"Works"

[Byblos]

Byblos wrote:

My question to you is, what of the true believer that apostatizes? Are you saying that's impossible to happen or are you saying he will prove he never was a true believer?

I'm saying either 1) he was never a true believer
or 2) he is a true believer who has fallen away, but is still saved

Which one of the two, is between God and him. And he will find out when he dies. I can't have assurance of anyone else's salvation but my own. That's between them and God.

Some people may have all the outward signs of being a believer, but are not. Some people may have all the signs of what some people would consider an apostate, but are a true believer who has just fallen away.

If you allow for 1) to be a possibility then you do not believe in absolute assurance. You can say the indwelling of the HS gives you this assurance all you want but the fact is that person who did not turn out to be a true believer actually and honestly believed he was a true believer at some point, complete with believing he had the indwelling of the HS testifying to him. But it turned out to be false for him. There is no argument you can offer that will prove this may not turn out to be the case for you as well. This is what Jac is saying (and I agree).

[RickD]

Byblos wrote:

My question to you is, what of the true believer that apostatizes? Are you saying that's impossible to happen or are you saying he will prove he never was a true believer?

I'm saying either 1) he was never a true believer
or 2) he is a true believer who has fallen away, but is still saved

Which one of the two, is between God and him. And he will find out when he dies. I can't have assurance of anyone else's salvation but my own. That's between them and God.

Some people may have all the outward signs of being a believer, but are not. Some people may have all the signs of what some people would consider an apostate, but are a true believer who has just fallen away.

If you allow for 1) to be a possibility then you do not believe in absolute assurance. You can say the indwelling of the HS gives you this assurance all you want but the fact is that person who did not turn out to be a true believer actually and honestly believed he was a true believer at some point, complete with believing he had the indwelling of the HS testifying to him. But it turned out to be false for him. There is no argument you can offer that will prove this may not turn out to be the case for you as well. This is what Jac is saying (and I agree).

Byblos, we've been over this before on another thread or two, and I know we don't agree. I allow for 1, because I wouldn't be honest if I didn't leave open the possibility that some people may show all the outward signs of a true believer, but may not be saved. They may know all the right things to say, how to act, but may not have trusted in Christ for their salvation. I allow for those 2 options, because I can't know if someone else is saved, for sure. That's ultimately between each person, and God.

I'm not equating the feeling of assurance that we may or may not have, with actual assurance that God has given us, as true believers. I'm saying that the Holy Spirit confirms God's promises of assurance, for those who trust in Christ's work, for salvation. Whether or not the Holy Spirit gives me a feeling of assurance, is neither here nor there. One doesn't have to have a feeling of assurance, to actually have God's assurance. Just because someone sincerely believes something, that doesn't make it true. If someone truly believed he was saved, and thought he had the indwelling Holy Spirit, but never trusted on Christ for salvation, then his belief is in vain.

To be honest, I'd like to believe that all people who appear to be apostates, are in fact true believers, that are saved, but have just fallen away. I just don't know that is absolutely true in every case, so that's why I leave possibility #1 open. I just don't know what is between another person, and God.
It seems like allowing for only #2, is a very rigid belief, that leave no possibility for being wrong. I am open to the possibility that I'm wrong, and just don't know. Holding to #2 only, says that every person who seems like a believer, must be a true believer. That leaves no possibility for being wrong.

On one hand, you're telling me that if I don't agree with what you and Jac are saying, I can't have absolute assurance. On the other hand, you say that I can't say you don't hold to "saved by grace, through faith alone", because I don't agree with your definition of faith. You can hold to saved by grace through faith alone, even though I disagree with you. And, I can hold to absolute assurance, even though you or Jac disagree with me.
At least that's how I see it.

[Byblos]

Byblos wrote:

My question to you is, what of the true believer that apostatizes? Are you saying that's impossible to happen or are you saying he will prove he never was a true believer?

I'm saying either 1) he was never a true believer
or 2) he is a true believer who has fallen away, but is still saved

Which one of the two, is between God and him. And he will find out when he dies. I can't have assurance of anyone else's salvation but my own. That's between them and God.

Some people may have all the outward signs of being a believer, but are not. Some people may have all the signs of what some people would consider an apostate, but are a true believer who has just fallen away.

If you allow for 1) to be a possibility then you do not believe in absolute assurance. You can say the indwelling of the HS gives you this assurance all you want but the fact is that person who did not turn out to be a true believer actually and honestly believed he was a true believer at some point, complete with believing he had the indwelling of the HS testifying to him. But it turned out to be false for him. There is no argument you can offer that will prove this may not turn out to be the case for you as well. This is what Jac is saying (and I agree).

Byblos, we've been over this before on another thread or two, and I know we don't agree. I allow for 1, because I wouldn't be honest if I didn't leave open the possibility that some people may show all the outward signs of a true believer, but may not be saved. They may know all the right things to say, how to act, but may not have trusted in Christ for their salvation. I allow for those 2 options, because I can't know if someone else is saved, for sure. That's ultimately between each person, and God.

I'm not equating the feeling of assurance that we may or may not have, with actual assurance that God has given us, as true believers. I'm saying that the Holy Spirit confirms God's promises of assurance, for those who trust in Christ's work, for salvation. Whether or not the Holy Spirit gives me a feeling of assurance, is neither here nor there. One doesn't have to have a feeling of assurance, to actually have God's assurance. Just because someone sincerely believes something, that doesn't make it true. If someone truly believed he was saved, and thought he had the indwelling Holy Spirit, but never trusted on Christ for salvation, then his belief is in vain.

To be honest, I'd like to believe that all people who appear to be apostates, are in fact true believers, that are saved, but have just fallen away. I just don't know that is absolutely true in every case, so that's why I leave possibility #1 open. I just don't know what is between another person, and God.
It seems like allowing for only #2, is a very rigid belief, that leave no possibility for being wrong. I am open to the possibility that I'm wrong, and just don't know. Holding to #2 only, says that every person who seems like a believer, must be a true believer. That leaves no possibility for being wrong.

On one hand, you're telling me that if I don't agree with what you and Jac are saying, I can't have absolute assurance. On the other hand, you say that I can't say you don't hold to "saved by grace, through faith alone", because I don't agree with your definition of faith. You can hold to saved by grace through faith alone, even though I disagree with you. And, I can hold to absolute assurance, even though you or Jac disagree with me.
At least that's how I see it.

Oh I agree with you totally Rick. All I'm saying is that this does not align with absolute-unconditional-no-matter-what kind of assurance.

[RickD]

Oh I agree with you totally Rick. All I'm saying is that this does not align with absolute-unconditional-no-matter-what kind of assurance.

I don't believe in absolute-unconditional-no-matter-what kind of assurance, so there is no issue. I believe in absolute assurance for the true child of God, only. Who that is exactly, I can't presume to know. It's probably 1 step away from what Jac believes. But, it's a step that isn't quite as rigid, as what I think Jac believes.

******Byblos, I edited my post and added some, while you were quoting me.****************

[Byblos]

Oh I agree with you totally Rick. All I'm saying is that this does not align with absolute-unconditional-no-matter-what kind of assurance.

I don't believe in absolute-unconditional-no-matter-what kind of assurance, so there is no issue. I believe in absolute assurance for the true child of God, only. Who that is exactly, I can't presume to know. It's probably 1 step away from what Jac believes. But, it's a step that isn't quite as rigid, as what I think Jac believes.

Then we're good .

******Byblos, I edited my post and added some, while you were quoting me.****************

No problem, fixed it.

[jlay]

If you allow for 1) to be a possibility then you do not believe in absolute assurance. You can say the indwelling of the HS gives you this assurance all you want but the fact is that person who did not turn out to be a true believer actually and honestly believed he was a true believer at some point, complete with believing he had the indwelling of the HS testifying to him. But it turned out to be false for him. There is no argument you can offer that will prove this may not turn out to be the case for you as well. This is what Jac is saying (and I agree).

As Rick pointed out, this is an issue of how the terms are being used.

There are two kinds of assurance. There is positional assurance. Either the Bible proclaims assurance for believers or it doesn't. It does, although many of us here would disagree as to how that all fleshes out.
The other kind of assurance is personal assurance. Obviously a person who once believed, and now rejects, can not EXPERIENCE assurance of salvation even if he has it. And a person who has positional assurance may still experience doubt as to whether they are saved.
When we talk about the "inner witness" we are talking about what we are personally experiencing, or not experiencing. But, we know that believers can grieve the HS, and can distance themselves from God through sin and doubt. And thus question their own assurance. For example, they commit some agregious sin, and think, "how could I do that? How could I be saved and do such a thing?" But if God assures salvation, then how does one's personal feelings affect a soveriegn God and His decree?
We can use terms like intellectual faith, etc. But, genuine, saving faith is either genuine or it isn't. And if one has had genuine saving faith, then the Bible assures that He will be saved to the end. Now, that really doesn' answer the question, because RCCs would say that genuine faith includes these other things. Calvinists would also say that genuine faith will result in a then b,,,,,,,,,
Some Free Grace positions would say even a consent of the facts is all that is required.

So, as Jac has already mentioned, it comes back to an issue of defining faith.

[Jac3510]

I believe in absolute assurance for the true child of God, only.

And this is why what you are saying is so dangerous. You only have absolute assurance if are you are a true child of God. But how do you know that you are a true child of God. You can't appeal to your assurance on that point, because there are people who are not true children who have deceived themselves into thinking that they have true assurance.

It may turn out that you are not a true child of God. Then, this supposed absolute assurance you have now would prove to be just a self-deception--one of those people who were never really saved to begin with, though you are convinced that you are now. So, in fact, there is no way at all to know that you are a true believer. You can hope you are. You can believe you are. But the moment you make this concession, you deny yourself absolute assurance.

In fact, what you have is moral assurance, which is a Catholic doctrine. That doesn't make it wrong, of course (being Catholic, I mean). But we've finally come back around to the first thing I said in this thread. For all of your arguments, you--and almost all Protestants--are exaggerating the difference in your view of salvation and the Catholic view of salvation. In the end, when all is said and done, you hold to an identical view (particulary with respect to assurance). That will inevitably inform your view of faith, which will inevitably inform your view of works. If you and Byblos were to talk long enough, you'd come to a consensus, most likely. You'd be surprised to discover that Catholics really believe just what you believe.

There's only two positions, Rick. Mine and Byblos'--absolute, unconditional, objective assurance (free grace); or moral, conditional, subjective assurance (Catholicism). To emphasize, I'm not saying Catholic assurance is no assurance at all. Of course it is assurance! It's just moral assurance. It's conditional assurance. It's subjective assurance. It's not a slam on anyone to call it what it is. We need to properly understand positions before we critique them, and as a non-Catholic, I just find it absurd when Protestants accuse the church of works based salvation and say that Catholics can't really know they are saved when Protestants themselves hold an identical theology on the matter.

[PaulSacramento]

I think that ALL Christians agree that it is God through Christ that decides who is saved and why.
Yes?
If so, anything beyond that is pure speculation and human dogma.
Let us leave to God what is God's.

[RickD]

RickD wrote:I believe in absolute assurance for the true child of God, only.


And this is why what you are saying is so dangerous. You only have absolute assurance if are you are a true child of God. But how do you know that you are a true child of God.

Jac, this part is exactly the same as you believe. I know I'm a true child of God, because I trust in Christ.

You can't appeal to your assurance on that point, because there are people who are not true children who have deceived themselves into thinking that they have true assurance.

I'm not appealing to my feeling of assurance, that I have God's assurance. Again, God has given me assurance of my salvation, because I believe in Christ. God in the person of the Holy Spirit, in me, will not contradict Himself.

It may turn out that you are not a true child of God. Then, this supposed absolute assurance you have now would prove to be just a self-deception--one of those people who were never really saved to begin with, though you are convinced that you are now. So, in fact, there is no way at all to know that you are a true believer. You can hope you are. You can believe you are. But the moment you make this concession, you deny yourself absolute assurance.

If I'm not a true child of God, then you aren't either. Because we both trust is Christ. That is the only qualifier for being a true child of God; faith in Christ.

In fact, what you have is moral assurance, which is a Catholic doctrine. That doesn't make it wrong, of course (being Catholic, I mean). But we've finally come back around to the first thing I said in this thread. For all of your arguments, you--and almost all Protestants--are exaggerating the difference in your view of salvation and the Catholic view of salvation. In the end, when all is said and done, you hold to an identical view (particulary with respect to assurance). That will inevitably inform your view of faith, which will inevitably inform your view of works. If you and Byblos were to talk long enough, you'd come to a consensus, most likely. You'd be surprised to discover that Catholics really believe just what you believe

Jac, Byblos and I have had long discussions about this very thing. And I assure you that we disagree about assurance.

There's only two positions, Rick. Mine and Byblos'--absolute, unconditional, objective assurance (free grace); or moral, conditional, subjective assurance (Catholicism).

No, Jac. You and I both agree that the only qualifier to being a true child of God, is faith in Christ. We only disagree by one degree. And, I don't really know if it's really a disagreement, per say. I just don't concretely say that anyone who claims to have faith in Christ, actually does. I just don't know for sure. Just because you claim there are 2 positions, doesn't make it so. I get the same argument from Calvinists. If I don't believe in 5pt Calvinism, then I have to be Arminian. It's just not one or the other, because you say it is.

Jac, I pretty much agree with this, from Wikipedia, on free grace, with possibly the exception of the words in blue:

Free Grace soteriology

Free Grace Theology is distinguished by its soteriology or doctrine of salvation. Its advocates believe that God justifies the sinner on the sole condition of faith in Christ, not subsequent righteous living. Their definition of faith involves belief, trust, a conviction[11] of the truth of the New Testament that may include a deep-rooted mystical conversion resulting in an acceptance of Jesus and the Holy Spirit as one's soulmates.

Faith is a passive persuasion that Jesus is the Messiah, and activization is not mandatory in terms of salvation. In other words, Jesus graciously provides eternal salvation as a free gift to those who believe in Him. [12]

Free Grace teaches that one need not proffer a promise of disciplined behavior and/or good works in exchange for God's eternal salvation, thus one cannot lose their salvation through sinning and potential failure, and that assurance is based on the Bible, not introspection into one's works. This view strongly distinguishes the gift of eternal life (the declaration of justification by faith) from discipleship (sanctification). There is also an emphasis within Free Grace on the judgment seat of Christ, where Christians are rewarded based on good works done in faith.[13

My assurance of salvation is based on the efficacious work of Christ, which is told to us, by scripture. If that is the same thing as "based on the bible", then I agree with the paragraph.

Also, from the same article:

Free Grace theology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Free Grace theology is a soteriological view within Protestantism teaching that everyone receives eternal life the moment they believe in Jesus Christ as their personal Savior and Lord. "Lord" refers to the belief that Jesus is the Son of God and therefore able to be their "Savior".[1] The view distinguishes between the "call to believe" in Christ as a Savior and receiving the gift of eternal life, and the "call to follow" Christ and become obedient disciples,[1] meaning that the justified believer is free from any subsequent obligations unless he or she decides to undergo the process of sanctification .[2]

I agree with this, as well. If someone has faith in Christ, then he becomes a true child of God. Period. He cannot lose his salvation, from future unbelief. He cannot fall away, to the point of loss of salvation.

[RickD]

If you allow for 1) to be a possibility then you do not believe in absolute assurance. You can say the indwelling of the HS gives you this assurance all you want but the fact is that person who did not turn out to be a true believer actually and honestly believed he was a true believer at some point, complete with believing he had the indwelling of the HS testifying to him. But it turned out to be false for him. There is no argument you can offer that will prove this may not turn out to be the case for you as well. This is what Jac is saying (and I agree).

As Rick pointed out, this is an issue of how the terms are being used.

There are two kinds of assurance. There is positional assurance. Either the Bible proclaims assurance for believers or it doesn't. It does, although many of us here would disagree as to how that all fleshes out.
The other kind of assurance is personal assurance. Obviously a person who once believed, and now rejects, can not EXPERIENCE assurance of salvation even if he has it. And a person who has positional assurance may still experience doubt as to whether they are saved.
When we talk about the "inner witness" we are talking about what we are personally experiencing, or not experiencing. But, we know that believers can grieve the HS, and can distance themselves from God through sin and doubt. And thus question their own assurance. For example, they commit some agregious sin, and think, "how could I do that? How could I be saved and do such a thing?" But if God assures salvation, then how does one's personal feelings affect a soveriegn God and His decree?FEELINGS HAVE NO AFFECT ON WHAT GOD HAS DECREED!!!!
We can use terms like intellectual faith, etc. But, genuine, saving faith is either genuine or it isn't. And if one has had genuine saving faith, then the Bible assures that He will be saved to the end. Amen, jlay. You understand what I'm saying. Thank You!!!!!Now, that really doesn' answer the question, because RCCs would say that genuine faith includes these other things. Calvinists would also say that genuine faith will result in a then b,,,,,,,,,
Some Free Grace positions would say even a consent of the facts is all that is required.

So, as Jac has already mentioned, it comes back to an issue of defining faith.

[Byblos]

But, genuine, saving faith is either genuine or it isn't. And if one has had genuine saving faith, then the Bible assures that He will be saved to the end.

The person who thought he had genuine faith (to later discover he didn't) also thought he had assurance (to later discover he didn't). This person is either still saved (under Free Grace theology and absolute assurance) or he proved he was never a true believer (under everything-else theology and moral assurance). There are genuinely only two positions here, I don't see a third.

[RickD]

But, genuine, saving faith is either genuine or it isn't. And if one has had genuine saving faith, then the Bible assures that He will be saved to the end.

The person who thought he had genuine faith (to later discover he didn't) also thought he had assurance (to later discover he didn't). This person is either still saved (under Free Grace theology and absolute assurance) or he proved he was never a true believer (under everything-else theology and moral assurance). There are genuinely only two positions here, I don't see a third.

Actually, jlay wrote that. I just put it in blue, to say I agreed.

A third position is mine. With the 2 possibilities.

[Canuckster1127]

A great deal of this has to do with how one views the character and nature of God.

If God is a distant, calculating deity who sits from afar and takes on the role of a judge in a courtroom looking for technicalities and issues based upon which He then chooses to cast people away from Him then that is one things. If God is loving and sincerely desires us, as Jesus illustrates in the parable of the prodigal son, then the assurance is based upon His love for us and the confidence that that Love will see us through to the end.

It wasn't my effort that made me acceptable to God in the first place. Neither is it my effort that sustains me with Him. The formula in place for all of this is already a completed and finished deal in God's eyes. All I have to be is willing to delve into the depths of the relationship that this affords me and learn as a child to love and obey my heavenly Father based on that established relationship and nothing else.

[Byblos]

But, genuine, saving faith is either genuine or it isn't. And if one has had genuine saving faith, then the Bible assures that He will be saved to the end.

The person who thought he had genuine faith (to later discover he didn't) also thought he had assurance (to later discover he didn't). This person is either still saved (under Free Grace theology and absolute assurance) or he proved he was never a true believer (under everything-else theology and moral assurance). There are genuinely only two positions here, I don't see a third.

Actually, jlay wrote that. I just put it in blue, to say I agreed.

A third position is mine. With the 2 possibilities.

Sorry Rick, I don't see the third option since, when you allow for the possibility that a person may be deluded into thinking they have genuine faith, then by default you've already crossed under the moral assurance threshold.

[Byblos]

A great deal of this has to do with how one views the character and nature of God.

If God is a distant, calculating deity who sits from afar and takes on the role of a judge in a courtroom looking for technicalities and issues based upon which He then chooses to cast people away from Him then that is one things. If God is loving and sincerely desires us, as Jesus illustrates in the parable of the prodigal son, then the assurance is based upon His love for us and the confidence that that Love will see us through to the end.

It wasn't my effort that made me acceptable to God in the first place. Neither is it my effort that sustains me with Him. The formula in place for all of this is already a completed and finished deal in God's eyes. All I have to be is willing to delve into the depths of the relationship that this affords me and learn as a child to love and obey my heavenly Father based on that established relationship and nothing else.

I totally agree with you Bart, we're arguing semantics here. But semantics are fun (sometimes).