Lordship vs. Free Grace Salvation

[Kurieuo]

Heya, just wanted to briefly comment to say that let's hold off on this discussion until after the new year. The reason is that I totally understand your position, although I must say I'm a bit surprised by it. The basic difference we have is going to relate to the tension between atonement and forgiveness, and how these in turn relate to grace, and thus (as I indicated in my response to Felgar), this will strongly affect the way we view justification and sanctification. All of these together will change our view on such issues as OSAS.

I really wouldn't know whether the differences ultimately lay between atonement and forgiveness, and nor do I have a clear understanding of what it is you think I believe on justification and sanctification (and the differences you would infact have on these concepts).

With regards to key concepts such sanctification, atonement, how we receive forgiveness, grace, faith, justification and how all these relate to salvation or being saved (and what that means in itself) I simply understand these in the light I have come to understand them by personal investigation. I'm a simpleton with regards to this language, and by that I mean I have my own preconceptions of what they mean and how they work, yet I do not have textbook definitions for each nor have I investigated diverging systematic theologies surrounding them. This is good in some respects as my beliefs are a lot less influenced by any particular Christian tradition, but then the downside is I am only familiar with how I understand these concepts and their relationship to each other. Therefore, I think it is best for clarity to be clear about what one means when they use these keywords. For example, where you say our basic difference lies with the tension between atonement and forgiveness... I don't understand what the tension is, but I know I believe that all are forgiven and Christ has atoned for everyone's sins. I use to take the position that only those who accept (or "believe in" if you prefer) Christ are forgiven, something I gather you hold to (is this the difference you talk of??), but I was forced to revise this actually early this year after a few realisations.

Anyway, I think the guts of all these keywords and concepts have to be clarified whenever they are used meaningfully within a sentence if unnecessary confusion is to be avoided.

All that is better held in a thread dedicated to those issues, and really, while they are related, are only on the periphary of the Lordship vs. Free Grace position. Let me ask you, so far as this thread goes, would you hold to a Lordship salvation (one must make a commitment to obedience to be saved) or to Free Grace ("mere trust" in Christ's person and work)?

I'll explain it this way... I believe one cannot reject Christ as Lord if they are to be saved from God's righteous judgement, for such is an insult to God's gift of forgiveness. I don't see how it is possible for someone who trusts in Christ, to then do whatever they please. As Paul says, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law... Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law." (Romans 3:28,31) Paul's emphasis is that it is impossible for someone who has faith in Christ, to then in their spirits desire to sin by going against the law. That this is what Paul means becomes apparent when he explains the struggles between the clashing desires of our body and inner being (Romans 7:21-25). However, the conflict between our bodily and spiritual desires is just that, a conflict. It has no bearing on our being saved by God's grace through our faith. As Paul proclaims in asking who will rescue us from our body of death: "Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!" (Romans 7:24-25)

Now I do not know what you mean by "trust" in "mere trust." I believe one needs pistis (faith) in Christ in order to experience the blessings of forgiveness although they are forgiven before such a point. I will not say that pisteuo (believing) necessarily and only means "mere trust" for that can be misleading since it also involves faith which involves a conviction, and this conviction naturally brings change.

Kurieuo

[Jac3510]

Bah, humbug (Christmas, and all ), I guess we can clarify things here . . .

Your understanding of atonement and forgiveness are going to be significantly different from my own. For you, the terms are near synonymous (which may be why you don't see the tension?). For you, Jesus died and rose, thus making atonement for all people's sins . . . in grace, God forgives all (because the atonement is universal). Now, the question simply becomes, "Do you accept this free gift of atonement/forgiveness?" If not, there is no way left for you to be forgiven/saved, and thus, you condemn yourself.

Now, I do so a very strong distinction between atonement and forgiveness, and they are no where near synonymous. The atonement relates to the wrath of God, whereas forgiveness relates to the debt of sin. I, like you, believe the atonement is universal. It is not merely sufficient, but it is effectual for all. In my view, all are unrighteous by the inherited sin (not merely inherited sin nature, a view that I have recently come to) from being in the Adamic family. Adam sinned, and as a result, his entire "tribe" is condemned, he and all his children. The sin is imputed to each. As such, the Adamic race can, in no way, come into any sort of relationship with God, because God's wrath burns against this imputed sin. Now, the atonement settled this. Christ died for ALL, past, present, and future. As such, all sin was atoned for, including the "original sin" as it is often called. To be more technical, and more accurate, "original" sin should be referred to as "imputed" sin.

When I say "atoned", I do NOT mean "pardoned." I mean "covered up," or "taken out of the way." In other words, Sin (notice the capital "S") is no longer an obstacle between man and God. It has been covered by the blood of Christ. I cannot stress enough that this atoning sacrifice (propitiation) is effectual for all (see 1 John 2:2).

Against this, we have the idea of forgiveness of sins (plural, small "s"). This has absolutely zero bearing on our entrance into Heaven or our eternal salvation. Therefore, I have no problem with passages like Hebrews which talks about there being no sacrifice for the "forgiveness of sins." To forgive something is "to cancel out", as in "to forgive a debt." Forgiveness relates entirely to fellowship with God in the sense of a personal relationship. It has nothing to do with our relationship to God in the positional sense. To illustrate, your child may sin against you. Your fellowship is temporarily broken, but he or she still remains your child. Now, it is that the same sacrifice that atoned for all sin also serves as the basis of forgiveness! Therefore, if one rejects the crucified Christ, there is no basis on which he may be forgiven, even though he has been atoned for. It follows, then, that his (temporal) fellowship with God is broken because he has an unpaid debt--a debt which he CANNOT pay (c.f. the 10,000 talents in Matt. 18).

Against these two concepts, we have the idea of grace. Your view, again, would hold that grace is the forgiveness of sins (in the atoning sense of the word) and that this is applied to all. Now, I reject this view, because I do not believe that grace is applied to all, but only to the elect (Eph. 2:9-10). In my view, grace is not the forgiveness of sins, which should be obvious, but nor is it universal atonement (which was certainly a gracious act). Grace is an entirely different view that is the perfect antonym for imputed sin. It is imputed righteousness. Grace literally means "unmerited favor." In my view, I was born with imputed sin. That sin was atoned for by Christ's death and resurrection, making it possible for me to be restored to fellowship with God. The problem is that I am still unrighteous. Grace is the imputation of the righteousness of Christ to me. What is this grace based on? The sinless life, death, and resurrection of Christ (against, we can say that as "the righteousness of Christ). How is it imputed? Through faith (that is, trust) in the person and work of Christ.

We can take that even further with regards to the mechanisms by which faith sees righteousness imputed. These relate to election, regeneration, predestination, and adoption. But, we've come far enough, I think, to show the fundamental differences between your view and my own. If I've explained myself well enough, you should also be able to see why I so strongly accept Free Grace and so strongly reject any kind of Lordship salvation, as well as my complete acceptance of OSAS.

So, to beat a dead horse: salvation comes by grace through faith alone. Faith is the "mere" trust in Jesus' promise to save us, which we accept based on an understanding of 1) who He is and 2) what He has done. Therefore, no commitment of obedience nor sustenance of faith necessary.

God bless

[August]

Hi Jac,

I guess I'm getting a lot closer to understanding what you mean. I agree with you on several points, that is if I understand you correctly. I agree with you fully that there is no justification in works, and that we are fully justified by the imputation of the righteousness of Jesus.

Where we are still at loggerheads, and it may ultimately be a small issue, is that I differ from you when you seem to describe a somewhat ineffectual process, where you seem to say there is no effect in a persons life as a result of making that decision. We are clearly told that we have to be "reborn", "made new" etc, and while that does not by any means mean that we are without sin, it does mean that the sin is fully paid for. It also means that we are 'hosts' for the Holy Spirit, which if the Holy Spirit was the impulse that drew us to make the decision to believe in Jesus, also has the power to change how we act. It is not a precondition for justification, but through the process of sanctification. We cannot be "more" saved as a result, but we do become more aware of our Christian spirituality, our sense of sin becomes deeper, our love more extensive.

[Felgar]

Very insightful discussion here... Thanks to the contributors.

Jac, I'm still a little unclear on your views of atonement, forgiveness, and grace, and the implications of these on our - for lack of a better term - salvation. And by salvation I mean eternal fellowship with God in Heaven - for clarity I'll reference being 'saved' for the rest of this post.

I agree with your view on atonement in that Jesus' sacrifice is the only thing that even makes it possible for us to be restored to fellowship with God. I argued this same point with Puritan - that Jesus removed (for all persons) the insurmountable obstacle of Sin so that each can make a free choice whether or not to accept God's gift of grace, by which we attain righteousness and are thus 'saved'. (I suspect you may have an issue with the last part of that last sentance? more on that later...)

But I'm unclear on your delineation of the difference between grace and forgiveness. I think you're saying that forgiveness of sin is the mechanism by which we build our relationship with God throughout our lives, as it removes the barrier of sin which continually interrupts our fellowship with Him. Now then, I assume you aren't esspousing that the atonement of Sin is sufficient for salvation (or we'd have universal salvation as opposed to the broad and narrow gates) so then if forgivess also has no bearing we are left with only those who receive God's grace being 'saved'. And of course as you said, Grace is imputed through faith in Christ.

To be clear, must we be Righteous - must be receive God's Grace to be saved? I think so, and I think you think so. So I guess I'm already jumping the gun on the question of election because I feel very strongly on the matter. You said Grace is not applied to all which I agree with, but is it offered to all? I claim it is because atonement has ensured that all are able to receive it. All are offerred it, and some freely choose to reject it; that is my position. Now if you were to claim that Grace is not offered to all - that only the elect can chose it - then what you are saying is that only God's chosen can be saved regardless of their will and faith. If that is the conclusion then I disagree with it and we'll have to search for the means by which you jump from core concepts which I think I agree with to a flawed conclusion which I could never accept.

Edit: as an aside, just a quick comment on good work necessarily resulting from fatih in Jesus. The application of God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ makes us slaves to righteousness and dead to sin - we know this from Paul. I don't see how anyone who is 'saved' can continue in the same unrepentant sin because they are dead to it. So salvation does imply good works. However, maybe we can reconcile this with your view Jac, by recognizing the difficulty in measuring one another. Like you said, how do we judge each other's 'love-o-meter' in order to judge good works? I don't think we can, and maybe if a Christian merely stays out of trouble that is a huge step forward and a huge manifestation of holiness compared to his fate had he remained in sin. But for others maybe a huge outpooring of works is the same step up. So maybe salvation does imply good works but just we can't judge them equally for all and therefore we cannot say that 'lack of works implies no salvation' which frees us from the claim that we are adopting a faith + works stance on salvation... And perhaps this is why Paul warned "do not say who will be saved and who will descend into the deep". Just a thought on some way to reconcile these views.

[Jac3510]

Felgar:

You've pretty much got everything I'm saying nailed down. There's not much clarifying at all that I need to do. The only small issue comes from my usage of the word "elect." I hesitated in including it, but because I have already thoroughly laid out my view on election on the second page of the predestination thread, I figured that could make for easy reference.

I do believe that ALL have a choice. Election does not refer to God's choosing some to accept His grace. Rather, it refers to God choosing all in Christ. Whether or not we are "in Christ" is our decision, and is determined based on our faith (or lack there of) in Him.

So, I totally agree with your previous post, minus the edit. Briefly, then, concerning that issue, as it is ultimately the same one August brings up . . .

So, for August also:

The question is "how can a saved person not necessarily do good works?" For all the reasoning and recasting of the question, that is the best way to render the objection. The reason is very simple. The moment one is regenerated, a "new man" is born within him. The "old man", however, is still very much alive. At this point, the Christian must decide who will have his way at any given moment--the new man or the old man. We commonly refer to these as "the new nature" and "the old nature." I strongly reject these terms, because they are by far not clear enough. We are actually dealing with separate wills. Paul struggled with this, as he confesses at the end of Romans 7.

Now, Christianity is often compared to the life of a child. We are born, grow stronger, get off of milk and progress to solid food, mature, and bear our own children. The difference, and here is where the confusion lies, is that in our physical lives, these things are, for the most part, not optional. A child will grow because that is what a child does. This is not the same at all for the spiritual life. Growth is voluntary. Just because a Christian has been saved for eighteen years doesn't mean he is any more "grown up" than the one who has been saved for only three. Likewise, his "Christian age" says nothing of his comparison in maturity to one who has been saved for thirty years or more. In the end, Christian maturity is not related to age, but it is directly related to one's degree of sanctification, which is ongoing process that is directly related, in turn, to one's willingness to die to self (that is, die to the old man).

Now, I go so far as to say that the New Man CANNOT sin. He is totally incapable of it. I will cover this in detail when we get to that discussion in 1 John. Any sin comes from the Old Man. Therefore, while I strongly agree with your assessment that the person with the Holy Spirit should be more inclined to good works (in fact, he would only be inclined to good works), I see the fault as being the assumption that the Holy Spirit inclines the Old Man to good works. This is simply not so. Therefore, if the Christian is living in the flesh, he will by no means be inclined to good. He will be, naturally, convicted, but conviction says nothing of behavior. Such a person is perfectly capable of immersing themselves deeper in the flesh to hide from the voice of and chastisement of God.

We can see how a person can be regenerate, then, and never produce a single good work, regardless of "how long" he's been saved. Against this, I again reiterate my warning against the belief that salvation necessarily produces good works. This places assurance of salvation on works, which invites doubt and a commandment of obedience as the basis of salvation. This becomes works-based, and hinders the teaching of the gospel, as well as goes a good way in destroying one's faith (as his faith has been transformed from a simple trust in Christ to his obedience in Him).

OK, gotta go back to work.

God bless (no spell check)

[Felgar]

So, I totally agree with your previous post, minus the edit.

I just read through your views on predestination and election and I agree that your position makes sense. Also, would you say that B.W.'s term of 'God's calling' is possibly interchangeable with your concept of atonement? For the removal of the obstacle of Sin is fundamental to God's calling; He could not call us unto Him without first paying our debt. In other words, the Calling is God becomming accessible to us... If not the exact same thing they are certainly closely related as I see it.

Anyways, notwithstanding the good works discussion I tentatively agree with your position Jac. Having said that, now I am very interested to see where Kurieuo disagrees and why; for perhaps there's something he's considering which I have not.

We can see how a person can be regenerate, then, and never produce a single good work, regardless of "how long" he's been saved. Against this, I again reiterate my warning against the belief that salvation necessarily produces good works. This places assurance of salvation on works, which invites doubt and a commandment of obedience as the basis of salvation.

Very interesting way to look at it... I'll have to let the concept simmer for a while. You would definately say then Jac, that all the seeds but those eaten by the bird are saved, even though the one that withers and dies in shallow soil and the one choked by thorns produce no good works. Luke 8:12 would seem to support this notion - the devil takes the word from their hearts and they 'may not believe and be saved.' The other three are saved even though only the one who becomes a servant of God produces good works.

But the more I think about it I've always thought that no bad works (or lack of good works) could ever place our salvation in jeapordy or else that would mean there's a sin that God's grace could not conquer. So maybe I've always agreed with you but we're just looking at the same fundamental concept from a slightly different viewpoint.

The main question becomes - which of the seeds are saved? Even Jesus says that the parable is 'the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God' .... Ok, that's enough ramblings. I have to stop typing until I get my thoughts together a bit more.

Great discussion btw guys! I'm glad I stopped by even though I really can't spare all this time.

[Kurieuo]

Hi Jac,

Thanks for the descriptions of everything. Although more words on your part, it definately allows me to better understand what you are saying and so discuss these matters with you.

Your understanding of atonement and forgiveness are going to be significantly different from my own. For you, the terms are near synonymous (which may be why you don't see the tension?). For you, Jesus died and rose, thus making atonement for all people's sins . . . in grace, God forgives all (because the atonement is universal). Now, the question simply becomes, "Do you accept this free gift of atonement/forgiveness?" If not, there is no way left for you to be forgiven/saved, and thus, you condemn yourself.

I wouldn't call them synonymous. Forgiveness of our sins offered through Christ is God's free gift to each of us. I believe this has infact been applied to all before acceptance, but to those who walk away from it... well they insult such a gift. It is like saving up lots of money to buy a present for a loved one. You saved up the required amount of money and purchase the gift. Then you give it to them, only to have it thrown back in your face and rejected. It is an insult to you. They don't deserve your gift, especially if they don't won't it. Many I believe do the same to God's gift of forgiveness, although I'm inclined to believe God would leave his gift open to them incase there is a time they decide to accept it.

On the otherhand while we are forgiven already before even our acceptance, some do not know or have not experienced the forgiveness. For example, the prodigal son was forgiven by his father long before he returned home. When he got home he thought his father would punish him and put him to work. He did not know his father's forgiveness was already there, and that all he had to do was go home, accept it, and move on in life. But when he did return he was able to experience the forgiveness and love of his father which he chose to accept. Some people do so much running and hiding from God, that they are never able to experience the forgiveness He already has for them.

A page I'd recommend, which helped me formulate this perspective on God's forgiveness can be found at http://arnoldgamboa.com/2003/10/is-forg ... nditional/ for those further interested.

What of atonement? I'll talk on next.

Now, I do so a very strong distinction between atonement and forgiveness, and they are no where near synonymous. The atonement relates to the wrath of God, whereas forgiveness relates to the debt of sin. I, like you, believe the atonement is universal. It is not merely sufficient, but it is effectual for all. In my view, all are unrighteous by the inherited sin (not merely inherited sin nature, a view that I have recently come to) from being in the Adamic family. Adam sinned, and as a result, his entire "tribe" is condemned, he and all his children. The sin is imputed to each. As such, the Adamic race can, in no way, come into any sort of relationship with God, because God's wrath burns against this imputed sin. Now, the atonement settled this. Christ died for ALL, past, present, and future. As such, all sin was atoned for, including the "original sin" as it is often called. To be more technical, and more accurate, "original" sin should be referred to as "imputed" sin.

We are not so far apart. Why do we need forgiveness of our sins? Because otherwise our sins remain and we will incur God's righteous judgement (wrath) on our sins. Atonement is the method by which we are forgiven, since an entirely righteous and just God can't accept sin. Therefore Christ came to pay the price required by God's righteous judgement, and He made atonement for our sins. Our sin debt was therefore paid for, and by such Christ's act fulfilling the legal requirement, we are able to receive the forgiveness God always wanted to show us, and accept us despite our sins.

Now I also accept original sin, since I believe (as you likely do) in traducianism with respect to how the soul comes into existence. So it naturally follows the effects of Adam and Eve's sin would be passed on to all who come from them.

After throwing in the wrath side of things, I can understand what you mean by tension. Yet, I see that forgiveness and atonement more work hand-in-hand rather than there being tension between the two. However, I see tension between judgement and atonement. I see this tension in that we all are going to incur God's wrath, but then Jesus' atonement draws it away from us allowing God to simply forgive us and love us more fully.

So I'm not sure I see much, if any, real disagreement between us? Let's continue.

When I say "atoned", I do NOT mean "pardoned." I mean "covered up," or "taken out of the way." In other words, Sin (notice the capital "S") is no longer an obstacle between man and God. It has been covered by the blood of Christ. I cannot stress enough that this atoning sacrifice (propitiation) is effectual for all (see 1 John 2:2).

I'm not sure what the capital 'S' is for, but atonement for me means a wrong has been paid for. For example, attonement has been made by Christ for us. I personally don't know what happens to our sins after, but no doubt they may be intrinsically tied to us in some yet. Yet, Christ's attonement means God can accept us anyway. I'm sure we agree.

Against this, we have the idea of forgiveness of sins (plural, small "s"). This has absolutely zero bearing on our entrance into Heaven or our eternal salvation. Therefore, I have no problem with passages like Hebrews which talks about there being no sacrifice for the "forgiveness of sins."

You misunderstood my intention, as I was merely seeking your opinion on this passage in Hebrews to hopefully justify my own beliefs. To quote the passage in question (Hebrews 10:26-27):

26If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God

I don't believe this passage has in mind those who were saved and then lost (although I believe I once did). To me it now clearly refers to someone who has come into contact with the knowledge of Gospel and Christ's gift, but then they turn away and utterly reject it. It is like the story I mentioned previously. You go to all the trouble of buying a present for a loved one, only to have it thrown back in your face when you give it to them. To those who reject Christ, having the knowledge of the truth, such will receive God's judgement and wrath.

To illustrate, your child may sin against you. Your fellowship is temporarily broken, but he or she still remains your child. Now, it is that the same sacrifice that atoned for all sin also serves as the basis of forgiveness! Therefore, if one rejects the crucified Christ, there is no basis on which he may be forgiven, even though he has been atoned for. It follows, then, that his (temporal) fellowship with God is broken because he has an unpaid debt--a debt which he CANNOT pay (c.f. the 10,000 talents in Matt. 18).

I believe we are in agreement. At least I can't see where we would disagree.

Against these two concepts, we have the idea of grace. Your view, again, would hold that grace is the forgiveness of sins (in the atoning sense of the word) and that this is applied to all.

Ok, now you're talking over me again. There is nothing we did which merited Christ's attoning for our sins. It was gratis, done freely and without charge, and by this atonement we are able to be (and are) forgiven. We need not even believe. Yet, without belief we can't receive or experience the forgiveness, since we would be running away or hiding from God (as I explained earlier in this post).

Now, I reject this view, because I do not believe that grace is applied to all, but only to the elect (Eph. 2:9-10). In my view, grace is not the forgiveness of sins, which should be obvious, but nor is it universal atonement (which was certainly a gracious act). Grace is an entirely different view that is the perfect antonym for imputed sin. It is imputed righteousness.

Ok, we may disagree here, but then it may simply be unclarity.

I wholeheartedly agree with Eph. 2:9-10, and certainly only the elect will be saved since the elect to me is synonymous for those who are saved. And being saved is certainly earned by nothing we do, that is comes to those who don't tread under foot but who instead accept God's forgiveness made possible through Christ's gracious act of attoning for our sins. As our being saved is made possible because of Christ's attonement which He graciously did for us without us meriting it, it is also by grace that we have been saved. Anything built off the atonement is by grace since the attonement was by grace. The means it is by grace the wages of our sins have been attoned for, it is by grace we receive forgiveness, and it is by grace we are saved.

Grace literally means "unmerited favor." In my view, I was born with imputed sin. That sin was atoned for by Christ's death and resurrection, making it possible for me to be restored to fellowship with God.

Did you merit Christ atoning for your sin, imputed and otherwise? If not, then your sins were attoned for by grace.

The problem is that I am still unrighteous. Grace is the imputation of the righteousness of Christ to me.

No you are not unrighteous. Christ's atonement makes clean what is unclean, righteous what is unrighteous. Yes, you still sin... but so what? It has been forgiven. Then again, I think re-reading what you say this is what you are meaning yourself?

But, we've come far enough, I think, to show the fundamental differences between your view and my own.

I think it needs to be dug into further, as I'm sure my message will reveal... we are more in agreement than you first thought. However, I refuse to buy into the 'Free Grace' vs. 'Lordship Salvation' terminology and define the issue as I did in my as from what I understand I see both titles as misleading. I'd define it as what I wrote in the second last paragraph of my last post in this thread.

Kurieuo

[unproof read]

[Jac3510]

Felgar: I'd say that B. W.'s "calling" could be basically the same thing . . . you seem to do a better job articulating what I'm trying to say than I am . As far as the seed parable, there was a time when I considered only two saved--the second and fourth. But you are now right in my assertion that the only one not saved is the first. I don't see how it could be any other way.

K: I was going to line-by-line this, but it got way to incredibly long. Here's the long and short of things. I still see a stronger difference between atonement, forgiveness, and grace than you do. I see a further disconnect between wrath and judgment. In the simplist terms I can think of, I say that atonement negates wrath, whereas forgiveness negates judgment. The atonement is applied to all, and those there is no longer the wrath of God to be concerned about. Forgiveness is applied only to those Christians who do two things: request and repent.

Now, in your equivocation of wrath and judgment, it is not surprising that you see such a strong connection between atonement and forgiveness. However, this leads to a works based salvation. The reason is that, for you, grace is the forgiveness of sins which applied to all because of the atonement. However, that grace must be accepted for it to "stick." Those who reject the free gift of salvation do not deserve the gift, and are thus left condemned.

There are two severe problems with this line of thought. First, it makes the reception of grace dependant on repentance, which is a work. Thus, your view of salvation is a works based salvation. I say it is dependant on repentance because, for you, a person must accept the gift. However, what does it mean to accept that gift? If the atonement is a forgiveness of sins, and if we know that God judges sins, then it follows that to accept forgiveness means to commit oneself to a sinless life (even though this is practically impossible). You recognized as much when you said, "I believe one cannot reject Christ as Lord if they are to be saved from God's righteous judgement, for such is an insult to God's gift of forgiveness." The technical reason behind this is that forgiveness is based on repentance. Therefore, to receive grace (which is forgiveness), one must repent. Again, this is a works-based salvation, for you are exchanging a commitment to obedience for grace.

The second flaw in this thinking is that it assumes that it is unforgiven, or unremoved, sin that condemns a man to hell. This is not true at all. No one in hell will be there for their sins. They will be there because they are unrighteous, and they are unrighteous because of their disbelief.

You disagreed with me that the man atoned for is still unrighteous. It is not hard to show my position is correct. No man is righteous unless the he is viewed as having the righteousness of Christ. This applies only to the elect. The man born again is righteous. The old man, still in us after regeneration, is not righteous, nor will he ever be. He will die with this body, and all that will be left is the righteous new man. All in Adam are unrighteous. Because all in Adam have been atoned for, it follows that all all in Adam are unrighteous, and yet atoned for. You see, in the system you advocate, the atonement would only apply to those in Christ, because those in Christ are those who have been born into Him, and to be born again one must believe (that is, accept). Therefore, for you, the atonement may be offered to all, but it is only applied to the elect, because atonement makes clean the unclean and makes righteous the unrighteous. However, that limits atonement to the elect, which is in DIRECT OPPOSITION to 1 John 2:2.

From this, is should be obvious that ALL are atoned for. Forgiveness of sins relates on to Christians and is a daily process. Righteousness is imputed ONLY to those in Christ--that is, the elect. Threrefore, while the atonement may be a gracious act, for it was certainly unmerited, it is a grace supplied to all men. It is not saving grace, which is applied only through faith, as per Ephesians.

Let me finish this by noting that the Lordship vs Free Grace is exactly appropriate. There are those who believe that in order to be saved, one must make a complete and total commitment to Jesus Christ. We must "ask Jesus into our hearts" or "accept Him as Lord" or "give Him our lives." None of these things are Scriptural. I am finding three basic forms of this teaching. The first is taught by men like MacArthur, who believe a commitment of obedience is necessary for salvation. A second group is much more subtle, which we have been dealing with in this thread, which finds that "genuine faith will necessarily produce good works." This belief comes along with the acceptance of Perseverance, which I reject in favor of Preservation. Regardless, it is still a Lordship view because it holds that the Lordship of Christ will be such that it will produce good works. Where there are no works, it is clear that there is no genuine faith, because Christ does not have rule over our lives. The third group would be the you find yourself, which is that salvation is offered to all, but only granted to those who repent and believe. You yourself noted as much when you said: "I believe one cannot reject Christ as Lord if they are to be saved from God's righteous judgement, for such is an insult to God's gift of forgiveness." These people, to use your words, don't deserve salvation. Only those who turn to Jesus' Lordship are saved, because that is what it means to accept the gift of salvation.

I vehemently reject all of these positions, as good intentioned as they are. Salvation comes by belief and belief alone. Damnation comes by unbelief and unbelief alone. All are atoned for. A flow chart would say something to the effect that all are atoned for, the offer of salvation is presented to all, those who believe are then justified, those who are justified are regenerated, the regenerate are then adopted, and the adopted are then declared righteous. With the possible reversal of justification and regeneration, there is no way to change this without making a giant mess of your theology. While the term "grace" could broadly cover the entire process, we mean it specifically in the sense of imputation, for it is the "application of Grace."

In your system we would find one very small but yet very important change. You would say that all are atoned for, and then those who believe go through the remainder. But, for those who disbelieve, there is no atonement at all, for they have rejected it. Thus, atonement, for you, necessarily results in righteousness. That's simply not true, because, yet again, it equates atonement with forgiveness and assumes that the application of forgiveness is grace rather than the imputation of righteousness.

So, hopefully that will help further clarify matters.

God bless

[Kurieuo]

Thanks Jac.

I would deny many things you've said of my position, but the one thing I have more greatly realised are all the varying complexities within the slightest change of how the relationship of judgement, forgiveness and so forth are perceived. I may get around to generating a response after Xmas, however in a sense I am hesitant about these specific theological complexities for readers. Although I know very important for making sense of everything theologically, it may actually seem to detract from the simplicity of the Gospel for others as well as its practicality.

I am wondering whether in simplicity we would agree, even though theologically there may be some main differences within the deeper theology of things. For example, if a non-Christian, who you may have dialogued about Christ with several times, came up and said I want to be a Christian... what would you tell or explain to them? I am sure it would be something similar to myself, and that for practical purposes you wouldn't go into all the complexities you've gone into here?

Kurieuo

[Kurieuo]

I've decided I'm going to do a flow diagram to make it clear what I believe, for my sake as well as yours. However, just a quick comment for now as I have some time...

Now, in your equivocation of wrath and judgment, it is not surprising that you see such a strong connection between atonement and forgiveness. However, this leads to a works based salvation. The reason is that, for you, grace is the forgiveness of sins which applied to all because of the atonement. However, that grace must be accepted for it to "stick." Those who reject the free gift of salvation do not deserve the gift, and are thus left condemned.

I do believe that those who "reject" Christ's forgiveness are condemned, however this does not necessarily mean I believe Christ's forgiveness has to be "accepted" to be saved. This is because Christ's forgiveness is already applied to each of us. Yes, it can be rejected, but unlike your position where you say "Forgiveness is applied only to those Christians who do two things: request and repent"; I believe forgiveness is objectively applied to ALL irrespective. In a sense I would say, "All are forgiven and saved unless they reject Christ," rather than looking at it through the other end as many Christians do to say, "All are condemned and in their sins unless they accept Christ." I am not advocating a universal salvation, well in a sense I am at the beginning, but the end result is only some are still sadly saved because many still reject God and therefore Christ. It might be argued that if a person can reject, that a person still has to respond to allow God's forgiveness in their lives, but this doesn't take away from God's forgiveness already graciously being there for all who allow it into their lives. This "allowing" could be taken as an "acceptance" of sort, but I see there is no middle position (as is often the case!)—ones either rejects or allows Christ's forgiveness into their lives.

I find this conversation definately interesting and it is helping to surface my beliefs so I can formulate them more clearly and consistently. I also do intend to get back here with a diagram which should also clear up equivocations you see in my beliefs on judgement and wrath, forgiveness and atonement, and perhaps other areas.

Kurieuo

<was edited to better convey what I mean, and I'm still not satisfied I'm articulating myself correctly>

[Felgar]

Hmmm... I'm not fully convinced Jac, though I'm finding it hard to raise any significant counter argument or even to determine exactly where we are moving away from each other.

I'm not sure I agree with your philosophy about the acceptance of Jesus Christ in terms of that being a work. We definately know that something must be accepted... I think Jesus' example with the woman at the well holds. Jesus offers living water free to all who drink that we may never thirst. I'll assume that you agree that the topic at hand at the well is eternal life and salvation. So then, how do we drink? Clearly it is something we must do - granted we're only capable of doing it because of Jesus' atonement. So the question is this: Is the mere belief that Christ died to save us the way in which we drink? Or is repentance - a response to the belief and understanding of Jesus' sacrifice - analagous to drinking? Perhaps some other verses may shed some light on that particular train of thought.

You mentioned trust Jac - trust that Jesus has saved us like He claimed - but yet the willingness to give your life for the work of the Lord is also trust. Could they not be one in the same? Because how can you trust that Jesus was God's Son, that he died and rose, and that your sins are forgiven, while still not trusting enough to at least follow the greatest commandment to love God? I guess what I'm saying is that I don't see how a person can only believe in half of what Jesus said and taught...

[Jac3510]

K: On a purely practical level--especially when dealing with non-Christians--you and I are at a basic agreement. We both believe that if a person puts their faith in Christ, then through that alone are they saved, and no works are necessary to complete the process. Where we disagree is when we get "under the hood", so to speak. I think where I'm not being clear with you is my belief that forgiveness does not lead to salvation. For that matter, neither does atonement. There is one thing that leads to salvation, and that is the imputed righteousness of Christ. It so happens that before that righteousness can be imputed, our sins must be atoned for (though not necessarily forgiven!). Forgiveness, for me, is not related to justification. It is related to sanctification. Of course, in heaven, there will be no sin, but that is because there will be no sin nature. Thus, there will be no sanctification, because all will already be perfect. That, I think, is the basic difference between you and me. You see salvation as God's gracious act of forgiving our sins, which He did by making atonement for them on the cross. I don't see it that way at all. My response to Felgar should answer also your objection to my labeling your argument as a works-based position based on "acceptance." In the meantime, K, do consider the fact that, in your system, a person goes to Hell because they don't deserve the gift . . . they don't deserve it because they reject it. That should be telling . . .

Felgar: I wasn't clear in my argument against "accepting Jesus." That post was edited and rewritten about three times, and I ended up running out of time :p.

I do believe that you must accept Christ to be saved. However, there is a very subtle difference in the Lordship idea of acceptance and the Free Grace idea of acceptance, but it makes all the difference in the world. For someone in the former camp, to accept Christ is to repent of our sins and give our lives over to Him. It is, in other words, to make Him Lord of our lives. This is very implicit in K's position, as he himself acknowledged when he said he felt it was impossible to reject Christ as Lord but still receive His gift of forgiveness.

Now, in the Free Grace view of acceptance--and I keep saying this--the matter is mere belief. The question becomes, "belief in what?" Because it is obvious that Satan believes and isn't saved. I answer with Scripture . . . "Believe in Jesus." Believe that He is the Resurrection and the Life, and that He will grant it to those who believe in Him. Do you believe that Jesus will give you eternal life if you trust Him for it? How can He do that? Because He died for our sins, because He rose from the dead and now has conquered both sin and death. Thus, in taking Christ at His word because of who He is (God incarnate), we HAVE (present tense) eternal life. This is how the OT saints were saved, as well.

In fact, I believe the Lordship view falls very short of biblical standards due to the nature of salvation in the OT. Was the salvation of the Jew dependant on works? What about of Abraham? We are told when he was saved, and it was when he believed on the Lord. In other words, Abraham took God at His word. Because of that faith in God, God could apply to him the grace of the cross and impute to Him the righteousness of Christ. But for the Lordship salvationist, he cannot say this at all. For him, he may have been saved at the moment of belief, but that belief was not mere trust. It was in fact a commitment to the Lordship of God, which was demonstrated with Isaac. Thus, belief is not in fact belief, but it is commitment.

This is why I say K's position is works based, because it is commitment-based. You see, trusting (believing) is a passive activity. There is no work involved. Committing, though, is an active activity . . . there is much work involved!

So, again, I assert very simply: salvation is a matter of mere belief in the promise of Christ based on His person and work. To add to that is to add a work, and as such, it is to be rejected.

PS:

I think I'm going to to a flow chart as well . . . I've been thinking about it for several weeks now. So far, I see all of the following issues would need to be addressed:

Adoption
Apostacy
Atonement
Baptism
Condemnation
Discipleship
Election
Faith
Forgiveness
Glorification
Grace
Inheritance
Judgment
Justification
Predestination
Propitiation
Regeneration
Repentance
Rewards
Salvation
Sanctification (positional and progressive)
Wrath

Have I missed anything? Obviously, all of these are not directly related to salvation . . . or are they? I would hope we would all agree that discipleship is not a necessary condition of salvation, but for the Lordship salvationist (i.e., John MacArthur), it absolutely is! Read The Gospel According to Jesus. Further, if you read Mark 8:34-38[/b] as a salvation passage, then it cannot be denied.

God bless

[Jac3510]

I just noticed this:

In a sense I would say, "All are forgiven and saved unless they reject Christ," rather than looking at it through the other end as many Christians do to say, "All are condemned and in their sins unless they accept Christ." I am not advocating a universal salvation, well in a sense I am at the beginning, but the end result is only some are still sadly saved because many still reject God and therefore Christ.

K, do you see that this makes evangelism and missions a dangerous activity?!? So long as a person never hears of Christ, they are saved, because they can't reject Him. There may be some atheists in the world who would reject God, and therefore Christ, but the vast majority of the world is made up of god-fearing people . . . albeit the gods they worship are false gods. As it is, though, natural revelation has been enough to convince them that a god exists. They just don't know who He is. By your arguments, if we bring them the truth, and they reject that truth, they have just condemned themselves, whereas before they were saved! This is definitely something you are going to have to account for . . .

[puritan lad]

K, do you see that this makes evangelism and missions a dangerous activity?!? So long as a person never hears of Christ, they are saved, because they can't reject Him.

Jac,

Are you for real? If what you say is true, then God wasted His time giving us commandments and sending His Son. Why not let everyone into heaven the easy way, just don't tell them the gospel? This is nonsense. He that does not believe is condemned already. (John 3:18). We are "by nature, children of wrath". (Ephesians 2:3) Jesus is very clear concerning salvation.

John 3:3
"Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”"

No exceptions.

Jac, I pray for your soul, that you will stop serving the idol of self, and submit to the Lord Jesus Christ. Beware Jac. Jesus told us to...

Matthew 7:13-14
“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it."

Paul warns us...

Galatians 1:8
"But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed."

[Kurieuo]

K, do you see that this makes evangelism and missions a dangerous activity?!? So long as a person never hears of Christ, they are saved, because they can't reject Him.

Jac,

Are you for real? If what you say is true, then God wasted His time giving us commandments and sending His Son. Why not let everyone into heaven the easy way, just don't tell them the gospel? This is nonsense. He that does not believe is condemned already. (John 3:18). We are "by nature, children of wrath". (Ephesians 2:3) Jesus is very clear concerning salvation.

Hi Puritan,

I believe Jac was pointing this out to be a logical conclusion of my position which he rejected, although I believe my believe have not been understood correctly for do not see that it is.

I just noticed this:

In a sense I would say, "All are forgiven and saved unless they reject Christ," rather than looking at it through the other end as many Christians do to say, "All are condemned and in their sins unless they accept Christ." I am not advocating a universal salvation, well in a sense I am at the beginning, but the end result is only some are still sadly saved because many still reject God and therefore Christ.

K, do you see that this makes evangelism and missions a dangerous activity?!? So long as a person never hears of Christ, they are saved, because they can't reject Him. There may be some atheists in the world who would reject God, and therefore Christ, but the vast majority of the world is made up of god-fearing people . . . albeit the gods they worship are false gods. As it is, though, natural revelation has been enough to convince them that a god exists. They just don't know who He is. By your arguments, if we bring them the truth, and they reject that truth, they have just condemned themselves, whereas before they were saved! This is definitely something you are going to have to account for . . .

Jac,

The matter is resolved in understanding that 'being forgiven' is slightly different from 'receiving forgiveness' (or experiencing forgiveness). I believe many Christians don't notice the distinction and so often blur the two. For example, let us take Christ's story of the prodigal son. The prodigal son rebelled against his father and spent all his money fulfilling his passions and desires. Yet, as we know, he then ended up struggling after he had spent everything, and in a very desperate and shameful state longing to eat what he fed pigs. Out of desperation he decided to crawl back to his father, and thought that although he would be disowned as a son and put to work, it would be better than his current situation. But what happens? The father was filled with compassion for his son and ran to meet and embrace, and celebrated his return. (Luke 15:11-32) The father didn't hold anything against his son! And this story is obviously meant to be analogous to us (the prodigal son) and our heavenly Father—God. Yet, while the father did not hold anything against his son, it wasn't until the son returned that his son was actually able to receive and wonderfully experience his father's forgiveness and love.

Now while I do associate ones forgiveness with one being saved, I do not equivocate the two and still believe that one can be forgiven by God and still lost (as with the prodigal son). One is forgiven and saved without meriting it, yet if one doesn't believe they need forgiveness then how can they accept and experience it? Therefore, while God's forgiveness and salvation for everyone is universal, not everyone gets to experience it for people reject it for one of two reasons:
1) Some do not believe, either because they do not know of, or accept as true the messages within Gospel (e.g., messages such as we are sinners, we need forgiveness, God does not exist, Christ atoned for our sins, etc, etc); or
2) Knowing the truth of the Gospel, they blatently reject or oppose it and Christ. Hebrews 10:26-27 is clear on this point that no more payment that will be applied to cover their sins.

So while a person is forgiven no matter who they are, one logically can't embrace God's absolute forgiveness if they don't believe they need forgiveness, or that Christ died and attoned for their sins, and so forth. Thus, non-believers remain lost despite God's free forgiveness and salvation for them. It is important in what you quoted of me above to pay special attention to my words "In a sense... All are forgiven and saved unless they reject Christ" I can see how it was misleading, but hopefully the "sense" of how all have salvation has been further clarified here.

What of evangelism then? It should be obvious that evangelism is very heavily advocated in my position, for people need to know the truth in order to believe it. And they need to believe it in order to freely accept God's forgiveness and experience it.

Finally, I think we are not worlds apart, and like you I now see more clearly there are things under the hood which do appear to make all the difference in being able to appreciate the beauty of the Gospel and God's gift.

Kurieuo