Salvation?

[August]

August,

The words "OBJECTIVE" and "SUBJECTIVE" in John's explanation of his position is kind of confusing me.

Here are their definitions:

ob·jec·tive ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-jktv)
adj.
Of or having to do with a material object.
Having actual existence or reality.

Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair1.
Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.


sub·jec·tive ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sb-jktv)
adj.

Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.
Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.
Moodily introspective.
Existing only in the mind; illusory.
Psychology. Existing only within the experiencer's mind.
Medicine. Of, relating to, or designating a symptom or condition perceived by the patient and not by the examiner.
Expressing or bringing into prominence the individuality of the artist or author.
Grammar. Relating to or being the nominative case.
Relating to the real nature of something; essential.

Based on the definitions above: If perseverance is SUBJECTIVE, it is only in the mind of the person experiencing it. Therefore we should not rely on it, because it is not of God, but of man. Also if perseverance is SUBJECTIVE, then a person may think he is persevering, but in fact is not.
But this is just my subjective opinion.

OBJECTIVE assurance, which is what Jac seems to be referring to is the only true assurance. We receive that objective assurance from scripture.

August,
Can you explain this in a way that may not be so confusing. Or maybe John M. has more text that you can pull from that can help me understand this position.

Hi YLTYLT,

The basis from which MacArthur speaks here about "subjective assurance", is as mentioned above, the sensing that the Holy Spirit is working in us. And it even goes a little deeper than that. In 1 Cor 11:28, and in 2 Cor 13:5, we are commanded to examine and test ourselves to see whether we are in the faith. This is what he means with subjective assurance, because if we are to test ourselves, then as you noted, by definition it will have to come from within us, through our introspection.

Hope that helps.

[Byblos]

*sigh*

There's nothing wrong with the argument I presented, August. What would you say if a Catholic told you he didn't believe in salvation by faith plus works. That was just a misunderstanding. Salvation is by faith alone, and then he goes on with some sort of justification as to why works being necessary don't mean salvation by works. It's a real example. Byblos has done as much here. Is it not proper to point out the logical conclusions of their position?

Jac, I think you are either grossly misrepresenting my position or you completely missed the point. You make it sound like I pulled this position out of a hat. Truth is, that is the official church position. Too bad not many Catholics know it. Not sure whether the fault lies with the church itself or with the members; perhaps a little of both. But then again, show me an organization that's as old or as large as the Catholic church that doesn't have any problems.

In any case, the catholic position is really very simple. I would tend to think it is much closer to other denominations that do not advocate your version of free grace.

First, the misunderstanding is that catholicism teaches SALVATION by faith and works. Not true. Pope John Paul II himself re-affirmed it in 1999 that salvation is by faith alone thru Jesus Christ. Here's a link on the subject:

http://www.citizensoldier.org/Popesalvationbyfaith.html (a non-catholic site, by the way).

Second, I think we can all agree on the following points:

1) that faith is absolutely necessary for salvation and
2) that we are absolutely commanded by God to do good works.

Both these points are very clear in Scripture (well Jac, you might be the exception that disagrees with this).

Given the above, then where is the dispute? The catholic church believes it is centered around what is meant by salvation. When Luther said that we are saved by faith alone, he was referring to salvation the initial step, i.e. justification or being put right with God. But when the council of Trent said that we are saved by good works as well, they meant salvation the whole process by which God brings us to our eternal destiny and that process includes repentance, faith, hope, and charity, and the works of love.

Luther also used the word 'faith' in that broad sense that includes repentance, faith, hope, and charity, which mirrored how Paul used the word 'faith' in Romans. But in 1 Corinthians 13, Paul uses it in a more specific sense, as just one of the three theological virtues, with hope and charity added to it. In this narrower sense, faith alone is not sufficient for salvation, for hope and charity must be present also.

That, my friend, is what I was trying to convey. I do realize you disagree with most, if not all of it, but this hardly a catholic position per se.

What's more, when you say something like

then he goes on with some sort of justification as to why works being necessary don't mean salvation by works

, you tell me Jac, who is using 'some sort of justification' for their position? Me, who reads scripture as pertaining to one and all, irrespective of who the audience was? Or you who has to justify virtually every scriptural quote to make it fit a pre-conceived position?

While I do agree with you that scripture was written at a particular time and a particular place for a particular audience, I totally disagree with you that its message is still meant as such. The message is universal Jac. When God says all will be judged according to their works, I believe him. I do not go back to see if there's a loophole somewhere in scripture that allows me to state otherwise, such as who the audience was when scripture was written. That, my friend is what you do.

But for argument's sake, let us really pretend that your position is correct and works are absolutely unnecessary even as an outward show of faith. Do you really think God is somehow going to punish us for doing them? I submit to you that he will not as by virtue of believing in Jesus Christ we have assured ourselves of salvation even if we fall out of grace (i.e. practice good works). Guess what Jac, your position guarantees us salvation despite the fact that we were baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Let us now consider the alternative and your position turns out to be totally inaccurate. Dare I or you consider the consequences, Jac? I do not wish that on my worst enemy, let alone a brother in Christ.

Always in Christ,

John.

[Jac3510]

Haha, awesome. I didn't realize you were still around, but I'm glad for the reply, as it absolutely proves my point. Yes, Catholocism SAYS they believe in faith alone, but you don't. And you justify it. You redefine your terms. *shrug* That's my point, August

But for argument's sake, let us really pretend that your position is correct and works are absolutely unnecessary even as an outward show of faith. Do you really think God is somehow going to punish us for doing them? I submit to you that he will not as by virtue of believing in Jesus Christ we have assured ourselves of salvation even if we fall out of grace (i.e. practice good works). Guess what Jac, your position guarantees us salvation despite the fact that we were baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

God won't punish you for doing works, but the problem is that you've not believed in Jesus Christ--not in the way I'm advocating. We are preaching different gospels. I preach faith in Christ APART from works. That means that if you think works are at all necessary--even as an outward demonstration of faith--then you haven't believed the Gospel. So, my position does not guarantee you salvation. It guarantees salvation to the person who trusts in Christ ALONE for salvation, apart from his repentance, commitment of life, good works, baptism, continuance in the faith, etc.

I'm not going to judge your personal salvation, Byblos. I don't know what you personally have believed with reference to salvation. What I can say is that the Catholic dogma is one that will land a person in Hell, based on my understanding of Scripture. Does that mean all Catholics go to Hell? Of course not. You can get saved and then become a Catholic. Or, you can get saved as a Catholic. That's the beauty of the Gospel. It doesn't care who or what you are. It asks a simple question: "Have you accepted the free gift of salvation offered by Jesus Christ?" You can't say "yes" and then start redefining terms. To answer "yes" means to come before Christ and simply take it, offering NOTHING in return. If you offer ANYTHING in return--be it your repentance, commitment, etc.--you haven't received it.

God saves by grace or not at all.

[August]

And you justify it. You redefine your terms. *shrug* That's my point, August

I want to ask then, what is the objective measure of what these terms mean? I know the logical answer is that Scripture will tell us, but that is the whole basis of the disagreement, there are some differences of opinion about what is understood by the different terms in Scripture.

It seems that without an objective standard meaning of the terms, the argument will remain unresolvable, since each party can continue to say that the others redefine terms.

[Jac3510]

That's my whole point, August. You can clearly see that Byblos has redefined the terms so that he can use the phrase "salvation by faith alone"--we have to use that, since Paul clearly taught it!

So, does that mean we should just end discussion? Is Scripture unintelligible? Of course not. That's why we do two things: first, we point out how we are using terms differently, and then we defend our positions. My original problem was that you were getting on to me for pointing out that we are using terms differently. That's the nature of debate, though. That's what we do.

Unless we are postmodernists, words DO have an objective meaning. Pointing out that someone is changing that meaning is exactly what we are supposed to do . . . that doesn't make the process subjective. It just means that someone is wrong and refuses to see it.

[August]

No, and that's fair enough, and I did not say it shouldn't be debated.

But without having an objective measure, everyone remains convinced that their version of the interpretation is correct, and the argument remains unresolvable. While standalone words do have an objective meaning, they are presented in different contexts, so now we have to agree on what the standard is for deciding objective context, and the problem remains. For example, we differ on whether James is talking about the earthly life or eternal life, and that context gives different meanings to the words in the passage.

For you to say that someone is wrong and refuses to see it, there has to be an objective standard of right and wrong. I think if it was that easy, we would have been one big happy Christian family a long time ago.

[Jac3510]

I agree that interpretation is a subjective thing. But lets take James as an example, since you bring it up. Rather than drop the entire issue, we should discuss the context of the passage to get at its actual meaning. In the end, I'm not going to change your mind any more than you will change mind, so long as we are advocating a position. That's why my "battle cry" is "clarity, not consensus." The people who may be influenced by our discussion are those who are reading it who do not yet advocate a position.

Of course, there are those rare cases where someone is simply so obviously proven wrong, then one is forced to admit his error. But, that's an exception . . . the point is that we can have debate. In the context of this discussion, the point is that my remarks about MacArthur were completely appropriate, so far as my pointing out that just because he SAYS he believes in assurance doesn't mean he actually does.

[August]

I agree that interpretation is a subjective thing. But lets take James as an example, since you bring it up. Rather than drop the entire issue, we should discuss the context of the passage to get at its actual meaning. In the end, I'm not going to change your mind any more than you will change mind, so long as we are advocating a position. That's why my "battle cry" is "clarity, not consensus." The people who may be influenced by our discussion are those who are reading it who do not yet advocate a position.

Sure, discussing the context in detail leads to an increase in knowledge and hopefully some spiritual growth. We should however be sensitive to the fact that our position may or not be the correct one, and also to the fact that we are dealing with each other in humbleness and to the glory of God, not ourselves.

Of course, there are those rare cases where someone is simply so obviously proven wrong, then one is forced to admit his error. But, that's an exception . . . the point is that we can have debate.

I agree with having debate, as long as we are aware that the topic of the debate may be unresolveable.

In the context of this discussion, the point is that my remarks about MacArthur were completely appropriate, so far as my pointing out that just because he SAYS he believes in assurance doesn't mean he actually does.

How does accusing MacArthur of being a liar make your remarks relevant How do you know he does not believe in assurance? If we cannot take people by their word, meaning that we believe they believe what they are saying, then it is equally as easy for an opponent to retort in like manner. I can for example say that I don't believe that you have assurance of salvation, even if you say you have. It will soon become an "I say -you say" debate, and in my opinion does not add much value. It is much better to address the arguments, and leave the person out of it.

[Jac3510]

How does accusing MacArthur of being a liar make your remarks relevant How do you know he does not believe in assurance? If we cannot take people by their word, meaning that we believe they believe what they are saying, then it is equally as easy for an opponent to retort in like manner. I can for example say that I don't believe that you have assurance of salvation, even if you say you have. It will soon become an "I say -you say" debate, and in my opinion does not add much value. It is much better to address the arguments, and leave the person out of it.

I didn't call him a liar. I'm sure that he believes in assurance, however he chooses to define it. In exactly the same sense, Catholics believe in "faith alone" as they choose to define it.

In an absolutely ideal situation, we would thoroughly define every term before we began our discussions, but we both know you can't do that. You have to define as you go. So, I come to MacArthur who repeatedly says that if a person is living in sin, he cannot know that he is saved. And I find him saying that if a person isn't living like a Christian, then he can't know he is saved. I find him saying that the more we grow in Christ, the more we can know that we are saved.

Then, he turns around, in response to a charge, no less, and says that he does believe that assurance is objective, but goes on to qualify that it is only for the true believer. How do you know if you are a true believer? See above. So, what I do is to point out the inconsistency in his position. If your entire objection is to my use of the word "double speak", then I can avoid the word, I suppose. But, in my mind, that's what it is . . . saying one thing and then turning around and saying the opposite. The same goes with the term "lip service." Yes, these words have negative connotations, but they have objecive bases that we can use to determine if they are logical charges or not.

Of course, MacArthur is only a representative, isn't he? It isn't MacArthur himself, so much, that I accuse of double-speak, or inconsitency, if you prefer the word, but rather the Lordship Salvation position in general. John makes a good representative because he's been so vocal on the subject, although we could equally use Sproul, Stott, Boyce, Dabney, Begg, Adrian Rodgers, or a host of others as well.

I don't want to get too far off, though. Tell me where my thinking is off so far as THIS thread goes:

1. You denied that LS teaches assurance by works,
2. I requested documentation,
3. You provided a quote from MacArthur,
4. I replied that his quote did not support your contention on the basis that he has redefined words,
5. You argued that I can't make the above charge, as we have to basically take people at their words,
6. I replied that we don't have take people at their words, but instead have to measure their words for consistency, i.e. Catholics and salvation (thanks again, Byblos )

It seems you agree with me ojn (6), and that your objection now seems to be only against my terminology with reference to John's position. If that is the case, should I redraft my reply to John's quote? My arguments will be exactly the same . . . he is inconsistent in his thinking, and he does, in fact, teach assurance by works.

Again, for John:

1. Objective assurance is available only to true believers,
2. Not all believers are true believers,
3. Thus, objective assurance is not available to all believers.

The question naturally arises, how do you know if you are a true believer? Answer: subjective assurance tells you that you are. Thus, you cannot KNOW you are a true believer . . . you can only be sure. Therefore, you cannot KNOW objectively that you have salvation. You can only be as sure as your subjective assurance takes you.

Anyway you cut it, that is not the kind of assurance am advocating. Thus, when I say that there is no objective assurance in LS theology, and further when I say that LS advocates reject the doctrine of assurance (as I FG people define it), then I am absolutely right. I should think you could agree with me on this.

edit: BTW . . . in reading MacArthur's books, have you read Faith Works? On pages 180-182 he talks about why the term "eternal security" is misleading and how we should, instead, talk about perseverence of the saints. However, he also admits that quantification is impossible and thus, to quote Wilkin, "and thereby de facto admits that 100% certainty of salvation is impossible."

edit2: I also wanted to note something else about MacArthur's argument that I've mentioned before, but I want to confirm it. Rom 8:16 says that the "Spirit testifies with our spirit" . . . MacArthur, and the Westminster Catechism, take this as if it says that the "Spirit testifes to our spirit," but that's not what it says. The word "testifies with" is summartureo and it means "to testify along with." It is actually a compound word. Martureo means "to testify" and sun is a preposition that means "along with." That's why I said earlier that a straight reading of the grammar is that the Holy Spirit bears witness along with us TO the Father that we are His children, thus, confirming the two witnesses God requires. Further, if you read Rom. 8:14ff, you will find that this idea fits the context much better.

[Canuckster1127]

Good luck to both of you.

When you get it all sorted out ..... report back to the rest of us and we'll go back through the last 2000 years and straighten out all of Church History as well.

[August]

Good luck to both of you.

When you get it all sorted out ..... report back to the rest of us and we'll go back through the last 2000 years and straighten out all of Church History as well.

That's funny....

[Byblos]

Haha, awesome. I didn't realize you were still around, but I'm glad for the reply, as it absolutely proves my point. Yes, Catholocism SAYS they believe in faith alone, but you don't. And you justify it. You redefine your terms. *shrug* That's my point, August

I'm always around, Jac. I've just been too darn busy lately. I really don't know how you can say your point has been proven when, as August pointed out, we're using certain terminology such as salvation and faith in completely different contexts. I agree with August, it is rather pointless to keep arguing the point unless we define common grounds of understanding.

But for argument's sake, let us really pretend that your position is correct and works are absolutely unnecessary even as an outward show of faith. Do you really think God is somehow going to punish us for doing them? I submit to you that he will not as by virtue of believing in Jesus Christ we have assured ourselves of salvation even if we fall out of grace (i.e. practice good works). Guess what Jac, your position guarantees us salvation despite the fact that we were baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

God won't punish you for doing works, but the problem is that you've not believed in Jesus Christ--not in the way I'm advocating. We are preaching different gospels. I preach faith in Christ APART from works.

You better believe it's a different gospel since your position is totally non-existent in any of the 4 gospel I've read. You try to justify it by not actually reading the gospel itself but by defining in terms of who was listening to it at the time. That is simply wrong but that's not exactly the point I was trying to make.

That means that if you think works are at all necessary--even as an outward demonstration of faith--then you haven't believed the Gospel. So, my position does not guarantee you salvation. It guarantees salvation to the person who trusts in Christ ALONE for salvation, apart from his repentance, commitment of life, good works, baptism, continuance in the faith, etc.

The point I was making is that your position is a subset of mine in so much as I believe that salvation is a free gift from God thru Jesus Christ and as such, guarantees me salvation. On that basis then, when I do do good works, according to you I've fallen out of grace. But that's ok since you advocate that falling out of grace will not cause one to lose their guaranteed salvation. The same cannot be said for your position.

I'm not going to judge your personal salvation, Byblos. I don't know what you personally have believed with reference to salvation. What I can say is that the Catholic dogma is one that will land a person in Hell, based on my understanding of Scripture. Does that mean all Catholics go to Hell? Of course not. You can get saved and then become a Catholic. Or, you can get saved as a Catholic. That's the beauty of the Gospel. It doesn't care who or what you are. It asks a simple question: "Have you accepted the free gift of salvation offered by Jesus Christ?" You can't say "yes" and then start redefining terms. To answer "yes" means to come before Christ and simply take it, offering NOTHING in return. If you offer ANYTHING in return--be it your repentance, commitment, etc.--you haven't received it.
God saves by grace or not at all.

Funny, I thought you've done nothing but judge everyone else's salvation, Jac, tsk tsk.

Let me ask you a question. What do you do with a precious gift when you receive it? Or rather what are you supposed to do with it? I don't know about you but I would protect it, cherish it, keep it clean, and make sure it will last until eternity (pun very much intended). I don't know what your position on free will is Jac but I would tend to think you are very much for it considering the much heated debate you had with PL. I have to tell you your position completely negates free will because it robs you of the choice to reject God if you so chose (after you've been saved, that is). It robs you of the chance to stand before God and him judging you like he said he will. I receive my free gift and I persevere to protect it until the end. God will judge me fairly but it is up to me to want to be with him and that means my whole life, not just an instance of perceived salvation.

[Jac3510]

I'm always around, Jac. I've just been too darn busy lately. I really don't know how you can say your point has been proven when, as August pointed out, we're using certain terminology such as salvation and faith in completely different contexts. I agree with August, it is rather pointless to keep arguing the point unless we define common grounds of understanding.

The point that was made, which you confirmed, was that I was justified in citing MacArthur's inconsistency. John was responding to an accusation that there is no assurance in his position. Therefore, he says, "Yes, there is assurance." Then, instead of proving there is assurance in his position, he proves there is assurance'. The ' is not a typo. He takes "assurance" and redefines it to be consistent with his own argument. He is, therefore, still open to the original attack that there is no assurance (as FGers define it) in his position. To prove this point to August, I used your dogma as an example. You like to say that you believe in "faith alone." However, you do NOT believe in faith alone as the Reformers did. You use the same terminology, but in a different way. So, let's call your position "Faith alone" and let's call my position Foo. I will openly say that, based on our definition, I don't believe in "faith alone"--words are, of course--nothing but labels. I hold to Foo. You do NOT believe in Foo. Thus, when I say, "Catholics do not believe in Foo," you would agree. Thus, when I say, "Catholics do not believe in Faith alone," you must agree--not say, "Yes we do!" Your proper response, as should be MacArthur's, is this: "No, I do not believe it in the sense you define it. However, I find your definition to be incorrect. This is how I understand the doctrine."

So, the tl;dr is that I was exactly justified in my attack on MacArthur's consistency, since he would have his readers believe that he does accept the doctrine of assurance as his opponents charge he does not, when, in fact, he does not.

So, thanks again for being a living illustration

You better believe it's a different gospel since your position is totally non-existent in any of the 4 gospel I've read. You try to justify it by not actually reading the gospel itself but by defining in terms of who was listening to it at the time. That is simply wrong but that's not exactly the point I was trying to make.

The bolded part I'm ok with. The rest is simply editorial at best, and unsupported assertions at worst. Of course I disagree with your statements, but that doesn't come as a shock, does it?

The point I was making is that your position is a subset of mine in so much as I believe that salvation is a free gift from God thru Jesus Christ and as such, guarantees me salvation. On that basis then, when I do do good works, according to you I've fallen out of grace. But that's ok since you advocate that falling out of grace will not cause one to lose their guaranteed salvation. The same cannot be said for your position.

Yes, I know the point you were making, and it is a point I reject as incorrect. My position is NOT a subset of yours. I agree with Luther in that any salvation that considers works necessary is no salvation at all. There is only one way to receive the gift of salvation, which is by trust in Christ alone to receive it. That means that if you think that repentance, commitment of life, perseverance in faith, baptism, or any such idea is a necessary action on your part--be that requisite or prerequisite--you have not received the gift.

The channel to receive the gift is faith: Eph. 2:8-10. As we define "faith" differently, my gospel is NOT a subset of yours.

I would suggest reading Bob Wilkin, Zane Hodges, or Charles Ryrie, as they have all done a superb job in explaining and defending the position that I hold.

Funny, I thought you've done nothing but judge everyone else's salvation, Jac, tsk tsk.

The good news is that you thinking it doesn't make it true . I have an objective measure to decide whether or not someone is saved: have you ever trusted Christ alone, apart from your repentance, commitment of life, etc., for everlasting life? In other words, have you simply received what Christ has freely offered? There's a million ways to phrase the question. In the end, my question is simple: what have you trusted for your justification?

So far as it goes, I'm not going to question a person's honesty in their answer. If, though, someone says to me, "I'm justified because I've given my life to Jesus," then I know they probably have not received the gift of salvation. It's certainly not because they aren't good people, but because they've not believed the right thing. They've not believed the Gospel. If, on the other hand, someone says, "I'm justified because Jesus said He's saved me if I believed in Him for it, and I have," then they are saved. I don't care HOW they live. I don't care what the external circumstances indicate. It is entirely an objective question as to what you have believed.

Let me ask you a question. What do you do with a precious gift when you receive it? Or rather what are you supposed to do with it? I don't know about you but I would protect it, cherish it, keep it clean, and make sure it will last until eternity (pun very much intended). I don't know what your position on free will is Jac but I would tend to think you are very much for it considering the much heated debate you had with PL. I have to tell you your position completely negates free will because it robs you of the choice to reject God if you so chose (after you've been saved, that is). It robs you of the chance to stand before God and him judging you like he said he will. I receive my free gift and I persevere to protect it until the end. God will judge me fairly but it is up to me to want to be with him and that means my whole life, not just an instance of perceived salvation.

Of course I believe we should cherish our salvation. We should work it out in fear and trembling. That's one of the many problems with both Lordship thinkers and Romanists. MacArthur likes to call Free Grace theology "no-Lordship salvation." It's totally purjorative, and totally wrong. No FG theologian denies the Lordship of Christ. We deny that submission to that Lordship is necessary for salvation, as the sole requirement for salvation is belief that He will save you because He said He will . . . it's the free reception of the gift. I don't think you or MacArthur would like it if I labeled your position "no-Grace theology"!

So, drop the purjorative remarks and straw man attacks. If you want to discuss my beliefs, discuss them on their own terms, not something you make up about them. If you see a logical conclusion in my beliefs, we can talk about it. But don't characterize them as something they aren't, and don't attribute to me positions I don't hold.

As far as denying free will, you're reaching there. If you want to define Free Will as the ability to reject God after salvation, then, no, I don't believe in Free Will. But, I don't define the term that way, and I don't think most people do. I believe that people have the ability to choose to receive as true the relelation of God, and, as such, they have the abilility to trust Christ for their salvation. At that point, salvation is NOT dependant on the person. It is dependant on God.

The flaw in your objection is that you think I "choose" to be saved. That's not at all true. It's as if I have some part in the salvic process, which I don't. Salvation is completely and totally the work of God. He takes those who have trusted Christ to save them, and then He does what He promised: He saves them. That is, He justifies them, forgives them, sanctifies them, indwells them, seals them, etc., and He promises to adopt them, glorify them, and give them an eternal inheritance. None of that is my choice, so it doesn't have anything to do with my free will or lack there of.

God bless

[FFC]

My question to you who say that works prove our salvation is where do we draw the line? We all fall into sin at times, that's why we have an advocate with the Father. We all have times when we get angry at God and have to force ourselves to go through the motions like the son in the parable that said he didn't want to do what his Father asked him to do, but later did it anyway, and sometimes we even give up for awhile and run away, like the prodigal son. Can we rightly judge that such a person isn't a christian?

We all sin and if we say we don't we're liars. The absence of marvelous fruit or the presence of a hideous sin proves nothing except that we still have a flesh and a free will. It all comes down to whether we have a relationship with God the Father through His son, doesn't it?

Fruit is a wonderful indication that we are truly walking in the Spirit, but I have a hard time believing that it is a meter of our salvation. I think that goes much deeper that what we do or say or the rules we follow. It has to do with the true motive of our hearts. It is grace that saved us and grace that keeps us and God will sort all that out one day.

It is God that works in us to do and to will of His good pleasure.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[Byblos]

Let me ask you a question. What do you do with a precious gift when you receive it? Or rather what are you supposed to do with it? I don't know about you but I would protect it, cherish it, keep it clean, and make sure it will last until eternity (pun very much intended). I don't know what your position on free will is Jac but I would tend to think you are very much for it considering the much heated debate you had with PL. I have to tell you your position completely negates free will because it robs you of the choice to reject God if you so chose (after you've been saved, that is). It robs you of the chance to stand before God and him judging you like he said he will. I receive my free gift and I persevere to protect it until the end. God will judge me fairly but it is up to me to want to be with him and that means my whole life, not just an instance of perceived salvation.

Of course I believe we should cherish our salvation. We should work it out in fear and trembling.

And exactly how do you do that without doing anything at all? I.e. without constituting whatever it is that you must do to 'work it out in fear and trembling' as works.

That's one of the many problems with both Lordship thinkers and Romanists. MacArthur likes to call Free Grace theology "no-Lordship salvation." It's totally purjorative, and totally wrong. No FG theologian denies the Lordship of Christ. We deny that submission to that Lordship is necessary for salvation, as the sole requirement for salvation is belief that He will save you because He said He will . . . it's the free reception of the gift. I don't think you or MacArthur would like it if I labeled your position "no-Grace theology"!

So, drop the purjorative remarks and straw man attacks. If you want to discuss my beliefs, discuss them on their own terms, not something you make up about them. If you see a logical conclusion in my beliefs, we can talk about it. But don't characterize them as something they aren't, and don't attribute to me positions I don't hold.

As far as denying free will, you're reaching there. If you want to define Free Will as the ability to reject God after salvation, then, no, I don't believe in Free Will. But, I don't define the term that way, and I don't think most people do. I believe that people have the ability to choose to receive as true the relelation of God, and, as such, they have the abilility to trust Christ for their salvation. At that point, salvation is NOT dependant on the person. It is dependant on God.

Pejorative? Straw man attack? I did nothing of the sort. I simply pointed out that your version of salvation negates free will on the basis that it leaves no room to reject it. And you agreed with that. That's good enough for me but I categorically reject that. I believe judgement applies to all and as such, I am to be judged on how I persevered in the free gift I've received.

The flaw in your objection is that you think I "choose" to be saved. That's not at all true. It's as if I have some part in the salvic process, which I don't. Salvation is completely and totally the work of God. He takes those who have trusted Christ to save them, and then He does what He promised: He saves them. That is, He justifies them, forgives them, sanctifies them, indwells them, seals them, etc., and He promises to adopt them, glorify them, and give them an eternal inheritance. None of that is my choice, so it doesn't have anything to do with my free will or lack there of.

There is no flaw in my reasoning Jac. It is either you have the free will to reject God, before or after you've accepted his free gift, or you do not. That's what the argument comes down to. I think we both know where we stand on that. I am comfortable leaving it at that.