"What must I do to be saved?" Reframing the COSF debate!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 авг 2024
- In this video, Tim and Chris offer a pastoral discuss the ongoing debate about the Content of Saving Faith, which asks what is necessary a person believe in order to be saved? Classical free grace and the Grace Evangelical Society have been debating this topic for about two decades, and the COSF debate has recently started to make its way to RUclips, Facebook, Discord, and related platforms. Hear how Tim and Chris think the debate got off on the wrong foot to start with and the way forward!
Chapter times:
0:00 - Introduction to the question and debate
5:17 - Different COSFs, different gospels?
11:43 - Nature and translation of "faith" (πιστεύω/πίστις/אָמַן)
24:40 - Faith as having a relational object, not propositional content
37:37 - Faith, cognition, and volition
49:05 - Theology, discipleship, and evangelism
52:37 - Social dynamics of COSF debate
58:50 - Biblical response to COSF dynamics: A unity of love (1 Cor 1-3)
1:13:35 - Putting down preeminence
1:25:30 - Wrapping up and what's next
-----------------------------------
Moderation policy: We try to approve all comments, even those that disagree with our arguments, as I think that spurs honest discussion. Posts containing profanity or unsolicited sales, however, whether for or against the positions presented in the videos will be immediately removed.
"Tim, you're the best preacher I've ever heard!"
Isn't he, though?!? 🤣
Absolutely true! I can't applaud you enough for emphasizing participatory knowledge of Christ himself instead of reducing faith to a cognitive affirmation of certain propositions of the Gospel. I'd hope more free grace people would see this and feel comfortable again to use words like "trust" and" rely." Faith is a personal thing. But mere persuasion presents faith as a mechanical, non-participatory thing that just happens to the person in my opinion. (Kind of similar to the notion of regeneration preceding faith, now that I think about it 😅)
Thanks much, and yes, there is a surprising comparison between reformed theology and faith as mere persuasion, isn't there? More work to come on the nature of faith! :-)
I accidentally walked up to a rattlesnake once, and stopped and put my arm out to stop my friend whom I was walking with. I had no fear response, because only sounds tend to trigger that, and it never did rattle. It was plenty close to us by the time I saw it, less than one and a half second's worth of walking ahead of us, and less than a second from striking distance. I did stop faster than my reaction time, so it was pure instinct. I rarely act on instinct, but when I do, I'm always impressed by capable it is. I don't think I've ever made a mistake on pure instinct. I've made mistakes when my instincts failed to kick-in, that's for sure.
I can also verify that the moment I came to believe, it was a very deep change of mind. If I were to articulate all of the changes that happened to my mind in that single quantum instant, I would have to write at least a full essay just to summarize it, and to explain it in full would be at least a full textbook.
I don't know if I would use the term "precognitive", but the rose smells the same by any name.
Aside from things like typing key on a keyboard or taking steps or moving my hand to a location near me, aside from tiny things like that, almost all of my trust is post-cognitive. But I'm almost absolute in my tendency toward skepticism, so I'm not a normal example.
The guitar is a good example. Just as one thinks to learn guitar, God has us proclaim those things which are the contents of saving faith, so that hearers think those thoughts through which one learns that the Gospel is true.
There is an endless world of technicalities to explore. Let's simply remember that the Gospel is The Power Of God To Save Those Who Believe It, and the Gospel is a set of propositions. Don't let the complications of technicalities tempt you to bring that into question.
That last paragraph sounds paradoxical to me - let's keep it simple and understand that it's very complicated indeed 😄
@@minorsingingairhead Such is good theology! Good theology should be kept simple even as we realize that it's very complicated!
[This is the first comment I wrote, but I decided to hear the full video before posting this. That also means this is my final comment. {Edit: Tim did suggest 7 is a good number😁.}]
The evidence does highly suggest that the word "pistis" means "trust", and it is apparent that trusting in a proposition is to be persuaded of that proposition. Trusting in a person, is to be persuaded in that person.
"Pistis" cannot be translated "rely upon" for this reason: it is possible to rely upon something even when one is not persuaded that it is reliable; we call this "risk". This gets into Pascal's Wager, where one is encouraged to rely in spite of one's own lack of persuadedness.
We would rarely say we trust that which we consider to be a risk, so I think "trust" works very well.
But which Jesus must we trust? The Logos. That is, the Statement. That is, the Gospel Promise. First John opens by equivocating Lord Jesus with the Gospel Promise. We don't need to know the Lord's favorite color, or how tall He is, or what tone of voice He used when saying this or that, but we do need to have the same Jesus which is defined by the Gospel. This brings us straight back to needing God to graciously persuade us to the proposition of the Gospel; otherwise, we trust in a different Jesus who cannot save.
People love to hew the Cornerstone with their own hands, to shape Him to one's own preference.
The content of saving faith is a dreadfully important topic. The content of saving faith, is that in one's heart one has, by God's grace, been brought to sincere persuadedness that the Gospel is true. Faith which does not contain sincere persuadednessw that the Gospel is true, is not saving faith. Another way to frame this, is that if the object of faith is a Jesus who does not contain the content of the Gospel, then that faith is not in the true Lord Jesus who saves. Wrong content = wrong object.
Is it possible for one to claim errors about the Gospel, and yet in their heart they believe the true Gospel? Sure. But we cannot see the heart, so we need to hold people to their words and offer them correction, not only so that they may better serve as God's chosen means of imparting His grace unto others, and not only to prevent them from acting in ways which are subversive against that same purpose, but also so that we are pulling them out of the fire if their hearts happen to align with their erroneous words. If in one's heart one is not persuaded of the true Gospel, then such an one has not put their faith in Lord Jesus.
What is the point of trying to simplify it to the object apart from the content which defines the object? Many will say "Lord Lord". The content is the only way to distinguish a false Jesus from Lord Jesus.
I appreciate your interaction with the discussion, Nicholas. I think we just have a different analysis of faith, in part because we have a different analysis of trust. Being persuaded something is reliable makes it *easier* to trust, but there's no requirement that you already be persuaded of something before you trust it. I would say that you've confused, or illicitly required, a cognitive process with the nature of faith. In point of fact, sometimes we entrust something to someone just to see if we can, in fact, be persuaded that they are reliable. So there can *often* be an element of risk in trust.
You also suggested elsewhere that most of what you trust is post-cognitive but that you are the exception. I would strongly suggest 1) most of what you trust is, in fact, pre-cognitive, and 2) that it's almost always a bad idea to assume that you are the exception. That assumption almost always leads to a bad analysis, as I'm afraid it might be doing to you here. Everything you know came first through the senses, as the old Latin adage has it, Nihil est in intellectu quod non sit prius in sensu. And yet, you must *trust* your senses. You cannot properly *know* or be persuaded in a mathematical sense that they are giving you true information. Missing this fact is at the heart of the entire error of modern philosophy, or at least at the heart of the error of every derivative of Cartesianism. But you have come to be persuaded that your senses are trustworthy just because, more often that not, they don't let you down. But see my previous comment about risk. Your faith in your senses is well founded, but it's still trust, reliance, or, in a word, pistis.
So, again, no, the object of our faith is never a proposition. The object of our faith is a Person: Jesus Christ Himself. The narrative that points us to the *correct* Jesus is sufficient for that purpose. And, yes, there are propositions in that narrative. No one denies that. But there is no minimal or maximal set of propositions that constitutes that narrative. Instead, that narrative is divinely revealed, and is for much better theologians than you and me put together times 1,000 to try to figure out precisely which propositions in that narrative are or are not metaphysically necessary to point to the same Christ. Instead, we keep it simple (per your earlier request) by preaching the narrative -- the gospel -- that we have been given. We preach all of it, and all of it is sufficient to point us to the right Jesus.
Blessings!
@@GulfsideMinistries Thank you for the thoughtful response.
I might strongly suggest you not assume you know the facts about me better than I know the facts about me (I've observed them; you have not). It took attention over years to train against overuse of precognition, so that I may use cognition to be more careful, but I have done that training (and train yet), and people who train for things tend to become an exception to what was otherwise the norm.
I'm not interested in factoring solipsism into the equation. I've been around the block with human wisdoms, and I have found God teaches the only wisdom there is, all other purported philosophies being foolishness and ending in eternal destruction.
I'm not the one who makes the propositions of the Gospel to be The Power Of God To Save Those Who Believe Them, and I'm not the one you disbelieve if you reject that reality. I am not the one who wrote a book of books specifying that to not believe the Gospel is to have either no Christ or a different christ. Seems you downplay the Bible far too much, and greatly overestimate the applicability wisdom so-called.
I fear for you.
@@NicholasproclaimerofMessiah I'm not making observations about *you.* I'm making them about human nature. Since you're a human, I take what it that I said about the precognitive aspect of faith applies to you. As such, from my vantage point, this isn't about observations at all; it's just that I think you are wrong in your understanding of human nature and the nature of faith in particular.
I appreciate your fear for me and your thought that I'm downplaying the Bible. I can only tell you that I'm an exegete who practices exegetical theology first and foremost. If anything, *my fear for you* is that you are too heavily invested in systematic theology and use that as a lens in what amounts to a prooftexting approach to Scripture. That, again, is just my perspective on your perspective, and my stating that is in no way meant to be either an insult or an argument. I recognize that you disagree. But that's how it goes. I state my views and arguments. You state yours. We can either engage those arguments or reduce them to personal attacks. I think you just reduced my argument to a personal attack on you, which it wasn't, and thus you mischaracterized my concerns. As such, there's not much else left for me to say if you aren't going to actually engage with the substance of my position.
Blessings!
@@GulfsideMinistries I do not mean any insult, and I never thought you may have intended any insult.
My human nature did not prevent my cognitive training, and this matter is to the side of the argument, the argument being about God, not about me. If you had asked me about it, rather than telling me about it, then you would not have been in error on that point.
If the substance of your position is Scripture, then I have engaged with it. If the substance of your position is human wisdom, then my engagement is to attack it with Scripture according to the Lord's example.
I have cited that The Gospel Is The Power Of God To Save Those Who Believe It, and that has been the core and summary of my argument, and my main point, and you have not mentioned it. I do not find it fair for you to say I am the one not engaging with the other's argumentation.
If you want to bring exegesis to the table, then do. Your reply cited human philosophy, and now you tell me that you are an exegete. Exegesis was certainly not the substance of your reply to me. If it had been, I would likely be less fearful for you, but you would also be forced to accept that the Gospel is The Power Of God To Save Those Who Believe It.
In summary:
The Gospel is The Power Of God To Save Those Who Believe It.
@@GulfsideMinistries I was very much legally deaf as a toddler, until tubes were installed. I learned language late, and my articulate cognition developed in an unusual manner as a result. It is what it is. That likely, on some level or other, also factored into my decision to train my cognition as I have, because it factors into my relationship with my own cognition.
Your assumptions were not about me. I am sorry I phrased things as if they were. I would have done better to suggest asking relevant questions before speculating about a stranger. You could have asked me why I might expect to be an exception. But instead, I responded unfairly, and I'm sorry for it.
To me, this discussion of cognitive nuance is aside from the main topic; I just like discussing it, and it seems you are interested in the topic of cognition, so I commented about it. Perhaps I would not have commented so, if my cognition were not a special case; special cases are often a curiosity to those who are interested in a topic. Therefore, my comment is not a random occurrence, and is not subject to blind statistics.
It's all very matter of fact, and it just is what it is.
I can provide further evidence, if you are interested (I sure am).
I suppose, I enjoy being challenged; it's a chance to make sure I am practicing sincere and strict self-scrutiny. Thank you for that opportunity, and your willingness to speak frankly. If I am in error, I am glad to be corrected, and you can see why I, for now, believe I am not in error on this point.
Cheers,
fear God,
and may God's Scriptures bless you unto every good work.
Yes, there is a certain philosophy (wisdom) which is necessary to believe the Gospel, it is the wisdom of God, the only true wisdom, the only true philosophy, it is that philosophy which begins when we dread before the omniholiness of God.
"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."
The wrong philosophy spoils one against the Gospel. God has told us so. God is right, and whoever disagrees with Him is wrong.
Salvific pistis has quality which is a matter of sincere will, and quality which is a matter of sincere persuadedness. Pistis is a conclusion; it's not as fundamental is either will or cognition, but rather it is a conclusion which is defined by them. If we will to trust in the Christ of the correct Gospel, and we are also cognitively persuaded that the Christ of the correct Gospel is trustworthy such that we trust that the correct Gospel is true, then by definition we have pistis in Christ and His Gospel.
If we will to trust in a christ of a different gospel, and we trust that christ such that we are also cognitively persuaded of that false gospel, then we are not yet saved.
The problem with the error, is that it is incorrect. The danger of that problem, is that it may tend to validate pistis in a false christ.
14:53 John 11:25-26 is an example where "believe" or faith can mean persuasion:
_Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you _*_believe_*_ this?”_
Although it could be understood as "Are you persuaded of the proposition that I am the resurrection and the life", there is still an evident element of trust involved, since Jesus proceeds to resurrect Lazarus from the dead after Martha confessed her faith. Maybe Jesus would not have done this if he did not see her faith. Compare Matthew 13:58, which states:
_Now He did not do many mighty works there because of their unbelief._
So Martha actively exercised her faith, rather than passively being persuaded of a disembodied truth claim. Jesus took her into the school of faith, she passed the test, Jesus worked a miracle, and the Son of God was "glorified through it" (John 11:4).
Actually, John 11:25-26 is a point in case that exact word for word propositions are not the main thing, since Martha affirmed something different from what Jesus said!
WHAT IS THE GOSPEL?
Most people have NO idea what salvation is, what the gospel is, the two natures of the Christian, how to rightly divide, or how to lead anyone to salvation.
They "think" they are saved by works, "hoping" they are saved by works, and saying you must have works/fruit/evidence, because that is how they got "saved".
Stop watching religious people claiming to have salvation when they are trusting in their own obedience and works. Read the Bible for yourself. The gospel is not some nebulous ethereal thing or idea. Paul declares what the gospel is.
A man can KNOW he is saved, because He believes Jesus Christ DIED FOR HIS SINS AND ROSE AGAIN. Jesus Christ did the work NOT YOU! God will ask you "Why should I let you in". How can you say to the Father in Heaven after you die, "Well I gave 100%," (LIE) while His Son still bears the scars of the cross as GOD MANIFEST IN THE FLESH? (REV. 5:6!!) HE will say 'I had no sin, died for you when you were yet my enemy, yet YOU THOUGHT YOUR SACRIFICE WAS BETTER THAN MINE? You would be booted over the gate and down you would go.
John 3:15-16
That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
1 Cor. 15:1-4
Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
What is "believing in vain?"
Paul gives you the ANSWER in the SAME CHAPTER:
(v. 12-17)
Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
14And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
15Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
16For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
17And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
Romans 3:19-28
Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. 21But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 22Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: 23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 26To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. 27Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. 28Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Romans 4:4-5
Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 5But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Galatians 3:1-4
O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? 2This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? 4Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.
Romans 5:15-19
But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 16And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. 17For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) 18Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 19For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
Someone does not understand that Paul's epistles in the Bible are doctrine for the body of Christ/ the Church. Jesus Himself gave Paul special revelation and mysteries not known before (Ephesians 3:2-7, Galatians 1:11-12) Jesus' earthly ministry was to the Jew only. (Matthew 10:5-8) This continued until Peter went to the gentiles as a group, as God commanded him AFTER the Lord's resurrection. (Acts 10:28)
The gospel (by which you are saved) is found in 1 Cor. 15:1-4. Salvation is a gift. (Romans 5:15-18) It is not by works. (Romans 4:4-5) It is not kept by works. (Galatians 3:1-4) Salvation is by grace through faith. (Ephesians 2:8-9) Once saved you are sealed with the Holy Spirit. (Ephesians 4:30) Once Justified and born again, you are a purchased possession. (Acts 20:28, Ephesians 1:14) A Christian cannot lose salvation, even if they stop believing. (2 Timothy 2:13) Jesus Christs' obedience saves us, not your own. (Romans 5:19) Within the flesh dwells no good thing. You serve the law of sin with your flesh. Read Romans Chapter 7.
No man was sealed with the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament, (Psalm 51:11, 1 Samuel 16:14) and they will not be sealed with the Spirit in the Tribulation. If a man loses the Holy Spirit in the Tribulation he CANNOT get it back. (Rev. 14:9-11, Hebrews 6:4-8)
IF you are saved you are PREDESTINED to be glorified/ adopted as a son/ given an incorruptible body. (Romans 8:29-31, 1 Corinthians 15:48-50) Nothing can separate us from the love of God. (Romans 8:32-39) Your sinful flesh is separated from your soul by God, not by your own works. (Colossians 2:11-12) You must rightly divide the scriptures. (2 Timothy 2:15). Works will save no man. (Galatians 2:16) If a man preaches any other gospel today than what Paul did, he is accursed. (Galatians 1:6-9) Paul commands to abstain from sin not for, or to keep salvation but because it is our reasonable service. (Romans 12:1) A man can sin unto physical death, but he will not lose his salvation. (1 Cor. 3-17, 1 Cor. 5:1-5) All Christians have sin. [present tense] (1 John 1:8) YET a Christian cannot sin. (1 John 3:9)
You must understand Romans chapter 7 to reconcile BOTH passages in 1 John Ch. 1 and Ch. 3. If a doctrine outside Paul's letters (Romans to Philemon) contradicts other scriptures it is for another group of people in another dispensation. There is doctrine applicable to the Christian outside Paul's letters, but you must STUDY the scriptures. (James 2:24. Matthew 24, Hebrews Ch. 6 and 10, Revelation 12:17, Matthew 5:20, Ezekiel 18:24)
The Bible CANNOT contradict itself (2 Peter 1:20, 2 Timothy 3:16) and God CANNOT lie. (Numbers 23:19) Apparent contradictions in the Bible can be resolved by putting them in the right place. (Old Testament, New Testament Jew only, New Testament Church Age, Tribulation and the Millennium)
Unstable and unbelieving men twist the scriptures to their own destruction ESPECIALLY Paul's books. (2 Peter 3:15-16) God dealt differently with the Jews of the past in comparison with both Jew and gentile of today. (Hebrews 1:1-2, Ephesians 3:1-6, Galatians 3:23).
Salvation is in a God that humbled Himself as a Man and gave 100%. By comparison your 100% is dung. (Philippians 3:8!)
MATTHEW 7:23
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
JOHN 6:28-29
Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? 29Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
What many men do not realize that the faith that saves us HAS NO WORKS.
This is the crutch of Calvinists to state a man must have "saving faith." They take the passage in James 2:21-24 and try to apply it to a Christian.
Paul tells you that YOUR salvation is reckoned like Abraham's in UNCIRCUMCISION. (Romans 4:10, 16-25)
James states that Abraham AFTER CIRCUMCISION (Genesis 17) was reckoned righteousness by a faith PERFECTED BY WORKS.
Abraham OFFERED ISAAC in GENESIS Ch. 22.
ABRAHAM was CIRCUMCISED in GENESIS CH. 17.
ABRAHAM was Justified in GENESIS 15:5-6.
The Christian response to this thing that is rooted in sin, is dreadfully fearful submission to Scripture, whereat is a meeting place where many are already united; hallaluYah. Yall are invited to join the peace and unity that the Church has in the doctrines to which she has reformed (not Lordship Soteriology; Lordship Soteriology is not one of the doctrines to which the Church has reformed).
jesus is not the messiah jesus did not fufill the messianic prophecies the bible says the messiah will gather the exiles in deuteronomy 30:3 isaiah 11:11-12 jeremiah 30:3, 32:37 ezekiel 11:17, 36:24 the bible says the messiah will rebuild the temple in isaiah 2:2-3, 56:6-7, 60:7, 66:20 ezekiel 37:26-27 malachi 3:4 zechariah 14:20-21 the bible says when the messiah comes there will be world peace and a complete end to war in micah 4:1-4 hoseah 2:20 isaiah 2:1-4, 60:18 the bible says the messiah will bring universal knowledge of god in zechariah: 3:9 8:23, 14:9, 16 isaiah 45:23, 66:23; jeremiah 31:33 ezekiel 38:23; psalm 86:9 zephaniah 3:9. jesus didn't do any of these things, so jesus can't be the messiah.
Just saying "believe in the person of Jesus" does not really help clarify the issue. I believe Jesus lived in the 1800s, was a married man, and died for my sins on a cactus but I'm fully trusting in him for my salvation. Very quickly we learn that no no no, that's a heretical view. You need to believe in the American white evangelical republican Jesus to be saved, although the exact amount of stuff you need to understand about him is up in the air.
If you honestly believe that saving faith is just honestly trusting in God, without any necessary propositions (as you stated in 25:19), then it is impossible to escape from the reality of the salvation of Muslims, Catholics, Unitarians, or anyone of any other monotheistic religion. "Oh, but they haven't believed that God has fully secured their salvation." Well, that includes propositions. Concepts of heaven and hell enter the realm of things you need to believe in order to be saved. You need to understand that God is saving you from the torture chamber that he himself created, which is the natural default final location of all of humanity once they graduate from the age of accountability.
But besides all this, if saving faith has no content at all, then that is introducing a different gospel than the one that GES preaches, a different one than Layman's Seminary preaches, and a different one than most Free Gracers preach. If you want to be faithful to the command of Galatians 1 (which no one is, let's be honest) then you would have to break fellowship with all of them, because they all explicitly state that you have to believe certain propositions in order to be saved.
Free Grace will, I hope, be splintered beyond repair and destroyed by this issue.
Go back and listen *again.* The Jesus you are trusting is the one found in the narrative that is the gospel. If you are trusting a Jesus who "lived in the 1800s, was a married man, and died for my sins on a cactus but I'm fully trusting in him for my salvation," then the object of your faith isn't the same as mine.
As we took pains to show in the discussion, the propositions that make up that narrative are not the object of faith. Nor is knowing and believing the propositions about the biblical Jesus sufficient to comprise faith. But the gospel narrative is sufficient to point you to Jesus that you might, in fact, put your faith in Him.
If you've done that, you're saved. If you haven't, you're at risk of hearing, "Depart from Me; I never knew you."
So you do indeed need to know plenty of propositions to be saved, they are just preparatory before the final act of volitional faith. And then the question inevitably follows, which propositions? You have not transcended the debate.
You need to know enough of the story to believe in Jesus. I don't know, and no one does or can know, what the minimal set of propositions is or if one even exists. What we DO have is a narrative, a gospel, we are to preach. That narrative is SUFFICIENT to point people to Jesus. The only way to press the debate further is to confuse a sufficient condition with a necessary condition. And if you want to make that move, feel free, but that's just you being irrational. And if you want to be irrational, that's not really my problem. Irrational people aren't the sort of people I dialogue with.
If I have a gospel that is insufficient, then it becomes apparent that there are more necessary facts that I need to believe to be saved. Taking the admittedly ridiculous example that I began the conversation with, you implied that there is some damnable heresy associated with the beliefs that Jesus was married, lived in the 1800s, and died on a cactus. What if I believe that it is sufficient to believe that Christ died for my sins, was buried, and rose again, according to the scriptures, none of which necessarily contradict my additional beliefs? (1st Corinthians 15:1-4, a passage often used in evangelism) Apparently you found this insufficient.
Indeed, I find it strange that you would consider these beliefs to be damnable heresy. Jesus' marital status is not discussed in the four gospels, the time period certainly wasn't discussed since the Gregorian calendar hadn't been developed, and, although the cross gets mentioned quite often in evangelism, I think it would be a strange point of fixation to make it necessary that you understand that the cross was a roman instrument of torture, constructed by slabs of wood.
You said, You need to know enough of the story to believe in Jesus. I don't see how you can escape, then, the argument that there is a certain amount of facts that you need to believe in. Narratives are created from organizing facts together. It's okay to be uncertain about the exact requirements, but clearly you have a set of requirements.
And now we're just going in circles, because I already fully addressed all of that in the video. If you don't understand it, rewatch until you get it. If you don't want to, walk away and tell yourself you see something clearly that I am just too dumb to see. That's a *terrible* way to do theology, but you've decided from the first moment that you understand my position and its implications better than I do, so at this point, I'm sort of done explaining it to you. You just aren't arguing in good faith. Too bad for you, because that's going to limit your own ability to make progress in your studies. I hope better for you in the future. Blessings, and peace out.