: one to the Jews and one to the Gentiles? Is so in what way do you think they were different? Certainly not in content or requirements to enter into the covenant...

 

[francisdesales]

Folks – regarding this belief and believe issue:

1. Why do you go back prior to Calvary, before Christ died for sins, when God was dealing with Israel as a nation to discuss saving faith for today?

2. You must first determine what one is to believe today under Paul today vs. what one was to believe under the kingdom age in the Gospels - they are different.

I’ll go ahead and answer the questions.

Back then, prior to Calvary, under the kingdom age what one was to believe was different than today:

I respectfully disagree. Revelation was clarified and fulfilled with Jesus Christ, but the faith that God desires of men was the same faith made available to people during the OT era - the "faith of our fathers - the cloud of witnesses in faith". True, they couldn't enter the Kingdom until Jesus opened the gates of heaven. However, this is part and parcel of our belief as expressed in the Creed - "He descended into Hell (Hades)", the purpose of which was to free the righteous of the OT - the prophets and other righteous individuals found in all periods of time, people placing their faith in the unseen God. Paul made this clear in Romans.

With Jesus Christ, we now have God in the flesh - the visible image of God Himself. Thus, having faith in Jesus Christ is equivalent to having faith in the unseen God - and IF we love, we know we are of God and have Him abiding within us. This was available to the "church" of the OT, but in a hidden fashion.

Also, I do not agree with your "canon within a canon" regarding the writings of St. Paul. His writings are inspired by the Spirit just as St. Peter's and St. John's and St. James writings - AND Moses and Ezra, etc... Paul's writings are no more important in the bigger scheme of things than any other revelation given by God to man on paper.

Thus, when looking to Sacred Scriptures, we should consider ALL of it, not just Romans and Galatians...

Regards

 

[cyberjosh]

Thus, when looking to Sacred Scriptures, we should consider ALL of it, not just Romans and Galatians...

Just as a side note: This is precisely my goal in evaluating the Gospels as well, because in the past I have not done so as much as I think they deserve to be evaluated for. So now I seek to reconcile seeming differences between the Gospels and the Epistles, so that I may have a comprehensive and Systematic Theology.

God Bless,

~Josh

P.S. Would you care to comment on my latest posts? I would appreciate any evaluation of weaknesses in the arguement if present.