Question about salvation, repentance, obedience and works

[RickD]

Jac wrote:
The word "justify" in James doesn't mean "to make righteous." You are reading Paul into James, and even Paul used it in something of a technical sense.

Jac, all I did was go to Strongs to see what justified(Dikaioo) means.

James uses it in the sense of "vindication." We even have a similar usage in English: to justify a claim is to show why it is valid. So Abraham's works justified his trust in God; they validated it, and in turn, showed it to be valid. The same held with Rahab. On the other hand, an unjustified, un-validated faith doesn't do anything for anybody.

So, Abraham isn't justified(made righteous) by his works. Abraham's trust in God was validated by his works.
The only thing I see now, is James 2:24:
24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Isn't this verse saying Abraham is justified by works...not his trust is validated? The verse says, "...that a man is justified.." It doesn't say, "...a man's trust is justified".

Do you see what I'm saying?

[Jac3510]

Notice earlier that a man's faith is "perfected" by or "completed" by works (v. 22). The idea is that faith became useful to the man itself. Abraham's works (which were works of faith) perfected or completed the faith, so that Abraham himself was now DOING and not simply HEARING (cf 1:22). So the man himself is justified--not in the Pauline sense of a legal, forensic sense of being declared righteous, but in the practical sense of being vindicated for his trust in Yahweh, and as a result, being an upright person (like Noah).

In other words, yes, the faith is vindicated, but you can't say that a person's faith is vindicated without saying that person themselves is vindicated. Suppose I insist that my wife is going to do this or that for me, and you doubt my claim. But suppose I continue to insist on it, and sure enough, she comes through. Would you object if someone says, "Well, he was vindicated!" My faith is part of me--I am justified, I am vindicated, I am proven to be right, when I put works of faith, when I am willing to act on my faith. And it isn't ME who vindicates myself in so acting; I only prove that I really have faith (cf. 2:18b); but God is the one who vindicates me when things work out because I so acted.

So the practical results: if someone is hungry, feed them. If they are cold, clothe them. Don't show partiality. Don't speak ill of others, don't fight and be envious; instead, trust God to take care of you. And guess what? He will! When you act in the faith you say you have, you'll be amazed at how clearly God acts on your behalf. He loves to vindicate His children, because doing so brings glory to Himself.

[RickD]

Thanks Jac.

BTW, have you written anything on your thoughts about "taking the Lord's name in vain" that we talked about before?

[Jac3510]

I have not. I did share it with a few professor friends of mine, and they were rather surprised by that as well. I still laugh when I read the passage now and I think to myself, "Wow . . . how many years have I missed that?"

Actually, there is publication for the seminary I work for intended for non-technical biblical issues. I bet that would make a good submission.

[Gman]

G, I didn't read that in what Jac was saying. I believe Jac was saying that if a believer abides in Christ, he will produce fruit, repent(in the sense of turning from sin), and will naturally be obedient to Christ's law. G, I believe the difference between what you are saying, and what Jac is saying, is abiding. G, You are saying ALL believers will show fruit without any qualifiers. Jac is saying all believers who abide in Christ(trust in Christ for justification through glorification), will show fruit.

I don't understand what you are saying without any qualifiers. What I'm saying is that if someone accepts Christ as Lord and savior they will naturally want to repent in accordance to the Bible and abstain from sin Acts 3:19. In other words, they won't abstain from sin in order to be saved, they will try to abstain from sin because they ARE saved. Will they totally abstain from sin? No, I don't believe so, but they will have a willingness to want to change and follow G-d's commandments as best they can.

G, What is it that you see in "Free Grace" that makes it "cancerous".

According to the demonic "free grace" theology, whenever you see a commandment given by G-d either in the OT or NT it is considered legalism if you try to follow it. So when G-d says to love they neighbor as thyself as in Mark 12:31 or any other type of commandment, "free grace" says that it is automatically legalism.. In other words this theology is trying to trick people away from abstaining from sin thinking that it cannot be followed and that only mere words can save you.

[Kurieuo]

G, What is it that you see in "Free Grace" that makes it "cancerous".

According to the demonic "free grace" theology, whenever you see a commandment given by G-d either in the OT or NT it is considered legalism if you try to follow it. So when G-d says to love they neighbor as thyself as in Mark 12:31 or any other type of commandment, "free grace" says that it is automatically legalism.. In other words this theology is trying to trick people away from abstaining from sin thinking that it cannot be followed and that only mere words can save you.

It is perhaps that free grace says someone who wilfully opposes God/Christ after assenting to receiving/trusting in the gift is saved. One can't even throw it away if they decide to hate God.

There is literally nothing one can do to loose their "salvation" since it is absolutely free in the "freeist" sense. God can even be made a mockery of by some smarty pants who decides to trust in Christ without any intention of following Him; someone can come to Christ with the mindset that they want to accept Christ's gift to be saved AND have a license to sin or wilfully oppose God thereafter.

One's heart doesn't have to be in the process really at all, at least not with a free grace theology built upon intellectual assent -- I'm not so sure about Jac's "trusting in".

[Gman]

It is perhaps that free grace says someone who wilfully opposes God/Christ after assenting to receiving/trusting in the gift is saved. One can't even throw it away if they decide to hate God.

]There is literally nothing one can do to loose their "salvation" since it is absolutely free in the "freeist" sense. God can even be made a mockery of by some smarty pants who decides to trust in Christ without any intention of following Him; someone can come to Christ with the mindset that they want to accept Christ's gift to be saved AND have a license to sin or wilfully oppose God thereafter.

One's heart doesn't have to be in the process really at all, at least not with a free grace theology built upon intellectual assent -- I'm not so sure about Jac's "trusting in".

Sure.. Or murder or steal from your neighbor who is also made in the image of G-d... Hate G-d or give Him the finger whenever He asks you to follow His commandments as recorded in Bible. According to the "free grace" satanic belief system, there is nothing that you can do that will separate you from His saving grace.. Therefore who cares... Do whatever you want because G-d's saves me regardless.

Sign me up... Who wouldn't?

[Kurieuo]

Just wondering... is what I wrote a fair summary Jac, or am I missing some catch?

[jlay]

Sure.. Or murder or steal from your neighbor who is also made in the image of G-d... Hate G-d or give Him the finger whenever He asks you to follow His commandments as recorded in Bible. According to the "free grace" satanic belief system, there is nothing that you can do that will separate you from His saving grace.. Therefore who cares... Do whatever you want because G-d's saves me regardless.

Sign me up... Who wouldn't?

Nothing, whoops, I mean something can separate us.
You know it's interesting that Paul seems to address these same objections to his position.
Let's see, the free grace of God is satanic. Yes, you can be separated. Grace doesn't cover every sin.
I'm sure we all believe G that you just 'naturally' started keeping the Sabbath and going to Synagogue.

What G puts forth is just one of the many back door lordship salvation arguments. Some I used to promote myself. Of course, as you can see it turns you into a pharisaical fruit inspector. Of course G thinks he is doing these things. He thinks his Messianic congregation and acting like a Hebrew means he loves god, while we don't. Brilliant.

[RickD]

RickD wrote:G, I didn't read that in what Jac was saying. I believe Jac was saying that if a believer abides in Christ, he will produce fruit, repent(in the sense of turning from sin), and will naturally be obedient to Christ's law. G, I believe the difference between what you are saying, and what Jac is saying, is abiding. G, You are saying ALL believers will show fruit without any qualifiers. Jac is saying all believers who abide in Christ(trust in Christ for justification through glorification), will show fruit.

Gman wrote:
I don't understand what you are saying without any qualifiers. What I'm saying is that if someone accepts Christ as Lord and savior they will naturally want to repent in accordance to the Bible and abstain from sin Acts 3:19. In other words, they won't abstain from sin in order to be saved, they will try to abstain from sin because they ARE saved. Will they totally abstain from sin? No, I don't believe so, but they will have a willingness to want to change and follow G-d's commandments as best they can.

G, from what I understand about what you and Jac are saying, the qualifier is on Jac's end. You are saying exactly what you said here:"if someone accepts Christ as Lord and savior they will naturally want to repent in accordance to the Bible and abstain from sin Acts 3:19."

I believe Jac is saying that if someone places his trust in Christ, he is saved. And if that person continues to abide in Christ(qualifier, because Jac is saying not all who are saved, continue to abide) that person will produce good fruit.

G, as I understand it, you are saying everyone(without exception) who trusts in Christ will produce fruit. Jac is saying that only those saved who continue to abide in Christ, will produce fruit.

RickD wrote:G, What is it that you see in "Free Grace" that makes it "cancerous".

Gman wrote:
According to the demonic "free grace" theology, whenever you see a commandment given by G-d either in the OT or NT it is considered legalism if you try to follow it. So when G-d says to love they neighbor as thyself as in Mark 12:31 or any other type of commandment, "free grace" says that it is automatically legalism.. In other words this theology is trying to trick people away from abstaining from sin thinking that it cannot be followed and that only mere words can save you.

G, do you have a Free Grace link that shows what you're saying here? I don't see this from anything that Jac has said. Jac hasn't said that "only mere words can save you". He has said that trusting in Christ ALONE is what saves. What I also see Jac saying, is that it is on the believer to continue to abide in Christ. When a believer abides in Christ, the Holy Spirit WILL sanctify him. I don't see Jac saying Free Grace is a license to sin.

Gman wrote:
Sure.. Or murder or steal from your neighbor who is also made in the image of G-d... Hate G-d or give Him the finger whenever He asks you to follow His commandments as recorded in Bible. According to the "free grace" satanic belief system, there is nothing that you can do that will separate you from His saving grace.. Therefore who cares... Do whatever you want because G-d's saves me regardless.

G, while I see that from what I've read from Free Grace adherents, it's true that they believe there is nothing that can separate a believer from God's saving Grace. BUT, from what I've read, I haven't seen them say "Therefore who cares... Do whatever you want because G-d's saves me regardless". Do you have a link, or a quote that attributes a "Free Gracer" as saying that? The reason I ask, is that many who don't believe in assurance of salvation, have attributed that belief to me, because I do believe in assurance. And, I certainly don't believe that assurance of salvation is a license to sin. On the other hand, God's Grace allows me the freedom in Christ that doesn't keep me burdened by constantly trying to gain God's approval by my actions. God's assurance tells me I'm already accepted by God, so I can live by God's grace in the spirit as one who is approved. Not as one constantly living with the burden of trying to gain God's approval.

I am accepted by God through trusting Christ. I'm not constantly worrying if I have done enough to keep God's approval of me.

[Jac3510]

It is perhaps that free grace says someone who wilfully opposes God/Christ after assenting to receiving/trusting in the gift is saved. One can't even throw it away if they decide to hate God.

Correct. If we could, then not hating God would effectively become a condition for salvation, and it would no longer be true that EVERYONE who believes has everlasting life, since some who believe would, in fact, not have everlasting life.

There is literally nothing one can do to loose their "salvation" since it is absolutely free in the "freeist" sense. God can even be made a mockery of by some smarty pants who decides to trust in Christ without any intention of following Him; someone can come to Christ with the mindset that they want to accept Christ's gift to be saved AND have a license to sin or wilfully oppose God thereafter.

That doesn't make a mockery of God. He can, and will, discipline--and discipline harshly--those who live in blatant sin.

One's heart doesn't have to be in the process really at all, at least not with a free grace theology built upon intellectual assent -- I'm not so sure about Jac's "trusting in".

What aren't you sure about "trusting in"? We all trust something. All I'm saying is that you trust Christ alone. Quit trying to do it yourself and let Him do it for you. Elly is learning to get herself dressed, but some clothes she can't get on. She likes to try though, and when she insist, I stand by and watch her, knowing she can't do it. Finally, she gets frustrated and says to me, "Daddy, can you do it?" and, without question, I immediately take care of it. Salvation is just the same way. We can try our hardest to please God, and He stands by, not pleased (since He is pleased with nothing less than perfection!), and waits for us to get frustrated and to come to Him. When we do, when we say, "Daddy, can you do it?" then He immediately takes care of it--whether "it" is saving our eternal souls or sanctifying our daily lives.

But the whole idea of working hard for Jesus, trying to please Him by loving Him and keeping His commands . . . that doesn't please Him at all any more than it pleases me to watch Elly frustrate herself trying to do what she is too little to do. What pleases Him is when we turn it all over to Him and let Him do it for us. Salvation--all of it, from justification to sanctification to glorification and everything in between--is by GRACE, by unmerited favor, which we access through faith or through nothing at all.

edit:

Quite right, Rick, on all counts.

[Kurieuo]

It is perhaps that free grace says someone who wilfully opposes God/Christ after assenting to receiving/trusting in the gift is saved. One can't even throw it away if they decide to hate God.

Correct. If we could, then not hating God would effectively become a condition for salvation, and it would no longer be true that EVERYONE who believes has everlasting life, since some who believe would, in fact, not have everlasting life.

There is literally nothing one can do to loose their "salvation" since it is absolutely free in the "freeist" sense. God can even be made a mockery of by some smarty pants who decides to trust in Christ without any intention of following Him; someone can come to Christ with the mindset that they want to accept Christ's gift to be saved AND have a license to sin or wilfully oppose God thereafter.

That doesn't make a mockery of God. He can, and will, discipline--and discipline harshly--those who live in blatant sin.

By discipline, you mean naturally in this life... or in the everlasting life hereafter?

One's heart doesn't have to be in the process really at all, at least not with a free grace theology built upon intellectual assent -- I'm not so sure about Jac's "trusting in".

What aren't you sure about "trusting in"? We all trust something. All I'm saying is that you trust Christ alone. Quit trying to do it yourself and let Him do it for you. Elly is learning to get herself dressed, but some clothes she can't get on. She likes to try though, and when she insist, I stand by and watch her, knowing she can't do it. Finally, she gets frustrated and says to me, "Daddy, can you do it?" and, without question, I immediately take care of it. Salvation is just the same way. We can try our hardest to please God, and He stands by, not pleased (since He is pleased with nothing less than perfection!), and waits for us to get frustrated and to come to Him. When we do, when we say, "Daddy, can you do it?" then He immediately takes care of it--whether "it" is saving our eternal souls or sanctifying our daily lives.

Your "trusting in" is like a loophole if you will, for escaping what I see (and no doubt Gman sees) as an unwelcome bedfellow -- someone hating God and all those who love Him being allowed into heaven. And further yet, without any restraints in place or God transforming a person (into someone they're not?), haters could even continue to persecute, accuse and hate.

Those within "Free Grace" who believe only intellectual assent is required, the heart doesn't need to be involved at all. It's all an intellectual acknowledgement.

Your trust on the other hand, requires something of the heart. A change in the person. Such that, their trusting in their "Daddy" necessitates fulfilling a personal need and desire... a vulnerability to be accepted and have their trust fulfilled or rejected... a longing for the other who has trust invested in to receive the request and help... It is hard for me to conceive that one who trusts in God could then willingly turn from God, or trust in God with an immediate desire to oppose Him thereafter. To the contrary, it is quite easy for me to conceive of someone just taking God's gift (via intellectual assent) without any real change.

With an intellectual assent, there is a lesser requirement to be saved since an empty acknowledgement of certain Christological truths allow the gift can be received. With trusting in Christ, the requirement is more because "trust" would require an actual change in the person as I have tried to demonstrate in my previous paragraph.

I think the difference between those in "Free Grace" (sorry, if that's incorrect as just not sure what else to call it) who adhere to "Intellectual Assent" versus a "Trust in Christ" have quite drastic repercussions. With the former, Hitler could be saved. With the latter, one could say Hitler never really trusted in Christ but rather himself of which Hitler's life is a testament of where his trust was really placed.

But the whole idea of working hard for Jesus, trying to please Him by loving Him and keeping His commands . . . that doesn't please Him at all any more than it pleases me to watch Elly frustrate herself trying to do what she is too little to do. What pleases Him is when we turn it all over to Him and let Him do it for us. Salvation--all of it, from justification to sanctification to glorification and everything in between--is by GRACE, by unmerited favor, which we access through faith or through nothing at all.

I think "works" could still be pleasing. I find my children's desire to clean pleasing, even though they may drastically do it wrong and just delay it actually getting cleaned. How would God's rewarding some more than others work (which I understand you believe in), unless God was more pleased with some than others? But, pleasing such that our works are deserving of salvation -- such is wrong.

Not even Gman believes that works are necessary for salvation, though he might tinker on the brink. But Gman always comes back on the side that keeping the Law isn't required for salvation when push comes to shove -- while at the same time finding it hard to comprehend why anyone would feel a desire to keep the law is a burden rather than joy. But ultimately, and I've pushed him lots, he'll come on keeping the Law not being required to be saved.

[Jac3510]

By discipline, you mean naturally in this life... or in the everlasting life hereafter?

Both.

Your "trusting in" is like a loophole if you will, for escaping what I see (and no doubt Gman sees) as an unwelcome bedfellow -- someone hating God and all those who love Him being allowed into heaven. And further yet, without any restraints in place or God transforming a person (into someone they're not?), haters could even continue to persecute, accuse and hate.

Those within "Free Grace" who believe only intellectual assent is required, the heart doesn't need to be involved at all. It's all an intellectual acknowledgement.

Your trust on the other hand, requires something of the heart. A change in the person. Such that, their trusting in their "Daddy" necessitates fulfilling a personal need and desire... a vulnerability to be accepted and have their trust fulfilled or rejected... a longing for the other who has trust invested in to receive the request and help... It is hard for me to conceive that one who trusts in God could then willingly turn from God, or trust in God with an immediate desire to oppose Him thereafter. To the contrary, it is quite easy for me to conceive of someone just taking God's gift (via intellectual assent) without any real change.

In the first, there is a lesser requirement to be saved since an empty acknowledgement of certain Christological truths allow the gift can be received. In the second, the requirement is more because "trust" seems to require an actual change in the person as I have tried to demonstrate in my previous paragraph.

I think the difference between those in "Free Grace" (sorry, if that's incorrect as just not sure what else to call it) who adhere to "Intellectual Assent" versus a "Trust in Christ" have quite drastic repercussions. With the former, Hitler could be saved. With the latter, one could say Hitler never really trusted in Christ but rather himself of which Hitler's life is a testiment to that.

First, the term "Free Grace" is perfectly appropriate. Second, I'm heavily, heavily involved in the movement. I have presented at both regional and national conferences. I know several of the leaders (Bob Wilkin, Dennis Rokser, Charlie Bing, Dave Anderson, J. B. Hixon, etc.) on a first name basis, and I teach and develop classes at Free Grace Seminary. I give you that little list of credentials only because I have never heard anyone in the FG camp make some of the claims you make. I really think you should read actual FG literature, because you seem to have a rather skewed view of things.

Now, more specifically, there is no unwelcome bedfellow. I'm trying to avoid the possibility of "someone hating God and all those who love Him being allowed into heaven. And further yet, without any restraints in place or God transforming a person (into someone they're not?), haters could even continue to persecute, accuse and hate." On the contrary, I think all that is true! It is perfectly possible for someone to hate God and go to heaven. And yes, believers can hate and continue to persecute and accuse. Now, there ARE restraints, but those restraints come in the form of divine chastisement. A carnal believer or apostate is as saved as you and me, and no matter how wickedly they treat others, they are still saved. No matter how much they come to hate God, they are still saved. God just may discipline them, both in this life and the next. Several places in the NT talk about that, which I'm sure I don't have to quote. That discipline, in fact, may include death. What it does not, and cannot, include is punishment in an eternal Hell.

Lastly,I don't make as strong a distinction as you seem to between intellectual assent and trust. We aren't saved by being persuaded that something is true. We are saved by TRUSTING Jesus, or if it helps, by ENTRUSTING our souls to Him. Now, it's quite natural to be grateful and want to continue to follow the Savior of your soul, but it's not a logical necessity. Now, the big point here is that trusting Jesus doesn't necessitate a change in a person. It's just a passive reception of God's grace. If there is a change, it happens when we abide in that trust--when we keep trusting Him to live through us.

I think "works" could still be pleasing. I find my children's desire to clean pleasing, even though they may drastically do it wrong and just delay it actually getting cleaned. How would God's rewarding some more than others work (which I understand you believe in), unless God was more pleased with some than others. But, pleasing such that our works are deserving of salvation -- such is wrong.

Not even Gman believes this really, though he might tinker on the brink. But Gman always comes back on the side that keeping the Law isn't required for salvation when push comes to shove -- while at the same time finding it hard to comprehend why anyone would feel a desire to keep the law is a burden rather than joy. But ultimately, and I've pushed him lots, he'll come on keeping the Law not being required to be saved.

God is pleased when we trust Him. God is pleased with His work in our lives, not with our work in our own. Remember that it is IMPOSSIBLE to please God without faith. That means that works don't please Him. Faith is trust--but trust in what? Trusting that God will do what He promised to do--sanctify me, which means trusting Him to do in my life what He wants to. If I do it in my own power, it doesn't please God at all.

I'll let Gman explain himself. I know he says that the Law is not required for salvation. He does think that breaking the Law is sin, but I don't care about any of that, really. I care about him saying things like, "faith IS works AND repentance." Faith isn't works. Faith isn't repentance. The bottom line is that anyone, anyone, anyone who believes that the presence of sin or the lack of works or a lack of love or any other such things means that a person doesn't go to heaven--that there is no eternal life--then whether the person intends it or not, what they're saying denies the fundamental nature of the gospel. If that's him, then fine. If it's not, so much the better. I'm just interested in stating what I see the Scriptures say about the gospel as clearly as I can. It's up to others to ask if I'm right or wrong and how what I'm saying applies to their own beliefs.

[Kurieuo]

By discipline, you mean naturally in this life... or in the everlasting life hereafter?

Both.

Your "trusting in" is like a loophole if you will, for escaping what I see (and no doubt Gman sees) as an unwelcome bedfellow -- someone hating God and all those who love Him being allowed into heaven. And further yet, without any restraints in place or God transforming a person (into someone they're not?), haters could even continue to persecute, accuse and hate.

Those within "Free Grace" who believe only intellectual assent is required, the heart doesn't need to be involved at all. It's all an intellectual acknowledgement.

Your trust on the other hand, requires something of the heart. A change in the person. Such that, their trusting in their "Daddy" necessitates fulfilling a personal need and desire... a vulnerability to be accepted and have their trust fulfilled or rejected... a longing for the other who has trust invested in to receive the request and help... It is hard for me to conceive that one who trusts in God could then willingly turn from God, or trust in God with an immediate desire to oppose Him thereafter. To the contrary, it is quite easy for me to conceive of someone just taking God's gift (via intellectual assent) without any real change.

In the first, there is a lesser requirement to be saved since an empty acknowledgement of certain Christological truths allow the gift can be received. In the second, the requirement is more because "trust" seems to require an actual change in the person as I have tried to demonstrate in my previous paragraph.

I think the difference between those in "Free Grace" (sorry, if that's incorrect as just not sure what else to call it) who adhere to "Intellectual Assent" versus a "Trust in Christ" have quite drastic repercussions. With the former, Hitler could be saved. With the latter, one could say Hitler never really trusted in Christ but rather himself of which Hitler's life is a testiment to that.

First, the term "Free Grace" is perfectly appropriate. Second, I'm heavily, heavily involved in the movement. I have presented at both regional and national conferences. I know several of the leaders (Bob Wilkin, Dennis Rokser, Charlie Bing, Dave Anderson, J. B. Hixon, etc.) on a first name basis, and I teach and develop classes at Free Grace Seminary. I give you that little list of credentials only because I have never heard anyone in the FG camp make some of the claims you make. I really think you should read actual FG literature, because you seem to have a rather skewed view of things.

I'm not seeing where I've skewed things but happy to be corrected -- I've tried to leave things quite open to be corrected.

Perhaps it was my commentary on the ontology of "trust". What is "trust"? How is it we come to "trust" in another? This to me requires certain conditions in us to be met, much more than a simple "yes, I believe".

If you are trusting in a proposition, that is different from trusting in a person. To trust in Christ's promise, we must trust in Christ Himself for it is Christ who gave it. So certain conditions need to be met in us before such "trust" can be had. And it's not that those conditions can be force... I can't force myself to trust someone I don't know... rather the trust naturally unfolds and at some point I do hand things over to Christ.

Now, more specifically, there is no unwelcome bedfellow. I'm trying to avoid the possibility of "someone hating God and all those who love Him being allowed into heaven. And further yet, without any restraints in place or God transforming a person (into someone they're not?), haters could even continue to persecute, accuse and hate." On the contrary, I think all that is true! It is perfectly possible for someone to hate God and go to heaven.

I'm seeing you embrace all that. Like I wrote earlier, I hope you're right as then many more will be in heaven. But, many would be put off "Free Grace" based on that alone. Not being able to fathom how a righteous God could do this.

Now, there ARE restraints, but those restraints come in the form of divine chastisement. A carnal believer or apostate is as saved as you and me, and no matter how wickedly they treat others, they are still saved. No matter how much they come to hate God, they are still saved. God just may discipline them, both in this life and the next. Several places in the NT talk about that, which I'm sure I don't have to quote. That discipline, in fact, may include death. What it does not, and cannot, include is punishment in an eternal Hell.

I guess the next stop is to explore your view on Heaven including any rewards (like difference between those who make it to heaven dying hating God versus those who love God and went about His work through His grace), and Hell.

For example, does everyone get to experience the direct everlasting presence of God, or is Heaven more simply a place that is peaceful... such that some in Heaven can be in God's presence more directly than others rather than God being directly ever-present before all in heaven... the point I'm thinking of being whether someone who died disliking God could shy away from Him in heaven, or whether God perhaps isolates the person in perhaps some "lower place" of heaven...?

Lastly,I don't make as strong a distinction as you seem to between intellectual assent and trust. We aren't saved by being persuaded that something is true. We are saved by TRUSTING Jesus, or if it helps, by ENTRUSTING our souls to Him. Now, it's quite natural to be grateful and want to continue to follow the Savior of your soul, but it's not a logical necessity. Now, the big point here is that trusting Jesus doesn't necessitate a change in a person. It's just a passive reception of God's grace. If there is a change, it happens when we abide in that trust--when we keep trusting Him to live through us.

"Trust" I think does involve an inward change... however, I agree it is natural -- a passiveness -- not something we just decide to do. The cause of such change required for "trust" to occur is a natural response to God. Like clay hardens in the Sun, but it's not the clay hardening itself... it's just what naturally happens to the clay in response to the Sun.

Also, refer to my previous words on trust. I'm not say you believe "trust" is this or that -- I didn't intend that if it came across that way. Rather, the way I see "trust" works -- the ontology of trust -- requires certain personal conditions to be met before "trust" can occur in someone else.

[RickD]

Kureiuo wrote:
I'm seeing you embrace all that. Like I wrote earlier, I hope you're right as then many more will be in heaven. But, many would be put off "Free Grace" based on that alone. Not being able to fathom how a righteous God could do this.

K, just a thought I had while reading this. Many people are "put off" with Christianity because Christians believe someone can live an extremely evil life, and then accept Christ on his deathbed, and go to heaven.