"Works"

[Jac3510]

If that is what you and Byblos are saying, then I disagree. I believe we receive the grace of God, required for salvation, by believing on Christ, not by the sacraments.

Do you think anyone, Catholic or otherwise, would say anything different? The question, again, is what it means to "believe on Christ." It sounds as if you would say (as I do) that what some people call "believing" you call working.

I think I've made it pretty clear that I don't agree with that.

That's fine. I'm just saying that's the historical position. But just for clarification, if you believe that a person can prove they were never saved by serious sin or apostasy, or that they can lose their salvation, then you do believe it. Again, the terminology would just nee to be fleshed out.

I would have no problem calling that a works based salvation, or at least, a works based santification.

Nor would I, and I do. But SBs strongly reject that notion, as I'm sure you know. They insist that they are big believers in salvation by faith alone. And yet if you can (I think rightly) accuse SBs of works based salvation, then the issue is a lot more basic than what constitutes a work (which I think you've agreed with me on).

My only point with distinguishing between different kinds of faith, was to say that only an intellectual faith(like the demons have) won't save. I'd like to see what you have to say, though.

I don't distinguish between kinds of faith. The Bible doesn't. Why should I?

Ok, then what's the next step to see if we can come to an agreement on what faith is?

You could solicit different definitions and see if you agree or disagree with them. You could do a word study in various contexts (NT/OT/secular Greek and Hebrew). You can do a historical study, but . . .

Although, I'm getting the impression from you that there won't be any consensus.

Sadly, I don't think that there will be. This has been the basic issue for centuries dividing the Church.

My own view is that faith is nothing more than a personal trust in someone or something to a particular end. It's binary. You either trust (have faith/believe) or you don't. Thus, on my view, salvation comes when we trust Jesus to save us. That means having a basic enough grasp on who Jesus is and what "to save us" means to us to act on, and in this case, the act is actually to stop acting--to rest, to cease to work for the end in question (namely, salvation). So on my view, I don't even think we should put faith in faith. Faith is in the Man: Jesus Christ. I'm just trusting Him to do everything for me, and that's why I have no room for sacramental salvation, nor why I have room for the possibility of losing my salvation (or of "giving it back), and why I insist on the doctrines of eternal security and objective assurance.

[RickD]

RickD wrote:If that is what you and Byblos are saying, then I disagree. I believe we receive the grace of God, required for salvation, by believing on Christ, not by the sacraments.

Jac3510 wrote:
Do you think anyone, Catholic or otherwise, would say anything different? The question, again, is what it means to "believe on Christ." It sounds as if you would say (as I do) that what some people call "believing" you call working.

The Catholic church says that the sacraments are required for salvation.
It seems more and more clear to me, that what some people call "believing", I call working.

RickD wrote:
I think I've made it pretty clear that I don't agree with that.

Jac3510 wrote:
That's fine. I'm just saying that's the historical position. But just for clarification, if you believe that a person can prove they were never saved by serious sin or apostasy, or that they can lose their salvation, then you do believe it. Again, the terminology would just nee to be fleshed out

I'm not sure how a person could prove they were never saved, or an apostate. At least, I can't see them being able to prove that to me. And, I don't believe, once someone is saved, he can lose his salvation.

RickD wrote:
I would have no problem calling that a works based salvation, or at least, a works based santification.

Jac3510 wrote:
Nor would I, and I do. But SBs strongly reject that notion, as I'm sure you know. They insist that they are big believers in salvation by faith alone. And yet if you can (I think rightly) accuse SBs of works based salvation, then the issue is a lot more basic than what constitutes a work (which I think you've agreed with me on).

I'm not saying all southern baptists, or even The Southern Baptist Church teaches a works based salvation. Just the example you gave. I honestly don't know that much about them to say for sure.

RickD wrote:
My only point with distinguishing between different kinds of faith, was to say that only an intellectual faith(like the demons have) won't save. I'd like to see what you have to say, though.

Jac3510 wrote:
I don't distinguish between kinds of faith. The Bible doesn't. Why should I?

Because I want to make the distinction that a mere intellectual belief may not lead to a saving faith. I think it's safe to say that demons know exactly who Christ is, yet they have no saving faith in what Christ did. That's where I see a difference.

My own view is that faith is nothing more than a personal trust in someone or something to a particular end. It's binary. You either trust (have faith/believe) or you don't. Thus, on my view, salvation comes when we trust Jesus to save us. That means having a basic enough grasp on who Jesus is and what "to save us" means to us to act on, and in this case, the act is actually to stop acting--to rest, to cease to work for the end in question (namely, salvation). So on my view, I don't even think we should put faith in faith. Faith is in the Man: Jesus Christ. I'm just trusting Him to do everything for me, and that's why I have no room for sacramental salvation, nor why I have room for the possibility of losing my salvation (or of "giving it back), and why I insist on the doctrines of eternal security and objective assurance.

I agree with this, almost to a 'T' , except a little voice inside me, is telling me that you and I may differ on what you call "objective assurance". Call it the skeptic in me.

[Jac3510]

The Catholic church says that the sacraments are required for salvation.
It seems more and more clear to me, that what some people call "believing", I call working.

I would call it working, too, but that's because I disagree with their definition of faith. It is important to be fair with positions we disagree. On the Catholic view of faith, the sacraments are not works, and there is absolutely no contradiction between saying "the sacraments are necessary for salvation" and saying "only faith is necessary for salvation." Again, that's on their view, and I, for one, don't think it's any more fair for me to reject their view (or anyone else's) before I understand than it is for someone to reject mine without understanding it. Yes, no?

I'm not sure how a person could prove they were never saved, or an apostate. At least, I can't see them being able to prove that to me. And, I don't believe, once someone is saved, he can lose his salvation.

Reformed Theology teaches the Final Perseverance of the Saints, that is, that a saved person will continue in faith and good works until death. Therefore, if a person falls away into deep sin (of either commission, murder for example, or omission, never reading or caring to read the Bible for example) then it is not that they lost their salvation. It is, rather, that they proved that they never really were saved. So when a person professes Christ and later rejects Him, then regardless of how long they professed, they are proving that their conversion was false. Or, do use their terms, they proved they had "spurious" faith. I'm not suggesting you agree or disagree with this at all. I'm just providing here the set of views so we have a proper context to discuss faith and works.

Because I want to make the distinction that a mere intellectual belief may not lead to a saving faith. I think it's safe to say that demons know exactly who Christ is, yet they have no saving faith in what Christ did. That's where I see a difference.

I wouldn't call intellectual belief "faith" at all, so it isn't a "kind" of faith to begin with. Remember on my definition, faith is a personal trust in something. Intellectual belief is not the same as personal trust, though the latter seems at least to presuppose the former (how can you trust something you don't believe to be true, and you can you believe to be true something you don't intellectually comprehend?).

I agree with this, almost to a 'T' , except a little voice inside me, is telling me that you and I may differ on what you call "objective assurance". Call it the skeptic in me.

Ok, it's the skeptic in you!

By objective assurance, I mean having assurance based on a public fact rather than an inner conviction. The argument goes this way:

1. Anyone who ever believed the Gospel is eternally secure
2. I have believed the Gospel
3. Therefore, I am eternally secure

Of course, "believe" and "the Gospel" and "eternally secure" all need to be defined, but that's easy enough to do. Someone can disagree with my definitions, of course. That's all well and good, but the point is that the information and views are public data. If I am correct in my definitions, and if I'm not lying in (2), then I know I have assurance of salvation. There is no logical way for me to end up in Hell. This is true even if I turn out later on to reject my faith or become a mass murderer such that I make Stalin look like a saint. In fact, it's true even when I don't "feel" saved, when I have no "inner witness" of my salvation. The fact is that I've believed the Gospel and that everyone who ever did so is eternally secure, so I must be saved.

Suffice it to say that Calvinists, Arminians, Catholics (Roman and otherwise), and Orthodox would all strongly disagree with eternal security and objective assurance, especially as I have defined it. (But just for what it is worth, Catholics have a bit of a different type of objective assurance, not available for themselves, but for others. They can know for 100% that certain people are in Heaven because it has been revealed to the Church, and since the Church necessarily teaches truth, they are objectively certain that those people are in heaven.)

[RickD]

The Catholic church says that the sacraments are required for salvation.
It seems more and more clear to me, that what some people call "believing", I call working.


I would call it working, too, but that's because I disagree with their definition of faith. It is important to be fair with positions we disagree. On the Catholic view of faith, the sacraments are not works, and there is absolutely no contradiction between saying "the sacraments are necessary for salvation" and saying "only faith is necessary for salvation." Again, that's on their view, and I, for one, don't think it's any more fair for me to reject their view (or anyone else's) before I understand than it is for someone to reject mine without understanding it. Yes, no?

I don't disagree with any of this.

Reformed Theology teaches the Final Perseverance of the Saints, that is, that a saved person will continue in faith and good works until death. Therefore, if a person falls away into deep sin (of either commission, murder for example, or omission, never reading or caring to read the Bible for example) then it is not that they lost their salvation. It is, rather, that they proved that they never really were saved. So when a person professes Christ and later rejects Him, then regardless of how long they professed, they are proving that their conversion was false. Or, do use their terms, they proved they had "spurious" faith. I'm not suggesting you agree or disagree with this at all. I'm just providing here the set of views so we have a proper context to discuss faith and works.

Some of this I agree with, and some I don't. I just don't see how I could know if someone who claimed to be saved, and later on committed murder, was ever saved to begin with. IMO, that's between them and God. I just don't know someone else's "heart".

Because I want to make the distinction that a mere intellectual belief may not lead to a saving faith. I think it's safe to say that demons know exactly who Christ is, yet they have no saving faith in what Christ did. That's where I see a difference.


I wouldn't call intellectual belief "faith" at all, so it isn't a "kind" of faith to begin with. Remember on my definition, faith is a personal trust in something. Intellectual belief is not the same as personal trust, though the latter seems at least to presuppose the former (how can you trust something you don't believe to be true, and you can you believe to be true something you don't intellectually comprehend?).

Sorry, my mistake. I meant to say intellectual belief, and a saving belief. The latter of which you called faith. Two different kinds of beliefs, but only one real "faith".

By objective assurance, I mean having assurance based on a public fact rather than an inner conviction. The argument goes this way:

1. Anyone who ever believed the Gospel is eternally secure
2. I have believed the Gospel
3. Therefore, I am eternally secure

Of course, "believe" and "the Gospel" and "eternally secure" all need to be defined, but that's easy enough to do. Someone can disagree with my definitions, of course. That's all well and good, but the point is that the information and views are public data. If I am correct in my definitions, and if I'm not lying in (2), then I know I have assurance of salvation. There is no logical way for me to end up in Hell. This is true even if I turn out later on to reject my faith or become a mass murderer such that I make Stalin look like a saint. In fact, it's true even when I don't "feel" saved, when I have no "inner witness" of my salvation. The fact is that I've believed the Gospel and that everyone who ever did so is eternally secure, so I must be saved.

Ok, gotcha. But, when I say "inner witness", I'm referring to the indwelling Holy Spirit. So, when you say "when I have no "inner witness" of my salvation", it makes me think you are talking about a feeling of the Holy Spirit, as opposed to the presence of the HS. I believe once a believer is saved, the Holy Spirit indwells that person, and will not leave that person.

FWIW, I agree with your objective assurance, as it's laid out above. I think once I know more about it, there will be some disagreements, though. I remember reading a thread a while back where you were arguing for your belief in assurance, and I remember agreeing with most of it, except seeing a couple of things that just didn't seem right, in my mind.

[PaulSacramento]

I would probably be concerned when ANY Christian group decides what is "needed" to be saved beyond what was written in the NT.
I would be concerned when ANY group puts itself or a ritual between God's grace through Christ and those that have faith in Christ.
As for the sacraments, I recall only only 2 be implicit in regards to salvation:
Baptism of the HS and "eating" of the Lord's body and blood, both in GOJ.
Although only the Lord's supper was given with directions on HOW to take it.

[Jac3510]

Some of this I agree with, and some I don't. I just don't see how I could know if someone who claimed to be saved, and later on committed murder, was ever saved to begin with. IMO, that's between them and God. I just don't know someone else's "heart".

Again, I would agree with you here, but Reformed theologians would likely protest. They would argue something like this:

1. A saved person will necessarily produce fruit
2. I am not producing fruit
3. Therefore, I am not saved

It's "where there's smoke, there's fire" kind of thing. If A then B; not B, therefore, not A. On their theology, while you may not know their heart, you do know their deeds, and for them the deeds indicate the heart from which they are coming. I disagree with all of that, but that's their view.

Sorry, my mistake. I meant to say intellectual belief, and a saving belief. The latter of which you called faith. Two different kinds of beliefs, but only one real "faith".

I still wouldn't make this kind of distinction. Is it the quality of the faith/belief that saves or the object of the faith/belief that saves?

That's a very important question. Take a look at John 12:42 and give me your thoughts relative to this discussion here. Are the people in that passage saved or not? How would you characterize their faith?

Ok, gotcha. But, when I say "inner witness", I'm referring to the indwelling Holy Spirit. So, when you say "when I have no "inner witness" of my salvation", it makes me think you are talking about a feeling of the Holy Spirit, as opposed to the presence of the HS. I believe once a believer is saved, the Holy Spirit indwells that person, and will not leave that person.

FWIW, I agree with your objective assurance, as it's laid out above. I think once I know more about it, there will be some disagreements, though. I remember reading a thread a while back where you were arguing for your belief in assurance, and I remember agreeing with most of it, except seeing a couple of things that just didn't seem right, in my mind.

I suspect our difference comes simply in that I do not believe there is such a thing as the inner witness of the Spirit. I do believe that the Spirit indwells us, but shy of biblical revelation, there's no way we would know that. I mean, there's no way a Christian can look inside Himself and "find" or "feel" the Spirit. I know He indwells me, but that, again, is something I know objectively rather than subjectively. That is, I know it because the HS indwells all believers and I am a believer, therefore I am indwelt. I cannot say, tough, that the HS indwells all believers and that I am indwelt, therefore I am a believer. The reason is that I don't know whether or not I am indwelt unless I first know that I am a believer. There is no way, on my view, to know whether or not I am indwelt other than the reasoning I've provided.

-----------------------

Paul,

I would probably be concerned when ANY Christian group decides what is "needed" to be saved beyond what was written in the NT.
I would be concerned when ANY group puts itself or a ritual between God's grace through Christ and those that have faith in Christ.
As for the sacraments, I recall only only 2 be implicit in regards to salvation:
Baptism of the HS and "eating" of the Lord's body and blood, both in GOJ.
Although only the Lord's supper was given with directions on HOW to take it.

Again, I would caution you here. I don't know any group who says they get to decide what is needed to be saved. Everyone acknowledges that God decides that. Different groups, however, have different views as to what God has decided! Moreover, no group that I know of what say you need to go "beyond what is written in the NT." Again, the difference of opinion is what the NT has said on the subject.

RE: the sacraments, I wouldn't call the baptism of the Holy Spirit a sacrament. It's just one of many things that God does once we are saved (a list that includes things like being born again, be justified, sanctified, indwelt, forgiven, sealed, etc.). And I one who does not think the Lord's Supper (in any sense) is "implicit in regards to salvation." Obviously some groups disagree.

[PaulSacramento]

Again, I would caution you here. I don't know any group who says they get to decide what is needed to be saved. Everyone acknowledges that God decides that. Different groups, however, have different views as to what God has decided! Moreover, no group that I know of what say you need to go "beyond what is written in the NT." Again, the difference of opinion is what the NT has said on the subject.

RE: the sacraments, I wouldn't call the baptism of the Holy Spirit a sacrament. It's just one of many things that God does once we are saved (a list that includes things like being born again, be justified, sanctified, indwelt, forgiven, sealed, etc.). And I one who does not think the Lord's Supper (in any sense) is "implicit in regards to salvation." Obviously some groups disagree.

Some groups are more "open" with their views, though they still try to disguise them.
The JW's are a fine example.
Some are more "subtle".
An example is the baptism in which one is baptized in the name of Father, Son and HS and yet some groups (like the JW's) ADD themselves into the baptisimal rite.
I say that ANYTHING said or vowed within the baptismal rite BEYOND what is in the NT: Name of Father Son and HS, is ADDING to it and is wrong.
Some only view a full immersion baptism as valid.
Now, I know that they try to play it off as "not works based salvation" but then they go and say you have to do this to please God:
You have to preach door-to-door ( not to be saved of course, oh my no, but to please God and SHOW your faith) or keep a certain dat holy above all others ( not to be saved of course, but because God commanded it), etc, etc.
Sounds like coercion to me, no matter how you disguise it.

Wanna know if a person's faith is for real? DON'T pressure them into doing it ( it being a "work" deemed by said organizations view as pleasing to God) and see how many do it.
Anything else amounts to coercion.

[Jac3510]

Some groups are more "open" with their views, though they still try to disguise them.
The JW's are a fine example.
Some are more "subtle".
An example is the baptism in which one is baptized in the name of Father, Son and HS and yet some groups (like the JW's) ADD themselves into the baptisimal rite.
I say that ANYTHING said or vowed within the baptismal rite BEYOND what is in the NT: Name of Father Son and HS, is ADDING to it and is wrong.
Some only view a full immersion baptism as valid.
Now, I know that they try to play it off as "not works based salvation" but then they go and say you have to do this to please God:
You have to preach door-to-door ( not to be saved of course, oh my no, but to please God and SHOW your faith) or keep a certain dat holy above all others ( not to be saved of course, but because God commanded it), etc, etc.
Sounds like coercion to me, no matter how you disguise it.

So you say. But the JWs, like everyone else, would deny that they are adding anything to what is written. They would just say that you are interpreting it wrong. As I have said repeatedly, it really comes down to your definition of faith, which actually you sort of prove for me when you say . . .

Wanna know if a person's faith is for real? DON'T pressure them into doing it ( it being a "work" deemed by said organizations view as pleasing to God) and see how many do it.
Anything else amounts to coercion.

This presumes a certain view of faith. Perhaps you are right! I'm not challenging it. What I am saying is that it is your view of faith, based (I presume) upon your interpretation of Scripture that leads you to declare the JW's doctrine a works-based salvation. That I agree with you in this case is neither here no there. What is important, [iI think[/i], is the definition of faith.

The only people, it seems to me, that we can accuse of teaching a works-based salvation are those who expressly deny that salvation is through faith alone and expressly require works as a prerequisite of salvation, and I know of no such group that calls themselves Christian. The reason, simply enough, is that Paul says clearly that we are saved by grace through faith and not by works, so any group that calls themselves Christian is going to have to make their soteriology compatible with Paul. Clearly, I think that a lot of groups are teaching a works-based salvation even though they deny it. I'm just saying that it's very important to understand what those groups are saying on their own terms, because I admit that I only think that because of my view of faith.

[RickD]

Sorry, my mistake. I meant to say intellectual belief, and a saving belief. The latter of which you called faith. Two different kinds of beliefs, but only one real "faith".

I still wouldn't make this kind of distinction. Is it the quality of the faith/belief that saves or the object of the faith/belief that saves?

Maybe we're saying the same thing here. Of course it's God who does the saving, by His grace, through faith.

That's a very important question. Take a look at John 12:42 and give me your thoughts relative to this discussion here. Are the people in that passage saved or not? How would you characterize their faith?

I really don't know for sure if they were saved. They didn't confess with their mouth, they loved approval of men more than God's approval. On the other hand, the text says they believed.

I suspect our difference comes simply in that I do not believe there is such a thing as the inner witness of the Spirit.

To be honest, that kinda threw me for a loop. I just assumed that all mature Christians believed in the inner witness of the Holy Spirit. I guess I shouldn't assume.

That is, I know it because the HS indwells all believers and I am a believer, therefore I am indwelt. I cannot say, tough, that the HS indwells all believers and that I am indwelt, therefore I am a believer.

I guess I don't see the difference.

There is no way, on my view, to know whether or not I am indwelt other than the reasoning I've provided.

You've never been convicted by the Holy Spirit? You've never known God is real, and you have assurance, by the witness of the Holy Spirit? You've never prayed, and felt the leading of the Holy Spirit?

[Jac3510]

Maybe we're saying the same thing here. Of course it's God who does the saving, by His grace, through faith.

Probably. But to make the distinction clear, imagine a person who really believes (e.g, John 12:42) but then does not go on to do the things we would expect to characterize the Christian life, such as prayer, loving the Lord, obedience, etc. Reformed Theologians say that that type or kind of faith is not saving faith, because it did not produce works (in accordance with the doctrine of the final perseverance of the saints). I, though, say that it is not the kind of faith that saves, but the object of faith. So long as your faith is in Jesus, then HE saves you--not your faith. See the difference?

I really don't know for sure if they were saved. They didn't confess with their mouth, they loved approval of men more than God's approval. On the other hand, the text says they believed.

Well, as you note, the text does say that they believed, and John 6:47 (among many others) says that EVERYONE who believes has eternal life . . . the implications seem obvious to me.

To be honest, that kinda threw me for a loop. I just assumed that all mature Christians believed in the inner witness of the Holy Spirit. I guess I shouldn't assume.

We all make assumptions. It is a seriously debated issue among scholars. There is no consensus on the matter. The Greek grammar of the verse in question can go both ways, but most naturally (though not definitely) does not necessarily suggest that there is such a thing as an inner witness.

I guess I don't see the difference.

Let me make it clearer in syllogistic format:

Argument A
The HS indwells all believers
I am a believer
Therefore, I know I am indwelt

Argument B
The HS indwells all believers
I am indwelt
Therefore, I am a believer

Both are logically valid, but the arguments are very different. How would you prove the second premise in Argument A? Well, I would suggest that's easy enough. You either know you are a believer or you do not. But how would you prove the second premise of Argument B? That's much more difficult, and I would suggest that you cannot prove it without FIRST proving that you are a believer.

You've never been convicted by the Holy Spirit? You've never known God is real, and you have assurance, by the witness of the Holy Spirit? You've never prayed, and felt the leading of the Holy Spirit?

Of course I have. Yet I would ask you, how can you tell the difference in the conviction of the HS and the conviction of your conscience? Between knowing God is real via the HS' assurance and knowing He is by your own? Between knowing the HS' direction and your own? There is no definitive answer to these questions. I am not saying the HS does not speak to us. I am saying, though, that the reason we can know that it is the HS and not ourselves speaking is because we already know that we are indwelt due to the fact hat we are believers and we know that all believers are indwelt.

Look, there are plenty of people in non-Christian religions who are convinced that God or "the universe" is talking to them. They are "convicted" by God. They "know God is real" by some first hand experience. They have a "witness" of God within themselves. They have prayed and felt the leading of God. Now, who am I to say that what they experienced wasn't God in some sense? But even if it was, I have no doubt that it was not the indwelling of the HS they were experiencing!

My point is rather simple here. There is no way to tell between this so called "inner witness of the Spirit" and everyone else's (including our own) subjective religious experience. What is important is what the text says, not what we have experienced. Our experiences, after all, may deceive us. The Word of God never does. The only assurance I need is objective and comes from the Word itself--everyone who believes has eternal life (John 3:16, etc.; I have believed; ergo, I have eternal life).

[Byblos]

My point is rather simple here. There is no way to tell between this so called "inner witness of the Spirit" and everyone else's (including our own) subjective religious experience. What is important is what the text says, not what we have experienced. Our experiences, after all, may deceive us. The Word of God never does. The only assurance I need is objective and comes from the Word itself--everyone who believes has eternal life (John 3:16, etc.; I have believed; ergo, I have eternal life).

And Rick, not be belabor the point either but this is the not-so-subtle distinction I believe you're still not getting with what Jac is saying. When I ask you if a believer can lose their salvation your standard response is is no, because they have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Jac would say no, because they were once a believer. What you're saying is that it is impossible for a true believer to fall away so far as to prove he was never a true believer (but it does happen). On the other hand, Jac says it is possible for a (true) believer to lose their salvation, period, even if they apostatize. I thought it important to make the distinction one more time.

Jac is absolutely correct, at the heart of this issue is not only faith, but also what "believe" means (as opposed to what "works" are).

[RickD]

Jac3510 wrote:My point is rather simple here. There is no way to tell between this so called "inner witness of the Spirit" and everyone else's (including our own) subjective religious experience. What is important is what the text says, not what we have experienced. Our experiences, after all, may deceive us. The Word of God never does. The only assurance I need is objective and comes from the Word itself--everyone who believes has eternal life (John 3:16, etc.; I have believed; ergo, I have eternal life).

Jac, I can tell about the inner witness, because the inner witness, lines up with scripture. The Holy Spirit inside me, isn't an "experience" as you are putting it. He's not some "Holy Laughter", or "slain in the spirit" experience that one experiences at a Benny Hinn outing. He is the third person of the Trinity. He is the guarantee from God, that what God promised(salvation, by a belief in Christ) is true. He came to dwell inside me, when I believed on Christ, and as scripture promises, He will sanctify me, and never leave me. 2Corinthians 1:22 set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.

And Rick, not be belabor the point either but this is the not-so-subtle distinction I believe you're still not getting with what Jac is saying. When I ask you if a believer can lose their salvation your standard response is is no, because they have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Byblos, that's not quite my standard response. My response is all the scripture that I believe says that a true believer can't lose his salvation. But, I understand that other Christians interpret the same scripture differently. That's when I say that if one has the indwelling Holy Spirit, then one is eternally secure. I guess I could describe it as a "dual knowledge". Scripture on God's absolute assurance lines up with the evidence of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The indwelling Holy Spirit, speaks to my spirit, and testifies that scripture is true.

What you're saying is that it is impossible for a true believer to fall away so far as to prove he was never a true believer (but it does happen).

That's not what I'm saying. I believe it is impossible for a true believer to ever fall away to a point that he becomes unsaved. Period.

On the other hand, Jac says it is possible for a (true) believer to lose their salvation, period, even if they apostatize.

Now you're confusing me. I thought Jac believed that a believer would never lose his salvation.

I thought Jac and I both believed in Absolute Assurance of the true believer.

Jac is absolutely correct, at the heart of this issue is not only faith, but also what "believe" means (as opposed to what "works" are)

Now you're confusing me again. This is what I've been saying, Byblos. Jac is saying that the heart of the issue is not what believe means, but on whom we believe.

[PaulSacramento]

Some groups are more "open" with their views, though they still try to disguise them.
The JW's are a fine example.
Some are more "subtle".
An example is the baptism in which one is baptized in the name of Father, Son and HS and yet some groups (like the JW's) ADD themselves into the baptisimal rite.
I say that ANYTHING said or vowed within the baptismal rite BEYOND what is in the NT: Name of Father Son and HS, is ADDING to it and is wrong.
Some only view a full immersion baptism as valid.
Now, I know that they try to play it off as "not works based salvation" but then they go and say you have to do this to please God:
You have to preach door-to-door ( not to be saved of course, oh my no, but to please God and SHOW your faith) or keep a certain dat holy above all others ( not to be saved of course, but because God commanded it), etc, etc.
Sounds like coercion to me, no matter how you disguise it.

So you say. But the JWs, like everyone else, would deny that they are adding anything to what is written. They would just say that you are interpreting it wrong. As I have said repeatedly, it really comes down to your definition of faith, which actually you sort of prove for me when you say . . .

Wanna know if a person's faith is for real? DON'T pressure them into doing it ( it being a "work" deemed by said organizations view as pleasing to God) and see how many do it.
Anything else amounts to coercion.

This presumes a certain view of faith. Perhaps you are right! I'm not challenging it. What I am saying is that it is your view of faith, based (I presume) upon your interpretation of Scripture that leads you to declare the JW's doctrine a works-based salvation. That I agree with you in this case is neither here no there. What is important, [iI think[/i], is the definition of faith.

The only people, it seems to me, that we can accuse of teaching a works-based salvation are those who expressly deny that salvation is through faith alone and expressly require works as a prerequisite of salvation, and I know of no such group that calls themselves Christian. The reason, simply enough, is that Paul says clearly that we are saved by grace through faith and not by works, so any group that calls themselves Christian is going to have to make their soteriology compatible with Paul. Clearly, I think that a lot of groups are teaching a works-based salvation even though they deny it. I'm just saying that it's very important to understand what those groups are saying on their own terms, because I admit that I only think that because of my view of faith.

I agree 100% with what you say my friend and that is why I make it clear I am expressing my opinion only, nothing more and nothing less.
Of course we ALL base things on how we see them and that is based on our understanding, interpretation, POV and even point of references.
We are the sum of our experiences and being more "wordly" than others does give us a perspective that is quite different than a born in or just someone of a particular religion that has never "seen the other side".
Most followers of a religion that are born in don't know as much as they should. Converts tend to know more obviously but I have noticed that many converts from one religion don't know a smuch about the religion they are leaving than the one they are joining.
JW's are especially good at "playing" with that lack of knowledge, especially with RC's.

[RickD]

RickD wrote:Maybe we're saying the same thing here. Of course it's God who does the saving, by His grace, through faith.


Probably. But to make the distinction clear, imagine a person who really believes (e.g, John 12:42) but then does not go on to do the things we would expect to characterize the Christian life, such as prayer, loving the Lord, obedience, etc. Reformed Theologians say that that type or kind of faith is not saving faith, because it did not produce works (in accordance with the doctrine of the final perseverance of the saints). I, though, say that it is not the kind of faith that saves, but the object of faith. So long as your faith is in Jesus, then HE saves you--not your faith. See the difference?

Jac, of course I see the difference. And, I mostly agree. But, I am wondering why you keep using reformed theology as an example, when I don't hold to RT.

To be honest, that kinda threw me for a loop. I just assumed that all mature Christians believed in the inner witness of the Holy Spirit. I guess I shouldn't assume.


We all make assumptions. It is a seriously debated issue among scholars. There is no consensus on the matter. The Greek grammar of the verse in question can go both ways, but most naturally (though not definitely) does not necessarily suggest that there is such a thing as an inner witness.

I can see this as a huge problem in the making. Some people who don't believe in the inner witness of the Holy Spirit, may not listen when the HS is prompting, because they don't believe it IS the HS, doing the prompting. When some Christians come upon arguments against Christianity, that they don't have an answer to, they become discouraged. Sometimes to the point of questioning their faith. Now, there are plenty of times I hear arguments against Christianity, that I don't know the answers to. But, I have the Holy Spirit, that will always witness to me.

Let me make it clearer in syllogistic format:

Argument A
The HS indwells all believers
I am a believer
Therefore, I know I am indwelt

Argument B
The HS indwells all believers
I am indwelt
Therefore, I am a believer

Both are logically valid, but the arguments are very different. How would you prove the second premise in Argument A? Well, I would suggest that's easy enough. You either know you are a believer or you do not. But how would you prove the second premise of Argument B? That's much more difficult, and I would suggest that you cannot prove it without FIRST proving that you are a believer.

I still don't see a difference, Jac. The indwelling of the HS, and true belief can't be separated.

Of course I have. Yet I would ask you, how can you tell the difference in the conviction of the HS and the conviction of your conscience? Between knowing God is real via the HS' assurance and knowing He is by your own?

Sometimes as far as conviction is concerned, the HS is like a small voice. My conscience is just a "knowing" that something is wrong. I guess for a lack of a better way to describe the difference. As far as what you asked here: "Between knowing God is real via the HS' assurance and knowing He is by your own?" I'm not sure what you mean by "knowing He is by your own". I know God is real by scripture, the inner witness of the HS, nature, etc.

Between knowing the HS' direction and your own?

I can choose to listen, or not, when the HS speaks. Not sure if that is what you mean.

I am not saying the HS does not speak to us. I am saying, though, that the reason we can know that it is the HS and not ourselves speaking is because we already know that we are indwelt due to the fact hat we are believers and we know that all believers are indwelt.

I don't see why you think I would disagree with that.

Look, there are plenty of people in non-Christian religions who are convinced that God or "the universe" is talking to them. They are "convicted" by God. They "know God is real" by some first hand experience. They have a "witness" of God within themselves. They have prayed and felt the leading of God. Now, who am I to say that what they experienced wasn't God in some sense? But even if it was, I have no doubt that it was not the indwelling of the HS they were experiencing!

I agree. I don't believe one has to be a true, born-again, saved Christian, to know God exists.

My point is rather simple here. There is no way to tell between this so called "inner witness of the Spirit" and everyone else's (including our own) subjective religious experience. What is important is what the text says, not what we have experienced.

While I addressed most of this above, I'll repeat it. The indwelling Holy Spirit IS NOT an experience. He is the third person of the trinity, and is God inside me. Would you expect someone who knows your wife casually, to really KNOW your wife like you know her? They may know her somewhat from the limited experiences they've had with her. But you have a personal relationship with her. An unsaved person may know God from seeing Him in nature, etc. But the unsaved person doesn't have a personal relationship with God. As a believer, I do. My God doesn't deceive me. I really don't understand how you can argue against the inner witness of the Holy Spirit, unless you don't have Him inside you. While I can't perfectly describe Him, I KNOW He's there. Just like I KNOW God's assurance, written in scripture, is true. Haven't you ever had anyone ever ask you HOW you know what something is, and you say that you don't know for sure HOW you know, but when you see it, there is no mistaking it?

Our experiences, after all, may deceive us. The Word of God never does. The only assurance I need is objective and comes from the Word itself--everyone who believes has eternal life (John 3:16, etc.; I have believed; ergo, I have eternal life).

Of course our experiences may deceive us. And while I agree the living Word(Jesus), and the written word(scripture) won't deceive us, sometimes our interpretations of scripture, do deceive us.

[Jac3510]

I am wondering why you keep using reformed theology as an example, when I don't hold to RT.

Just because it is a very widely held position that helps illustrate some of the distinctions we've been talking about.

I can see this as a huge problem in the making. Some people who don't believe in the inner witness of the Holy Spirit, may not listen when the HS is prompting, because they don't believe it IS the HS, doing the prompting. When some Christians come upon arguments against Christianity, that they don't have an answer to, they become discouraged. Sometimes to the point of questioning their faith. Now, there are plenty of times I hear arguments against Christianity, that I don't know the answers to. But, I have the Holy Spirit, that will always witness to me.

Belief in the inner witness of the HS has nothing to do with whether or not a person will listen to the prompting of the HS. In any case, even if some make that faulty conclusion, we don't believe something is true because we like (or dislike) the consequences that come from that belief (or disbelief).

I still don't see a difference, Jac. The indwelling of the HS, and true belief can't be separated.

I don't know what "true belief" is, but I'm not saying they can be separated. I'm saying that the way you know you are indwelt is because you have believed. I am saying you do NOT know that you believed because you are indwelt. Therefore, you have assurance because you have believed. You do NOT have assurance because the indwelling Spirit tells you so.

Sometimes as far as conviction is concerned, the HS is like a small voice. My conscience is just a "knowing" that something is wrong. I guess for a lack of a better way to describe the difference. As far as what you asked here: "Between knowing God is real via the HS' assurance and knowing He is by your own?" I'm not sure what you mean by "knowing He is by your own". I know God is real by scripture, the inner witness of the HS, nature, etc.

Between knowing the HS' direction and your own?

I can choose to listen, or not, when the HS speaks. Not sure if that is what you mean.

I am not saying the HS does not speak to us. I am saying, though, that the reason we can know that it is the HS and not ourselves speaking is because we already know that we are indwelt due to the fact hat we are believers and we know that all believers are indwelt.

I don't see why you think I would disagree with that.

Look, there are plenty of people in non-Christian religions who are convinced that God or "the universe" is talking to them. They are "convicted" by God. They "know God is real" by some first hand experience. They have a "witness" of God within themselves. They have prayed and felt the leading of God. Now, who am I to say that what they experienced wasn't God in some sense? But even if it was, I have no doubt that it was not the indwelling of the HS they were experiencing!

I agree. I don't believe one has to be a true, born-again, saved Christian, to know God exists.

But the only way you know any of this is from the HS is because the Bible tells you. That means that your assurance does not come from an inner witness of the Spirit. Your assurance comes from the objective word of God.

While I addressed most of this above, I'll repeat it. The indwelling Holy Spirit IS NOT an experience. He is the third person of the trinity, and is God inside me. Would you expect someone who knows your wife casually, to really KNOW your wife like you know her? They may know her somewhat from the limited experiences they've had with her. But you have a personal relationship with her. An unsaved person may know God from seeing Him in nature, etc. But the unsaved person doesn't have a personal relationship with God. As a believer, I do. My God doesn't deceive me. I really don't understand how you can argue against the inner witness of the Holy Spirit, unless you don't have Him inside you. While I can't perfectly describe Him, I KNOW He's there. Just like I KNOW God's assurance, written in scripture, is true. Haven't you ever had anyone ever ask you HOW you know what something is, and you say that you don't know for sure HOW you know, but when you see it, there is no mistaking it?

I've never said the indwelling HS was an experience. I said the inner witness OF the HS (which supposedly comes from the fact that He indwells us) is an experience. Now, more importantly, look at the part of your words I highlighted. This is what your argument boils down to: "I just know it!" What's to keep a Buddhist or Hindu or Mormon from saying they just know their God (or whatever their conception is) in an experiential, personal way? I know people who are deeply involved in eastern mysticism. They just KNOW (in a deep, experiential sense) they are one with the universe. They can't describe it, but they have an "inner witness" that comes from having a deep relationship with the Universe (which they personify). You may not want to agree, but your argument is no better or worse than theirs.

That goes to your question. I can't think of anything I've just "known" to be true. I don't even know that is possible in principle. But suppose it is. You may be convinced that something is true, and even correct about it, but if you can't explain it--if you have no reason for it--then you have no rational warrant for that belief. That makes it at best an arational belief, and at worst, an irrational belief. It sets a very dangerous precedent to encourage people to accept a/irrational beliefs as true.

Let's say, for instance, you are talking to someone who clearly does not believe the Gospel. They believe that the reason they are going to heaven is because they have been a good person. Suppose you give them a perfectly reasonable argument from Scripture as to why they're holding a false Gospel. And then suppose they say, "Yes, that's fine and good, but you must be wrong, because you see, I have an inner witness that tells me I am saved." How can you argue with that? Granted, Truth can't contradict itself, so if Scripture says one thing and they another, they should submit to Scripture. But why should they accept your argument that Scripture says this rather than that when they have a personal witness that assures them of their salvation?

On a related note, I have talked to charismatics who hold to deep and dangerous heresies. I show them where the Bible contradicts their beliefs, and it doesn't change anything, because they reinterpret the Bible in light of their experiences--in light of their "inner witness."

Now, all those problems can be dealt with one by one. But here's the bigger point: there is no biblical reason to believe in a so called inner witness of the Holy Spirit. The only verse that can suggest as much is better translated another way entirely. So why believe it?

Of course our experiences may deceive us. And while I agree the living Word(Jesus), and the written word(scripture) won't deceive us, sometimes our interpretations of scripture, do deceive us.

True. That's why we need a good dose of humility to let reason do its proper work. If we are shown wrong we need to be willing to admit it, something I know you agree with.