I would guess Jesus' most common call to people was for them to follow him. Believe in him and obey him were also common.
I remember when I was a young believer, brought up in evangelicalism, wondering why Jesus was such a poor evangelist by the criteria I had been taught. As soon as I posed the question I knew it was silly, and so began a long "quest" to understand who Jesus really was.
I found that a combination of learning from New Testament historians, faith that God wouldn't have gone to all that trouble only to let the true message die out, and trust in the Bible authors, helped me get a somewhat improved understanding (I hope!).
I think many others are moving in similar directions, and evangelicalism as we have known it is in for drastic modification on many fronts. And praise the Lord for that!
"Yes, it is completely unbiblical to tell people to "Accept Christ."
Why it is unbiblical to use the phrase "accept Christ" when the bible speaks of "but as many as ***received Him***, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even those who believe in His name" (Jn. 1:12)? If you mean it is wrong to use the phrase when those exact words are not present in the bible, that becomes problematic because as has been pointed out already, the term "trinity" is not found in the bible either. What Christians have attempted in using phrases like "accept Christ" or the term "trinity" is to use language for a **concept** which is in fact present in scripture.
Victor Reppert said... "It's unbiblical to make evangelical language normative for all Christians, or to use it as a litmus test to see who is "really saved" and who isn't."
No one is taking the phrase "accept Christ" as a litmus test of salvation. The litmus test is whether or not you have received him as 1 Jn.1:12 states. And it really does not matter what you call this spiritual experience, for the Christian the importance is have you had this experience or not? Christians have developed certain phrases and terms to refer to importanct concepts or experiences that they believe to be found in the bible passages. It is similar to when Christians speak of "have you been born again"? Frankly I do not see why these phrases and terms are objectionable if used with the understanding that they refer to referents that are in fact found in the bible and reflect common usage in Christian communities.
5 comments:
I would guess Jesus' most common call to people was for them to follow him. Believe in him and obey him were also common.
I remember when I was a young believer, brought up in evangelicalism, wondering why Jesus was such a poor evangelist by the criteria I had been taught. As soon as I posed the question I knew it was silly, and so began a long "quest" to understand who Jesus really was.
I found that a combination of learning from New Testament historians, faith that God wouldn't have gone to all that trouble only to let the true message die out, and trust in the Bible authors, helped me get a somewhat improved understanding (I hope!).
I think many others are moving in similar directions, and evangelicalism as we have known it is in for drastic modification on many fronts. And praise the Lord for that!
You might also try searching for "Trinity."
Yes, it is completely unbiblical to tell people to "Accept Christ."
NB
It's unbiblical to make evangelical language normative for all Christians, or to use it as a litmus test to see who is "really saved" and who isn't.
"Yes, it is completely unbiblical to tell people to "Accept Christ."
Why it is unbiblical to use the phrase "accept Christ" when the bible speaks of "but as many as ***received Him***, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even those who believe in His name" (Jn. 1:12)? If you mean it is wrong to use the phrase when those exact words are not present in the bible, that becomes problematic because as has been pointed out already, the term "trinity" is not found in the bible either. What Christians have attempted in using phrases like "accept Christ" or the term "trinity" is to use language for a **concept** which is in fact present in scripture.
Victor Reppert said...
"It's unbiblical to make evangelical language normative for all Christians, or to use it as a litmus test to see who is "really saved" and who isn't."
No one is taking the phrase "accept Christ" as a litmus test of salvation. The litmus test is whether or not you have received him as 1 Jn.1:12 states. And it really does not matter what you call this spiritual experience, for the Christian the importance is have you had this experience or not? Christians have developed certain phrases and terms to refer to importanct concepts or experiences that they believe to be found in the bible passages. It is similar to when Christians speak of "have you been born again"? Frankly I do not see why these phrases and terms are objectionable if used with the understanding that they refer to referents that are in fact found in the bible and reflect common usage in Christian communities.
Robert
Post a Comment