How do we describe our "Conversion?"

[biblestudent78]

It has been my experience over the past 6+ decades that when I hear a person talk about their conversion, it essentially means one of two things.
1. They were born into a church going family and it was expected they would join the church via a "conversion experience" and the net sum of that experience is that they had to accept all the theology and dogmas that set their church aparate from other christian churches. Thus it was in fact just the process for gaining admission to and the approval of the group. Importantly it often comes with a lifelong need to defend every dogma, creed or statement of faith because my personal sense of salvation is rooted in them. I can't change my beliefs without threatening "my salvation."

2. A person faced a life changing event that destabilized them emotionally and they found themselves emotionally and experientially unprepared. This creates a perception of an unfilled need and a recognition that your personal resources are inadequate. Turning to religion appeared to offer a means of dealing with it and finding peace about it.

Personally, I am in group 1. I was baptised at age 12 of my own "choice" although there were lots of subtle and non-subtle hints and "bible discussions" that flourished in our house then that later moved toward zero. I have never regretted that event or that process, but it took me decades to realize how inadequate that relying on that "event" was. The major "discovery" of my adult years is that conversion, at least for me, is a life-long journey. That's because my original conception of salvation was that it was an "event." What I then called "faith" was only in beliefs I was taught.

I have come to realize that conversion a process of spiritual grown and significant behavioral surrender. While my mind has remained "converted" based on youthful beliefs, my being born again and walking a "new life" is a continuous process and one that has motivated me to seek an emotional and a physical closeness to the the day to day will of God in my life.

 

[Cameron143]

What about what's behind door #3?

How about God coming to an individual, giving them a new heart and spirit, and putting His Spirit in them.

 

[TheLordIsMyRedeemer]

I was baptized as an infant and raised by Christian parents. I believed on the the Lord Jesus Christ and followed Him as a teenager. I became lukewarm in my twenties. I remember one day about ten years ago when I was driving my car. I was moved by the holiness of God. I repented before God. I experienced the grace of God. Since that time I have been bearing the fruit of the Spirit and walking in the Spirit. I experienced a full immersion baptism as an adult several years ago. My faith in God has increased as I have grown in the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ.

(KJV Revelation 22:14) "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city."

 

[biblestudent78]

What about what's behind door #3?

How about God coming to an individual, giving them a new heart and spirit, and putting His Spirit in them.

Love the idea. What denominational/ancient traditions lead you to this question? I am especially interested in your insights into how God chooses some people and not others.

 

[biblestudent78]

I was baptized as an infant and raised by Christian parents. I believed on the the Lord Jesus Christ and followed Him as a teenager. I became lukewarm in my twenties. I remember one day about ten years ago when I was driving my car. I was moved by the holiness of God. I repented before God. I experienced the grace of God. Since that time I have been bearing the fruit of the Spirit and walking in the Spirit. I experienced a full immersion baptism as an adult several years ago. My faith in God has increased as I have grown in the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ.

(KJV Revelation 22:14) "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city."

Blessings

 

[Cameron143]

Love the idea. What denominational/ancient traditions lead you to this question? I am especially interested in your insights into how God chooses some people and not others.

I belong to a non-denominational church and have very little insight into ancient traditions. My beliefs would be more akin to those of the Reformation.

As far as how God chooses, I believe He does so sovereignly, or as Ephesians 1:11 states...after the counsel of His own will.

 

[Pilgrimshope]

It has been my experience over the past 6+ decades that when I hear a person talk about their conversion, it essentially means one of two things.
1. They were born into a church going family and it was expected they would join the church via a "conversion experience" and the net sum of that experience is that they had to accept all the theology and dogmas that set their church aparate from other christian churches. Thus it was in fact just the process for gaining admission to and the approval of the group. Importantly it often comes with a lifelong need to defend every dogma, creed or statement of faith because my personal sense of salvation is rooted in them. I can't change my beliefs without threatening "my salvation."

2. A person faced a life changing event that destabilized them emotionally and they found themselves emotionally and experientially unprepared. This creates a perception of an unfilled need and a recognition that your personal resources are inadequate. Turning to religion appeared to offer a means of dealing with it and finding peace about it.

Personally, I am in group 1. I was baptised at age 12 of my own "choice" although there were lots of subtle and non-subtle hints and "bible discussions" that flourished in our house then that later moved toward zero. I have never regretted that event or that process, but it took me decades to realize how inadequate that relying on that "event" was. The major "discovery" of my adult years is that conversion, at least for me, is a life-long journey. That's because my original conception of salvation was that it was an "event." What I then called "faith" was only in beliefs I was taught.

I have come to realize that conversion a process of spiritual grown and significant behavioral surrender. While my mind has remained "converted" based on youthful beliefs, my being born again and walking a "new life" is a continuous process and one that has motivated me to seek an emotional and a physical closeness to the the day to day will of God in my life.

“I have come to realize that conversion a process of spiritual grown and significant behavioral surrender. While my mind has remained "converted" based on youthful beliefs, my being born again and walking a "new life" is a continuous process and one that has motivated me to seek an emotional and a physical closeness to the the day to day will of God in my life.“

well said

 

[GWH]

It has been my experience over the past 6+ decades that when I hear a person talk about their conversion, it essentially means one of two things.
1. They were born into a church going family and it was expected they would join the church via a "conversion experience" and the net sum of that experience is that they had to accept all the theology and dogmas that set their church aparate from other christian churches. Thus it was in fact just the process for gaining admission to and the approval of the group. Importantly it often comes with a lifelong need to defend every dogma, creed or statement of faith because my personal sense of salvation is rooted in them. I can't change my beliefs without threatening "my salvation."

2. A person faced a life changing event that destabilized them emotionally and they found themselves emotionally and experientially unprepared. This creates a perception of an unfilled need and a recognition that your personal resources are inadequate. Turning to religion appeared to offer a means of dealing with it and finding peace about it.

Personally, I am in group 1. I was baptised at age 12 of my own "choice" although there were lots of subtle and non-subtle hints and "bible discussions" that flourished in our house then that later moved toward zero. I have never regretted that event or that process, but it took me decades to realize how inadequate that relying on that "event" was. The major "discovery" of my adult years is that conversion, at least for me, is a life-long journey. That's because my original conception of salvation was that it was an "event." What I then called "faith" was only in beliefs I was taught.

I have come to realize that conversion a process of spiritual grown and significant behavioral surrender. While my mind has remained "converted" based on youthful beliefs, my being born again and walking a "new life" is a continuous process and one that has motivated me to seek an emotional and a physical closeness to the the day to day will of God in my life.

I was in the first group until high school, when encountering apostate former Christians made me realize how unprepared I was to defend my faith, motivating me to turn to Scripture and read it completely through taking notes in the margins, which I repeated a few more times in various versions up to the present.

IOW, I converted from being a Baptist Christian to becoming a Christian truthseeker with the motto, "Love to learn and learn to love."

 

[JohnRH]

It has been my experience over the past 6+ decades that when I hear a person talk about their conversion, it essentially means one of two things.
1. They were born into a church going family and it was expected they would join the church via a "conversion experience" and the net sum of that experience is that they had to accept all the theology and dogmas that set their church aparate from other christian churches. Thus it was in fact just the process for gaining admission to and the approval of the group. Importantly it often comes with a lifelong need to defend every dogma, creed or statement of faith because my personal sense of salvation is rooted in them. I can't change my beliefs without threatening "my salvation."

2. A person faced a life changing event that destabilized them emotionally and they found themselves emotionally and experientially unprepared. This creates a perception of an unfilled need and a recognition that your personal resources are inadequate. Turning to religion appeared to offer a means of dealing with it and finding peace about it.

Personally, I am in group 1. I was baptised at age 12 of my own "choice" although there were lots of subtle and non-subtle hints and "bible discussions" that flourished in our house then that later moved toward zero. I have never regretted that event or that process, but it took me decades to realize how inadequate that relying on that "event" was. The major "discovery" of my adult years is that conversion, at least for me, is a life-long journey. That's because my original conception of salvation was that it was an "event." What I then called "faith" was only in beliefs I was taught.

I have come to realize that conversion a process of spiritual grown and significant behavioral surrender. While my mind has remained "converted" based on youthful beliefs, my being born again and walking a "new life" is a continuous process and one that has motivated me to seek an emotional and a physical closeness to the the day to day will of God in my life.

Conversion (being born again) is a one-time historical event in one's life. You're either completely converted or you're not at all. Being born the first time (from your mother's womb) isn't a continual process; it happened and was completed once in your life. It's the same with the 2nd birth.
Practical sanctification and maturing, on the other hand, is a life-long process.

 

[biblestudent78]

I was in the first group until high school, when encountering apostate former Christians made me realize how unprepared I was to defend my faith, motivating me to turn to Scripture and read it completely through taking notes in the margins, which I repeated a few more times in various versions up to the present.

IOW, I converted from being a Baptist Christian to becoming a Christian truthseeker with the motto, "Love to learn and learn to love."

GWH:
It has been my experience that few of the "converted" retain any significant motivation to

Conversion (being born again) is a one-time historical event in one's life. You're either completely converted or you're not at all. Being born the first time (from your mother's womb) isn't a continual process; it happened and was completed once in your life. It's the same with the 2nd birth.
Practical sanctification and maturing, on the other hand, is a life-long process.

JohnRH:
For the sake of clarity, does your current understanding of conversion mean one can "become a Christian" by agreement with one's denominations theology and that "sanctification" is some kind of automatic process which just happens? Is it then possible to "be saved" without any personal effort to be "sanctified" as that would violate the sin of "works based Christianity?"

 

[biblestudent78]

JohnRH:
For the sake of clarity, does your current understanding of conversion mean one can "become a Christian" by agreement with one's denominations theology and that "sanctification" is some kind of automatic process which just happens? Is it then possible to "be saved" without any personal effort to be "sanctified" as that would violate the sin of "works based Christianity?"

GWH:
It has been my experience that few of the "converted" retain any significant motivation to continue to learn. Learning carries with it a significant threat. On one hand most believe the Word of God is truth. On the other hand, the more one learns of the bible, from the bible and about the bible the more likely they are to discover their original beliefs are going to be either challenged, changed or discarded. I think the massive impact of social media around biblical exegesis and challenge is one cause of the growing abandonment of "religious practice" such as church attendance and group bible study. I have experienced an older generation of Christians who fear too much "bible education" as they see it, more a threat to faith than a confirmation of what they believe. Many are totally unprepared to contend with the scientific insights into reality and find themselves more and more with a bunker mentality. I don't want to know anything that challenges the pillars of my beliefs including the Bible.

 

[biblestudent78]

I belong to a non-denominational church and have very little insight into ancient traditions. My beliefs would be more akin to those of the Reformation.

As far as how God chooses, I believe He does so sovereignly, or as Ephesians 1:11 states...after the counsel of His own will.

Camerone143
Interestingly enough, this single passage in Ephesians both verse 11-12 has catalyzed Christians into at least 3 competing groups since the 16th century. It's competing interpretations form three major theological perspectives: 1. The mechanism of divine sovereignty vs. human free will. 2. the definition of who is being chosen. 3. The literal translation (meaning) of what is being inherited.

The camp you become part of is nearly exclusively what Christian tradition you were born into or came to accept. Each have a exegetical discipline that constrains the interpretation of this scripture.

Preconceptions determine interpretation

Group 1 - The bible must be read literally. They argue that God actively determines, plans, and causes every single event in the universe beforehand—including who will be saved. Human will is subordinate to God's absolute sovereignty. Humans have no will of their own. God give all humans the will they have, a few to irresistibly salvation and the vast majority to irresistible damnation. In this traditional view "we" as a generic pronoun for the entire Christian church. In this light, the verse is not contrasting ethnic groups but is an overarching statement about how every believer has been chosen in Christ from the foundation of the world.

Group 2 - Humans were born with free will and can chose the path to salvation or damnation. God exists outside of time and "predestines" based on his foreknowledge of what choices people will freely make, rather than actively forcing those choices. Others argue "all things" refers to the broad, sweeping plan of cosmic redemption (summing up all things in Christ, as seen in verse 10), rather than microscopic control over every individual human action. Group 2 argues that "we" refers strictly to Jewish believers (like Paul himself) who were the first to hope in Christ. In verse 13, "you also" transitions to Gentile believers. Therefore, the "predestination" here is historical and cultural—God chose the Jewish people first to inherit the promises, followed by the Gentiles.

Verse 13-14 (for context): And when you heard the word of truth (the gospel of your salvation) – when you believed in Christ – you were marked with the seal of the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is the down payment of our inheritance, until the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of his glory. (Which suggests salvation is after hearing, believing and receiving the seal of the Holy Spirit... which does not suggest a predetermined and irresistible force....

The Greek root word for "obtained an inheritance" (klēroō) is passive and carries dual meanings.
1. Active/Receiving Sense: As translated in some translations it means believers receive an inheritance (heaven, eternal life, or the Holy Spirit) from God.
2. Passive/Being Sense: The word (klēroō) can also be rendered as "we were made an inheritance." In this interpretation, the reality is that believers themselves are God’s prized possession and inheritance, won by Christ at Calvary.

 

[JohnRH]

JohnRH:
For the sake of clarity, does your current understanding of conversion mean one can "become a Christian" by agreement with one's denominations theology and that "sanctification" is some kind of automatic process which just happens? Is it then possible to "be saved" without any personal effort to be "sanctified" as that would violate the sin of "works based Christianity?"

Becoming born again is a matter of you personally trusting the Lord Jesus Christ with your eternal welfare. It's completely independent of any denominational theology or any church person(s)' opinion(s) regarding whether you're saved or not. It's 100% between you, the individual, and God.

When a person becomes born again they are positionally sanctified with no effort on their part (it comes with salvation). They are commanded to practice practical sanctification, which requires effort.

 

[GWH]

Regarding learning the Bible, I think the problem is chicken-egg or both-and.
In my experience there have been very few pastors who were good Bible teachers
that encouraged/motivated folks to be good Bible learners.

Most people seem to settle for entertaining stories and music. Instead of apologetics or
controversial moral/political subjects, pastors preach on Revelation or conduct superficial readings
through other Bible books, avoiding anything including science that would challenge denominational
traditions, as you said.

Even exegesis as taught in the seminary I attended did not mention the need for application and updating.
According to their parameters, the hermeneutic of Jesus and Paul would have been deemed to be eisegesis,
reading the Gospel into OT texts.

I have tried to be part of the solution, but my career has not provided many opportunities for converting folks
to desire in-depth Bible study. I am pleased to find truthseekers like you on CC.

 

[Cameron143]

Camerone143
Interestingly enough, this single passage in Ephesians both verse 11-12 has catalyzed Christians into at least 3 competing groups since the 16th century. It's competing interpretations form three major theological perspectives: 1. The mechanism of divine sovereignty vs. human free will. 2. the definition of who is being chosen. 3. The literal translation (meaning) of what is being inherited.

The camp you become part of is nearly exclusively what Christian tradition you were born into or came to accept. Each have a exegetical discipline that constrains the interpretation of this scripture.

Preconceptions determine interpretation

Group 1 - The bible must be read literally. They argue that God actively determines, plans, and causes every single event in the universe beforehand—including who will be saved. Human will is subordinate to God's absolute sovereignty. Humans have no will of their own. God give all humans the will they have, a few to irresistibly salvation and the vast majority to irresistible damnation. In this traditional view "we" as a generic pronoun for the entire Christian church. In this light, the verse is not contrasting ethnic groups but is an overarching statement about how every believer has been chosen in Christ from the foundation of the world.

Group 2 - Humans were born with free will and can chose the path to salvation or damnation. God exists outside of time and "predestines" based on his foreknowledge of what choices people will freely make, rather than actively forcing those choices. Others argue "all things" refers to the broad, sweeping plan of cosmic redemption (summing up all things in Christ, as seen in verse 10), rather than microscopic control over every individual human action. Group 2 argues that "we" refers strictly to Jewish believers (like Paul himself) who were the first to hope in Christ. In verse 13, "you also" transitions to Gentile believers. Therefore, the "predestination" here is historical and cultural—God chose the Jewish people first to inherit the promises, followed by the Gentiles.

Verse 13-14 (for context): And when you heard the word of truth (the gospel of your salvation) – when you believed in Christ – you were marked with the seal of the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is the down payment of our inheritance, until the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of his glory. (Which suggests salvation is after hearing, believing and receiving the seal of the Holy Spirit... which does not suggest a predetermined and irresistible force....

The Greek root word for "obtained an inheritance" (klēroō) is passive and carries dual meanings.
1. Active/Receiving Sense: As translated in some translations it means believers receive an inheritance (heaven, eternal life, or the Holy Spirit) from God.
2. Passive/Being Sense: The word (klēroō) can also be rendered as "we were made an inheritance." In this interpretation, the reality is that believers themselves are God’s prized possession and inheritance, won by Christ at Calvary.

I was raised Roman Catholic, so my beliefs certainly weren't born into. And while you are correct that preconceptions and background do play a large part in individual's beliefs, they also play a part in how they consider other's beliefs. For example, under Group 2 you used the phrase "rather than actively forcing those choices". No one in group 1 believes God actively forces choices. They believe God fundamentally changes an individual by giving them new hearts and spirits, and places His Spirit within them. So, rather than forcing choices, God changes people who will inevitably make different choices. Hence, door #3.

Incidentally, these presumptions about other's beliefs are the source of some of the great debates we find in sites like this one. People are talking past each other because they aren't listening to what is being said, and assuming their misconceptions into their arguments.

 

[biblestudent78]

I was raised Roman Catholic, so my beliefs certainly weren't born into. And while you are correct that preconceptions and background do play a large part in individual's beliefs, they also play a part in how they consider other's beliefs. For example, under Group 2 you used the phrase "rather than actively forcing those choices". No one in group 1 believes God actively forces choices. They believe God fundamentally changes an individual by giving them new hearts and spirits, and places His Spirit within them. So, rather than forcing choices, God changes people who will inevitably make different choices. Hence, door #3.

Incidentally, these presumptions about other's beliefs are the source of some of the great debates we find in sites like this one. People are talking past each other because they aren't listening to what is being said, and assuming their misconceptions into their arguments.

Semantics is not a good way to defend a concept. God's predetermining and thus enforcing His predetermination is a significant theology of millions. Predetermining without enforcing that predetermination is the same has making no predetermination, and to many, antithetical to the nature of God.

The underlying conflict remains. God chooses who He will "change" and who He "refuses" to change no matter how diligently they try or "think " they deserve salvation. It also means that many if not most of those believing God chose them for salvation can never be sure because their salvation is not determined by anything they think or do, but on a event that happened before the world was created.

The literalists believe that as God is sovereign over all things, thus all things are totally subject to the Will of God. No person can be lost who God predetermines to save and nobody can be saved unless God predetermined it and "all things" means all things i.e. every detail of every event that ever happens to them or their loved ones was predetermined by God. This predetermination means prayers other than "thy will be done," are inconsequential to God as He is going to do exactly what He planned and is impervious and heedless to our petty needs. On the other hand after 7 decades I have yet to meet a person who was born and lived a "righteous life" without his or her personal choice to do so. So it calls into question the idea, where do we find these irresistibly righteous people and why when we do we often find them, why many later losing all interest in God's Will.

These are not my views, but I want to be as clear about what I believe these medieval theological planks have evolved into.

I also find it fascinating that you were born and raised a Roman Catholic but you had no beliefs based on that upbringing. I know a great many Roman Catholics including my wife who were raised and even educated in a totally Roman Catholic childhood. I do not know any of them who claim that their Roman Catholic childhood had no influence on their perspectives of religion. Perhaps you might expand further on how you avoided any Roman Catholic beliefs and found your conversion to Christian Calvinism.

 

[Cameron143]

Semantics is not a good way to defend a concept. God's predetermining and thus enforcing His predetermination is a significant theology of millions. Predetermining without enforcing that predetermination is the same has making no predetermination, and to many, antithetical to the nature of God.

The underlying conflict remains. God chooses who He will "change" and who He "refuses" to change no matter how diligently they try or "think " they deserve salvation. It also means that many if not most of those believing God chose them for salvation can never be sure because their salvation is not determined by anything they think or do, but on a event that happened before the world was created.

The literalists believe that as God is sovereign over all things, thus all things are totally subject to the Will of God. No person can be lost who God predetermines to save and nobody can be saved unless God predetermined it and "all things" means all things i.e. every detail of every event that ever happens to them or their loved ones was predetermined by God. This predetermination means prayers other than "thy will be done," are inconsequential to God as He is going to do exactly what He planned and is impervious and heedless to our petty needs. On the other hand after 7 decades I have yet to meet a person who was born and lived a "righteous life" without his or her personal choice to do so. So it calls into question the idea, where do we find these irresistibly righteous people and why when we do we often find them, why many later losing all interest in God.

These are not my views, but I want to be as clear about what I believe these medieval theological planks have evolved into.

I also find it fascinating that you were born and raised a Roman Catholic but you had no beliefs based on that upbringing. I know a great many Roman Catholics including my wife who were raised and even educated in a totally Roman Catholic childhood. I do not know any of them who claim that their Roman Catholic childhood had no influence on their perspectives of religion. Perhaps you might expand further on how you avoided any Roman Catholic beliefs and your conversion to Christian Calvinism.

Seems in your understanding that nuance equates to semantics. What I was referring to wasn't even nuance. It's like you don't believe rational people can read the Bible prayerfully seeking truth and come to an understanding of what God is teaching.

I have already told you that presupposition and experience shape what individuals believe, but true Christians receive understanding directly from God, as well as godly teachers. And while I don't believe many arrive at understanding this way, but just accept teaching that agrees with what they already believe, it is available to those who humbly seek.

In mentioning being raised Roman Catholic I was merely contrasting that with the beliefs I now hold. The point being: assumption and presupposition can be overcome when one genuinely and humbly seek truth.

You and I should share, as well as others, but not with the idea of creating unity. The unity of the church is the purvue of the Spirit. We are to preserve the work He does...till we all come to the unity of the faith. How we share is as important as what we share.

 

[biblestudent78]

Seems in your understanding that nuance equates to semantics. What I was referring to wasn't even nuance. It's like you don't believe rational people can read the Bible prayerfully seeking truth and come to an understanding of what God is teaching.

I have already told you that presupposition and experience shape what individuals believe, but true Christians receive understanding directly from God, as well as godly teachers. And while I don't believe many arrive at understanding this way, but just accept teaching that agrees with what they already believe, it is available to those who humbly seek.

In mentioning being raised Roman Catholic I was merely contrasting that with the beliefs I now hold. The point being: assumption and presupposition can be overcome when one genuinely and humbly seek truth.

You and I should share, as well as others, but not with the idea of creating unity. The unity of the church is the purvue of the Spirit. We are to preserve the work He does...till we all come to the unity of the faith. How we share is as important as what we share.

Cameron143
My personal beliefs are that people can and should not only read but study the bible with the intent of finding something new in every effort. I have been a student of the New Testament for about 68 years and a student of the Hebrew Bible for the past 25 years. I have and do discuss and teach the bible. I also write on biblical subjects, church history and the intersection of science and Christianity.

I recognize the conscious and subconscious realities of New Testament studies. It has been my experience that most readers of the New Testament rely on building on top of whatever theological perspectives, filters and preconditions they were taught or learned on their own. It is easy to read the New Testament to confirm what you were already taught to believe. The 450,000 different Christian denominations each have extensive proof texts and unique filters and points of view that enables what they read to always confirm what they were taught to believe. That is the nature of the Christian Church world today. This is why we have theological pyramids extending back to a 16th - 20th century "founder" or "Revealer." Some know their Christian beliefs are extensions of these revered founders and some who can repeat the exact words, concepts, interpretive filters and insights of the founders without intimate knowledge of the source.

So, todays various opinions on "The Irresistible" Choices of God for salvation have been handed down and ossified for over 500 years so the packaging of this theology is pretty airtight to those who have adopted it or been adopted by it. While i don't agree with the logic and proof-texting associated with it, I do not resist it nor would I attempt to change anyone's mind if they find comfort there. The same for any other ancient founder's creed or statement of faith. The reason I contend with anyone on any point of theology is to first proclaim, the vast majority of it does not matter.

In general, we prefer to treat Christianity as a collection of "beliefs" that in themselves have significant value. IMHO, by and large they don't. They don't when they do not result in a conversion of one seeing salvation based on theology to one following Jesus life and mission, i.e. bringing the love of God to man and enlisting mankind into a right relationship with God and our fellow mankind. The theology of Jesus was about how one lives and has their being. Jesus is asking for control over every aspect of our daily lives, not a few hrs a month in air-conditioned worship. All of Jesus commands are about what you do, what you are willing to give up, who you are willing to love and sacrifice for and who you are willing to become. Jesus gave us a roadmap and a perfect example of what to do and how to do it. It starts with faith in Him and immediately moves to how to follow Him. That is real Christianity. Jesus did not call us to theologic perfection. He calls us to mission perfection via living like Jesus lived, loving like Jesus, valuing who Jesus valued and living a surrendered life. Our failures are easily forgiven as there was only one Perfect Man. The real question of Jesus life is not what is the most elegant theology ,but the answer to the question, are you willing to surrender? For the unsurrendered life, what difference does theology have?