The question of what it means to accept Jesus has come up on a few other threads recently but not as the main topic so I thought it would be interesting to discuss it in more detail.
There seems to be some differing views on what it means to "accept" Jesus. Some people have suggested that it comes from advocating Jesus' divinity, or asking Jesus into one's heart, or being washed in the blood, performing miracles, water baptism, or any number of other rituals / traditions while some say that acceptance is shown through obedience to commands given in the gospels.
Looking at the list, I don't think that there is any one particular option that is outright wrong and I see room for overlap between all of them to varying degrees.
I think the overlap means that there is no correct starting point to this acceptance and that Jesus is able to see and appreciate those little bits of over lap in ways that we do not.
So we could have people who specialize heavily in theology, praise, or teaching, but they may be less inclined to charitable works, or the other way around or any number of combinations where one area is stronger than the other. In those cases the overlap may be very small and it would be ideal for that person to work harder at increasing the overlap.
But the individual qualities are still there even if the overlap is small. I think this is well illustrated by the parable of the Good Samaritan. Did he "accept" Jesus? He specialized in good works but his overlap into correct theology was very small.
Despite the Samaritans shortcomings in the areas of praise, divinity etc, Jesus still used him as an example of the kind of person God is looking for, because he was practicing at least one aspect of acceptance (which Jesus referred to as the second most important command).
I believe there is a consistent theme through the NT that this is how God will judge people. He will probably consider some areas of acceptance to be more valuable than others, but I believe he will still consider all methods of acceptance when making his decision on who he wants to spend eternity with.
There seems to be some differing views on what it means to "accept" Jesus. Some people have suggested that it comes from advocating Jesus' divinity, or asking Jesus into one's heart, or being washed in the blood, performing miracles, water baptism, or any number of other rituals / traditions while some say that acceptance is shown through obedience to commands given in the gospels.
Looking at the list, I don't think that there is any one particular option that is outright wrong and I see room for overlap between all of them to varying degrees.
I think the overlap means that there is no correct starting point to this acceptance and that Jesus is able to see and appreciate those little bits of over lap in ways that we do not.
So we could have people who specialize heavily in theology, praise, or teaching, but they may be less inclined to charitable works, or the other way around or any number of combinations where one area is stronger than the other. In those cases the overlap may be very small and it would be ideal for that person to work harder at increasing the overlap.
But the individual qualities are still there even if the overlap is small. I think this is well illustrated by the parable of the Good Samaritan. Did he "accept" Jesus? He specialized in good works but his overlap into correct theology was very small.
Despite the Samaritans shortcomings in the areas of praise, divinity etc, Jesus still used him as an example of the kind of person God is looking for, because he was practicing at least one aspect of acceptance (which Jesus referred to as the second most important command).
I believe there is a consistent theme through the NT that this is how God will judge people. He will probably consider some areas of acceptance to be more valuable than others, but I believe he will still consider all methods of acceptance when making his decision on who he wants to spend eternity with.