At what point does someone cross the line from not believing in Jesus to believing in Him? When does someone become a “believing one”?
Christians have debated that question for centuries and have drawn the line in different places. Frankly, we’ve all inherited a history of theological baggage on this issue. The Trinitarian controversies, the Reformation, and the First and Second Great Awakenings have given to us many religious traditions about where to draw that line. Free Grace circles have disagreed over where to draw that line.
For example, many of us grew up with the tradition that salvation involves a dramatic conversion experience. And we have come to expect genuinely saved people to be able to provide a “conversion narrative” that typically moves through predictable stages, such as conviction of sin, remorse, repentance, faith, and assurance. We have learned to listen for key phrases in someone’s testimony that would show they “really” became a Christian. When we don’t hear what we’re looking for—e.g., that someone became deeply convicted of their sin, despaired of being saved by works, understood the substitutionary atonement, or came to be assured of their salvation, or even more specifically assured of their eternal security—we seriously doubt whether they have been really saved, and try to evangelize them.
I want to subject all those assumptions and traditions to Scripture.
To that end, I’ve been writing a series of studies on John’s Gospel, trying to come to terms with what he actually teaches about salvation and related issues (see here, here, and here). I’m not approaching the text to defend a tradition or to engage in apologetics on behalf of a favorite teacher. I want to know what the Word says, no matter what it says. If I’m mistaken about something, I want to know it, so I can renew my mind and believe the truth.
In this article, I explore some of the evidence about where John draws the line between doubt and faith. Throughout his Gospel, John records people’s confessions of faith. For John, these are evidently paradigmatic examples of what it means to believe. What can we learn from those confessions? What does John focus on in those expressions of faith? Where does he draw the line between unbelief and belief?
As we examine the relevant texts together, try not to be defensive. Set aside your assumptions and traditions and try to come to the text with fresh eyes.
In the opening verses of the Gospel, John forewarns his readers that not everyone “received” Jesus. Many rejected Him (John 1:11), but some believed in His name (John 1:12). What are his examples of people who came to believe?
It begins with John the Baptist who saw Jesus and said:
“Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29).
What is the focus of John’s confession? That Jesus is the Lamb of God (an identity) and that He takes away the sin of the world (a benefit). The Lamb of God is a sacrificial image, naturally related to the taking away of sin, though John leaves the details vague. (I have heard Free Grace teachers read into those terms an elaborate theology of something called a “sin barrier,” but that seems like a mixture of speculation and extrapolation.)
A few verses later, the Baptist gives us another confession of faith:
“I myself have seen, and have testified that this is the Son of God” (John 1:34).
Once again, John’s confession focuses on Jesus’ identity, this time as the Son of God. While the readers of John’s Gospel could not fail to see the implications of deity in that title, it is doubtful that the Baptist himself or his followers would have understood that in that moment.
Andrew was a follower of John the Baptist. He evidently paid attention to John’s confession about Jesus, for we soon find Andrew telling his brother, Peter:
“We have found the Messiah” (which translated means Christ) (John 1:41).
What does Andrew believe? Notice that John makes sure to doubly emphasize that Andrew believes that Jesus is the Messiah or Christ.
Next, the Gospel narrative recounts how Philip finds Nathanael and says:
“We have found Him of whom Moses in the Law and also the Prophets wrote—Jesus of Nazareth…” (John 1:45).
Philip confessed his faith that Jesus is the promised Messiah—that is what “Him of whom Moses in the Law and the Prophets” refers to.
After hearing this news, Nathanael came to see Jesus for himself, and after the Lord gave to him what appears to have been a word of knowledge, Nathanael confessed:
“Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel” (John 1:49).
What is the focus of Nathanael’s faith? Once again, it is a question of being persuaded about Jesus’ identity. Nathanael believed that Jesus is “the Son of God,” and “the King of Israel.” At this time, “Son of God,” was a term for Israel’s king. Psalm 2:7 is an enthronement Psalm where the King is told, “I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.’” That is likely what Nathanael was confessing about Jesus. He expressing his faith in the fact that Jesus is the heir of David, the Messianic King. But once again, it would be a serious mistake to think that is all that John means by that term. From the very first lines of the Gospel, the reader has already been trained to think of this Son in terms of deity—a fact that is increasingly emphasized throughout this Gospel.
In any case, Jesus confirms that Nathanael has crossed from unbelief to belief:
Jesus answered and said to him, “Because I said to you that I saw you under the fig tree, do you believe? You will see greater things than these” (John 1:50, emphasis).
Let me interject at this point and say that many Free Grace people would disagree with Jesus. They wouldn’t consider Nathanael to be a believer in the saving sense, because his confession does not mention anything about his own justification, salvation, or eternal life. He shows no awareness of sin, repentance, or forgiveness. Nathanael’s confession does not focus on himself at all.
We now fast-forward to John 4, where Jesus spoke to a Samaritan at a well. The more she speaks to Jesus, the more her view of who He is changes and develops, moving from thinking He is merely a Jewish man, to someone claiming to be greater than Jacob, to potentially being a prophet, until she says:
“I know that Messiah is coming (He who is called Christ); when that One comes, He will declare all things to us.” Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you am He” (John 4:25-26).
She knew Messiah was coming but didn’t know who it would be. Jesus reveals that He is the Messiah or Christ. The woman immediately runs back to her village and says:
“Come, see a man who told me all the things that I have done; this is not the Christ, is it?” (John 4:29).
This implicit confession (it is, in fact, a rhetorical question for her) centers on Jesus’ identity. She bases that claim on His supernatural knowledge of her past, which she had already connected to something the Messiah would be able to do.
As she tells the villagers about what happened, many come to faith. But what do they come to believe? Does John have us focus on their forgiveness, justification, or assurance of eternal security? No. This is what they believe:
“This One is indeed the Savior of the world” (John 4:42).
Notice, the Samaritans don’t declare that they have finally become assured of their place in heaven (or the equivalent). Their confession is not about what God has done for them. The focus is on their becoming persuaded about who Jesus is. This one is the Savior, not just of the Jews, but of the world (i.e., including Samaritans).
Moving to John 6, when many disciples were abandoning Jesus because of the hard words He spoke about eating His flesh and drinking His blood, the Lord asked the Twelve if they would leave as well. Peter, speaking on behalf of the Twelve, makes this confession of faith:
“You have words of eternal life. We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God” (John 6:68–69).
What did Peter believe about Jesus? That He had the words of eternal life, yes, which evidently had an ongoing benefit to him. But the focus of his confession is that Jesus is the Holy One of God, another synonym for the Messiah.
During the Feast of Tabernacles, Jesus taught in the Temple courts, and John tells us that many people came to faith:
But many of the crowd believed in Him; and they were saying, “When the Christ comes, He will not perform more signs than those which this man has, will He?” (John 7:31).
They believed in Him. What did they believe? Their rhetorical question emphasizes that Jesus is the Christ, or Messiah. The evidence of the signs persuaded them that Jesus was the one they were waiting for. (Of course, John expects his readers to come to the same conclusion.)
On the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles, Jesus invited people to come to Him and to drink, that is, to believe in Him, and if they did, they would receive the Holy Spirit. Here is how the people reacted:
Some of the people therefore, when they heard these words, were saying, “This certainly is the Prophet.” Others were saying, “This is the Christ.” Still others were saying, “Surely the Christ is not going to come from Galilee, is He?” (John 7:40-41).
Here you have two confessions of faith in Jesus’ identity, i.e., as the Prophet, and the Christ. But some people express their doubts about Jesus. They did not expect the Messiah to come from Galilee. So they doubted that Jesus could be the Messiah. (In my next blog, I will be exploring the evidence of John’s confessions of doubt and disbelief.)
Still later, Jesus healed a blind man at the Pool of Siloam. When the Lord met the man in the Temple, here is what they said:
Jesus heard that they had put him out, and finding him, He said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” He answered, “Who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him?” Jesus said to him, “You have both seen Him, and He is the one who is talking with you.” And he said, “Lord, I believe.” And he worshiped Him (John 9:35-38).
The issue here is not whether the man has become assured of his salvation. That is not where John draws the line between unbelief and faith. The issue is, “Who is the Son of Man?” It’s a question of identity. Clearly, John wants his readers to ask the same question. Of course, Jesus answers the question by identifying Himself as the Son of Man. When the man confesses, “Lord, I believe,” the content of his faith is that Jesus is the Son of Man. Until he came to believe that about Jesus, he was an unbeliever. He became a believer after being persuaded that Jesus is the One.
Next, we find Martha grieving the death of her brother, Lazarus. She was confused about why Jesus didn’t intervene earlier. She knew that Lazarus would be resurrected on the Last Day—but so would all people (cf. Daniel 12:2). Jesus comforted her by revealing that He is the Resurrection and the Life, and that all who believe in Him will not only be resurrected, but they will also never die, i.e., they will get the resurrection to life, not to judgment (cf. John 5:29). Jesus asked Martha if she believed what He said. Her confession shows she understood Jesus to be asking whether she believed that about His identity:
She said to Him, “Yes, Lord; I have believed that You are the Christ, the Son of God, even He who comes into the world” (John 11:27).
What is the focus of her confession? It’s not on her assurance of being resurrected to life. If she had understood Jesus to be asking about that, she could have answered in those terms. “Yes, Lord, I believe I will be resurrected to life.” Instead, confesses her faith in His identity as the Christ, the Son of God. Indeed, she had already come to believe that about Jesus sometime in the past and continued to believe it.
Finally, near the end of the Gospel, a doubting Thomas sees the risen Christ for himself and finally believes. What does he confess?
Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28).
Jesus confirms that Thomas has believed (v 29). Notice, this is a confession of Jesus’ identity as both Lord and God. It’s not a confession about his own salvation, but about Jesus’ identity.
The evidence from the confessions is remarkably consistent. Again and again, when John gives us examples of faith, it involves people becoming persuaded that Jesus is the Messiah. John allows for a spectrum of how someone can understand the nature of this Messianic identity. A range of terms are used: Lamb of God, Son of God, Messiah, Christ, the One of Whom Moses wrote, King of Israel, Savior of the World, Holy One of God, the Prophet, the Son of Man, Lord, and even God. The focus of each confession is on coming to believe in who Jesus is.
Now, all of these confessions of faith fit perfectly with what John writes immediately after Thomas’ confession. The apostle explains he could have recorded other signs—presumably resurrection signs—but he chose those in particular. To what purpose?
But these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name (John 20:31).
What does John want his readers to believe? He wants them to “believe that” (not believe “for”). Believe what? “That Jesus is.” That Jesus is what? “The Christ, the Son of God.” In other words, John wants his readers to come to believe in, or continue to believe in, Jesus’ identity. Jesus is not merely a carpenter’s son or an itinerant rabbi, but the Messiah and the Son of God. The result of that faith is having “life” in His “name,” which is yet another term for identity.
When does a person cross the line from unbelief to belief in John’s Gospel? The evidence from the confessions of faith consistently points to Jesus’ identity. People knew that the Messiah was coming, but they needed to be persuaded that Jesus was the Messiah. The focus is on Christ’s identity as the Messiah, the Son of God.
Depending on your theological baggage about what it means to “really” believe, this evidence may come as a shock. We may be surprised that John appears unconcerned with the kinds of issues we have often fought over. Generally speaking, John’s confessions bear little resemblance to the conversion testimonies I grew up hearing. The focus of John’s confessions is clearly, forcefully, and simply on who Jesus is. People come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah.
This is where it becomes hard to be an intellectually honest Berean, and where an over-commitment to a theological system, tradition, or teacher will show itself. Instead of immediately submitting our minds to the evidence, we enter “apologetic mode” to defend what we already believe to be true. At least, that has been my reaction. If I had heard these confessions “in the wild,” I don’t think I would have accepted any of them as clear statements of faith. I would have considered them “good starts,” but I would want to hear much more detail before being convinced they were “real” believers. And yet, for John, these are ideal confessions. These are paradigmatic examples of unbelievers crossing the line from unbelief to faith. And so, if I am to submit my mind to Scripture humbly, I must also accept it as enough.
This is still only part of the evidence. As clear as this evidence seems, further considerations might cast it in a different light. My next study will be on the statements of disbelief and uncertainty in John’s Gospel. Then I will explore the different ways in which John identifies Jesus as the Messiah (e.g., “He will declare all things to us”). Then we will look at the different ways in which John puts the “condition” of salvation. John’s Gospel is immensely rich. Let’s continue to have our faith formed and reformed in light of it.
Read the other blogs in this Rethinking John series:
https://freegrace.in/is-believe-in-jesus-for-eternal-life-the-saving-message/
https://freegrace.in/is-johns-gospel-exclusively-evangelistic/
https://freegrace.in/all-that-jesus-gives-the-benefits-of-salvation-in-john/
https://freegrace.in/when-does-someone-become-a-believer-in-johns-gospel-the-evidence-of-the-confessions/
https://freegrace.in/who-counts-as-an-unbeliever-statements-of-doubt-and-unbelief-in-johns-gospel/
________________________________________________
Shawn Lazar (DPT, McMaster Divinity College) is the pastor of Gateway United Baptist Church in Denton, TX. Purchase his book One-Point Preaching here and his latest book Once Saved Always Saved? here.
How do you reconcile your Christian Universalism view of John’s Gospel with Paul’s doctrine that it is only by faith—and not by works—that one is saved?
If you affirm Paul, then you also affirm those theologically trapped “free gracers” who claim that only the one who has believed in Jesus alone for everlasting life is saved.
For if one believes Jesus is the Messiah—whatever that means, as we cannot tell from your article—but also believes that their works play a role in meriting, maintaining, or proving their salvation, then they have not rightly believed according to Paul; they are not saved and are not true believers.
Clearly, to be a believer involves rightly believing something about Jesus and His gift of eternal life.
Perhaps there is a third category: the one who has not thought about eternal salvation at all, and therefore has no notion of works, merit, or eternity. They simply believe that Jesus is the Christ and, therefore, have eternal life without even realising it. Perhaps they close their eyes directly after reading “whoever believes in Me…”
At that point, you have turned your back on any Biblical notion of what the Christ was meant to achieve and provide.
The fact is, Jesus came to save the world; by showing people the way to eternal life. Believing that Jesus is the Christ is clearly equivalent to believing in Him for His gift—eternal life.
This crusade you’re on reminds me of the G.K. Chesterton quote: “Do not be so open-minded that your brains fall out.”
"How do you reconcile your Christian Universalism view of John’s Gospel with Paul’s doctrine that it is only by faith—and not by works—that one is saved?"
I don't know what "Christian universalism" means. Universalism is the view that all people will be saved, which has nothing to do with my article. Sounds like a theological curse word, not a serious term. My next article is on the condition of salvation as presented in John, and in a section on "objections" at the end of it, I address that question about reconciling John and Paul. The answer is: I'm not sure how to reconcile them yet. As I have written elsewhere, I think I can make a decent case that, for Paul, believing in Jesus and believing in works are mutually exclusive. It is not just a discipleship issue, but a salvation issue. But I have to admit that it is only an inference, so not as strong an argument as I would want.
"If you affirm Paul, then you also affirm those theologically trapped “free gracers” who claim that only the one who has believed in Jesus alone for everlasting life is saved."
No. Paul generally evangelizes using justification and forgiveness or salvation, not "for everlasting life," though some English translations of 1 Tim 1:16 use that phrase. The idea that the essence of saving faith is to believe in Jesus for the one and only benefit of eternally secure life does not come from Paul—or from anywhere else in the NT. That's a human tradition.
"Clearly, to be a believer involves rightly believing something about Jesus and His gift of eternal life."
No, that's not at all clear, even in John. See my "All That Jesus Gives: The Benefits of Salvation in John." John emphasizes many salvation benefits, not just one. And as this article shows, none of his examples of confessions of faith involve believing that one receives eternal life. Again, that's Hodgean tradition, not Bible.
"Perhaps there is a third category: the one who has not thought about eternal salvation at all, and therefore has no notion of works, merit, or eternity."
This is the kind of theology-by-hypotheticals that is a bad tradition. We really should just stick to the text. John does not present us with those types of situations. He doesn't tell us whether they've thought about it or not. It doesn't matter to him. What matters are simple expressions of faith in Jesus' identity as Messiah as being sufficient for salvation.
"At that point, you have turned your back on any Biblical notion of what the Christ was meant to achieve and provide."
That's not at all true. This is an all-or-nothing approach. My next article will deal with whether John ever makes believing in the result (e.g., eternal life) part of the condition of having the result (he does not!). But that doesn't mean what Jesus provides is not important. Just because something is important doesn't mean it has to be part of the condition of salvation. The simple fact is, if John thought the personal benefits of salvation were the key thing in saving faith, his examples of confessions of faith would have shown that. Or, his examples of disbelief would have shown that (see my "Who Counts as an Unbeliever? Statements of Doubt and Unbelief in John’s Gospel"). But John does not do that. We have to stick with the texts. We have to submit out theology to the texts. However important those issues are to Hodgeans, that is not what John or Jesus teach. John's emphasis is on coming to believe in Jesus' identity. Surely, some people must have made the correct deductions about what that would mean for them personally ("If Jesus is the Messiah, and I believe in Him, then I must be saved!"). But whether they did, or didn't, and what they might have gotten right or wrong about those deductions, is purely a matter of speculation that John does not disclose to us. It is not something that John explicitly teaches or emphasizes. It's not his focus, however much other people may want to make it the focus. I know it's hard to truly submit our beliefs to the Word, but we have to try to do it.
Thank you Shawn for carefully showing the passages in John concerning the step of salvation. It is beautifully simple.
Addendum - I recently had an encounter with some Mormon "elders" (not more than 25 years old) and they are very frustrating because they agree with everything that you say. It turns out that they have a different definition for every "church" term. They confess and believe that Jesus is the Christ but their understanding of both "Jesus" and "Christ" is questionable at best.
Very thought provoking Shawn. I can only wonder what "Messiah" meant to a first century (or prior) individual but it seems to clearly have the inclusion of everlasting life. I see this in an eschatological sense in Daniel 12:2 where Messiah is the ultimate judge. This theme is repeated multiple times in the O.T. Of course, Jews would have the strong expectation of Israel's king that would rule the world also.
Altogether, if everlasting life (aka kingdom entrance) is a primary function of the Messiah then certainly "believing in His name" would include believing Him for that life. Peter seemed to understand that as well as Martha in her response. They appear to be equating the two thoughts. If so, then "believing that He is the Christ" is practically shorthand for believing Him for everlasting life.
If so, the question becomes: What do you believe about the Messiah/Christ/Son of God?
"I can only wonder what "Messiah" meant to a first century (or prior) individual but it seems to clearly have the inclusion of everlasting life."
That's the right question to ask. But I think it's one thing to build a composite Biblical portrait of the Messiah from many Scriptures, and another thing to guess at what any individual understood the moment they believed. It would be unlikely to assume that everyone had a total portrait of the Messiah at the point of faith. I don't want to make the mistake of eisegeting people's beliefs. And I don't think that definition always must include the one benefit of "everlasting life." Jesus promised many benefits in John's Gospel. Here's an earlier study I did on that:
https://freegrace.in/all-that-jesus-gives-the-benefits-of-salvation-in-john/
So, I think it is arbitrary to expect or to assume that everyone understood Messiah to bring just one of those benefits, namely, everlasting life.
Then there's the question of what everlasting life means. Even in Daniel 12:2, "everlasting life" is a synonym for the age that follows the resurrection——as you suggest, it refers more to kingdom entrance. In Daniel, the first use of the term, it is not an ontological change within us, and it definitely does not refer to eternal security. And there's no mention of a Messiah in that passage in Daniel, so I don't know if people connected the two until Jesus came.
"Believing in His name" is one of the ways in which John presents the condition of salvation. I hope to have that study done in the next few months that explores all the different ways it is put. "Name" seems to be associated with one's identity or character. And while it is true that works flow from one's identity, I'm not sure that they are part of the identity or name. In other words, just because Jesus gives a benefit like eternal life, I'm not sure that's what His "name" means. You cite Martha. In that conversation, Jesus is talking about Last Day resurrection. Why not make resurrection part of His "name"? So, I would not think that Christ is "practically shorthand for believing in HIm for everlasting life." That arbitrarily selects one benefit as the essential one. Of course, that's what some in FG circles do. They have already decided that "everlasting-life-as-eternal security" must be the essential benefit to believe in for salvation, and so they define "Messiah" to mean "believing in Him for everlasting life." But that is circular reasoning. You could beg the question in that way with any of the benefits Jesus gives. "Messiah just means the one who saves us from wrath." "Messiah just means the one who resurrects us to life." "Messiah just means the one who gives us the right to be children of God." I don't think that's a fruitful way forward. I'm fascinated that John does not attempt to define Messiah or Christ or Son of God or Son of Man clearly for us. Maybe it's not that important a question for the initial believer. Salvation is not about getting definitions of terms right, so much as believing in Jesus.
Shawn, I appreciate your desire to get to the heart of "believing in Jesus" but it seems that reducing it to only His being without His work washes out the important distinctions of various faith with their different views of salvation. I get the sense that this might be a subconscious goal - it is certainly attractive to think that fewer people would end up in the lake of fire. In Galatians 1, Paul is not so open to alternate gospels. Paul may only be concerned with damage to their sanctification and eternal reward but certainly such a message allows for a muddled saving message.
J.W.'s, Mormons, and The World Mission Society Church of God consider Jesus as Christ (and savior). I believe that Islam considers him the Messiah - although only as a human who will return to usher in the end times. At any rate, how many of these would you consider justified by the blood of Christ? Particularly since they do not believe that salvation is by faith alone but indeed requires works.
I have read enough of your work to know that you are not a heretic. I am however, concerned about where this is going.
"but it seems that reducing it to only His being without His work washes out the important distinctions of various faith with their different views of salvation."
My goals really don't matter. What's important is what Scripture says. John could have recorded confessions of faith in Jesus' works. He seems not to have done that. Why? And why would we insist on it, if John does not?
"J.W.'s, Mormons, and The World Mission Society Church of God consider Jesus as Christ (and savior). I believe that Islam considers him the Messiah - although only as a human who will return to usher in the end times..."
Those are the kinds of questions I had for John. "Well, what about so and so?" We have these categories of people we want to exclude. We bring those assumptions or agendas to the text. I want to be as keenly self-aware as I can about the baggage I am bringing to John. The questions I expect him to answer. The standards that I hold John to. But, I always want to be self-conscious that I am to stand under the Word. It is not meant to stand under me.
I am very interested in the role of Jesus' works. I have an article planned on how Jesus comes to be identified as the Messiah in John. And, of course, one of the ways is through the works He does. "Still, many in the crowd believed in him. They said, “When the Messiah comes, will he perform more signs than this man?” (John 7:31). The signs helped the people identify that Jesus, and not someone else, is the Messiah.
What is your level of certainty regarding the question of whether identifying Jesus in a way that saves includes acknowledging His deity?
It absolutely does when it comes to Thomas in 20:28. But that issue does not seem to be raised by most of the other confessions of faith. I think John's readers are expected to come to the same mature faith as Thomas through reading this Gospel.
Yes there are no formulas on accepting Christ. Accepting Him as Lord and Savior" is a personal commitment that involves surrendering your life to His authority in which you have an intimate relationship with Him by the Holy Spirit. 1 Corinthians 1:30. 1 John 4:4. etc.
The Bible notes in James 2:19 that even demons "believe" in God and shudder, but they are not saved because they remain in rebellion and do not submit to Him.
You cannot truly have Him as Savior without also acknowledging Him as Lord. Romans 10:9-13.
The Bible clarifies that simply having head knowledge facts about God is not the same as a saving relationship with Him. 2 Corinthians 5:17, 21.
There are a lot of things to consider. Approaching this concept from not only one direction should be considered.
The actions and behavior of the disciples after Jesus was arrested. They ran and hid in the upper room in fear of the authorities, and then their behavior after Pentecost in which they were baptized in the Holy Spirit, they were more than willing to die for Christ, and did. What changed their heart.
He that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit" (1 Corinthians 6:17).
Likewise, when we are born again (see John 3:3), our new spirits become one with God’s Spirit which will typically produce fruit and a thirst for the Word of God. Therefore there will be some type of change in one's life. I have witnessed this notable change in people's lives including my own. Yes, my religion told me everything about Jesus life death burial and resurrection. But, it was only head knowledge, not heart acceptance where my life changed dramatically. But not in every case do we see dramatic change immediately in a person. There is also the renewing of the mind of God's Word which in some cases will be manifested in individuals over a period of time. Comparing ourselves with others is not a good indication of their acceptance of Christ. 2 Corinthians 10:12. The change is in one's heart. There will be some outward appearance that follows after the changed heart. However we are not to judge the condition of someone's heart, we are to love them as Jesus told us to do. The Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual outcome in the physical realm. 1 Corinthians 2:13-14.
The Christian life is not a CHANGED life,
But an EXCHANGED life. See what the apostle Paul says in Galasians 2:20.
Question, who is considered the natural man in 1 Corinthians 2:14?
I have to strongly disagree with the idea that salvation depends upon our behavior. Expecting to be saved based on your behavior will not lead to anywhere good, especially if you are honest about your current thoughts, words, and deeds falling short of God's glory. The matter is made worse when you make the distinction between something called "head knowledge" and "heart knowledge." On that confusing view, someone can believe that John 3:16 is true with their head and not be saved, because they need to believe it with their heart. How do you know which one you have done? The way to tell is not by your belief at all, but by looking at your behavior. In other words, that false distinction is really a rhetorical ploy to get people back into a works salvation system. That is "another" gospel. The Bible is too clear that salvation simply comes through faith, not by works:
https://freegrace.in/55-verses-that-teach-salvation-by-faith-alone/
In order to believe in Jesus, did the Samaritam woman need to know only His identity, that He was the Messiah, or did she need to know something else in addition to His identity? See John 4:10.
She understood that Jesus was offering her living water. I'm not sure if she understood that meant He was offering her the Holy Spirit (as per John 7:38-40). We don't know what her background knowledge of the Messiah was, beyond what is stated in this text. She knew Messiah would bring revelation. Jesus reveals He would give living water/Holy Spirit. Her rhetorical question about Jesus' identity seems to mark the point at which John draws the line between unbelief and belief. When she comes to believe that "Jesus" is "the Christ," she is a believer.
Thanks for your reply.
Jesus told her that she had to know two things in order to be offered or given the living water. His identity was one thing ("who it is who says to you 'Give Me a drink'"). He later revealed Himself to her as the Messiah. The "gift of God" was the other. Did He reveal this gift to her?
It seems that according to your understanding of John 7:38-39, the "living water" in John 4 is the Holy Spirit. Jesus said to the Samaritan woman, "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water [i.e., the Holy Spirit].” John 4:10.
How could Jesus give her the Holy Spirit if He was not yet glorified? See John 7:38-39.
Just this morning in a weekly Bible study we were discussing such things as this, and I was looking into it this afternoon. I am curious to see your conclusions and consider what the scripture says further for myself.
Shawn, this is a very interesting and thought-provoking article.
I have a question regarding Nathaniel's confession about Jesus. You said, "...many Free Grace people would disagree with Jesus. They wouldn’t consider Nathanael to be a believer in the saving sense, because his confession does not mention anything about his own justification, salvation, or eternal life. He shows no awareness of sin, repentance, or forgiveness. Nathanael’s confession does not focus on himself at all."
Do you have examples of these Free Grace people not considering Nathaniel to be a believer in Jesus for the reasons you said?
Ooh. Nice work. If you don't mind, I'll use this as a reference in my Bible Study on the Gospel of John.
Please do.