Salvation?

[Jac3510]

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.

One word: discipleship. This is not necessary for salvation, but we are called to do it by Christ. There are benefits in the next life for going through the process. There is the loss of reward for those who don't.

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.

Yes, sir, you did something "of the sort." In saying that it is necessary to keep a gift, and necessary to cherish a gift, you say that my denial of these points mean that I don't cherish the gift. That's a "no-gratitude" position, which is purjorative. And you did present a straw man of my position by claiming that I reject free will. I don't.

Now, for the record, will you be judged on your perseverence? Of course. That's what discipleship is about. You will be judged very severely in it. Will that judgment relate to salvation? No, it will not. It will relate to rewards. I already discussed with you how the judgments system works, Byblos. You never felt the need to respond other than to say, "Yes, well I believe that all people will be judged." So do I. So, in saying that I don't think all people will be judged, you have set up ANOTHER straw man.

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

No, your reasoning is deeply flawed here, and it doesn't help that you have refused to interact with my position. You charge that I reject free will. On what basis? On the basis that I don't think you can "opt out" of salvation. However, that makes an untrue assumption about my position, which is that we work with God in our own salvation. And that simply is not true. God chooses to save those who believe in Jesus. It is totally His work. Therefore, our "choice" has absolutely no bearing on our salvation. We cannot choose to be unsaved as we did not choose to be saved. We chose to trust Christ, and God chose to save us. We can, of course, choose to stop trusting Christ, but that does not mean that God is forced to change His mind. He still has His choice, which is to save us. So, I completely accept free will. In fact, it is basic to my entire position. We CAN choose to stop trusting Christ, but that as NO bearing on our salvation, as salvation is GOD'S choice, and not ours. So, yes, you've assumed things about my position that aren't true, and therefore, your thinking is flawed.

Now, the fact that you think that you have a role in saving yourself--choosing to work with God by persevering--is clearly a different gospel, furthing proving my point that you were wrong in claiming that my belief is a subset of yours. Perseverence doesn't save, Byblos. Perseverence results in rewards. If you think perseverence leads to salvation, then you've trusted a false gospel for your salvation and are in danger of the fires of hell. Have you ever trusted Christ alone for your salvation, apart from your repentance/perseverance?

FFC: great post! That gets very well at the heart of the matter.

[Byblos]

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

No, your reasoning is deeply flawed here, and it doesn't help that you have refused to interact with my position. You charge that I reject free will. On what basis? On the basis that I don't think you can "opt out" of salvation. However, that makes an untrue assumption about my position, which is that we work with God in our own salvation. And that simply is not true. God chooses to save those who believe in Jesus. It is totally His work. Therefore, our "choice" has absolutely no bearing on our salvation. We cannot choose to be unsaved as we did not choose to be saved. We chose to trust Christ, and God chose to save us. We can, of course, choose to stop trusting Christ, but that does not mean that God is forced to change His mind. He still has His choice, which is to save us. So, I completely accept free will. In fact, it is basic to my entire position. We CAN choose to stop trusting Christ, but that as NO bearing on our salvation, as salvation is GOD'S choice, and not ours. So, yes, you've assumed things about my position that aren't true, and therefore, your thinking is flawed.

Now, the fact that you think that you have a role in saving yourself--choosing to work with God by persevering--is clearly a different gospel, furthing proving my point that you were wrong in claiming that my belief is a subset of yours. Perseverence doesn't save, Byblos. Perseverence results in rewards. If you think perseverence leads to salvation, then you've trusted a false gospel for your salvation and are in danger of the fires of hell. Have you ever trusted Christ alone for your salvation, apart from your repentance/perseverance?

Accusations and counter-accusations. Come on Jac, we're not getting anywhere. I asked a simple question you did not answer it because you say I'm making an erroneous assumption. Let me ask it in a different manner, very bluntly: In your system of salvation, after you have been saved, do you have the free will to tell God 'I DO NOT WANT TO GO TO HEAVEN. I REJECT YOU AND AS SUCH PLEASE MAKE SURE I GO TO HELL'. Can you do that? Can you say that and it will be done? If you can, then to me that is the ultimate expression of free will but you know what that entails as well, don;t you?. If you tell me you cannot, then the way I see it (and I could be wrong, lest I am accused of straw man arguments) you have denied the free will to choose. Of course, you can always say 'I can't answer that because you are making the wrong assumption'. Ok, fine, whatever.

[Jac3510]

Better, Byblos. Now you are pointing out what you believe to be a logical conclusion of my position (which I deny). That is very different from saying that my position is one that denies free will.

To answer your question, if I've been saved, no, I cannot opt out.

Now, is that a denial of free will? NO. And it is fallicious to argue that it is. Now, in YOUR system it would be a denial, because you work with God for your salvation. Therefore, the will must be free to choose either way. However, that assumption isn't found in Free Grace theology. We choose to trust in Christ, and then HE saves. It is HIS choice, not ours.

See, in Romanism, you choose to be saved and thus do the things necessary (however you define that). As a result, you can, at any point, choose to be unsaved by not doing the things necessary.

However, in Free Grace theology, I do NOT choose to be saved. I choose to trust Christ to save me. He chooses to save me. Now, can I at a later time choose to stop trusting Christ? YES. Does that change Christ's choice? NO. If it did, then Jesus would have no free will. He would simply be responding to what we commanded Him to do. As it is, we have the free will to trust Christ or not trust Christ. This is true both before and after our conversion. However, at no time, either before or after our conversion, do we choose to be saved or not be saved. That's the basic idea that you haven't gotten yet, I guess, in our discussion.

[Byblos]

Better, Byblos. Now you are pointing out what you believe to be a logical conclusion of my position (which I deny). That is very different from saying that my position is one that denies free will.

To answer your question, if I've been saved, no, I cannot opt out.

Now, is that a denial of free will? NO. And it is fallicious to argue that it is. Now, in YOUR system it would be a denial, because you work with God for your salvation. Therefore, the will must be free to choose either way. However, that assumption isn't found in Free Grace theology. We choose to trust in Christ, and then HE saves. It is HIS choice, not ours.

See, in Romanism, you choose to be saved and thus do the things necessary (however you define that). As a result, you can, at any point, choose to be unsaved by not doing the things necessary.

However, in Free Grace theology, I do NOT choose to be saved. I choose to trust Christ to save me. He chooses to save me. Now, can I at a later time choose to stop trusting Christ? YES. Does that change Christ's choice? NO. If it did, then Jesus would have no free will. He would simply be responding to what we commanded Him to do. As it is, we have the free will to trust Christ or not trust Christ. This is true both before and after our conversion. However, at no time, either before or after our conversion, do we choose to be saved or not be saved. That's the basic idea that you haven't gotten yet, I guess, in our discussion.

I totally get it, Jac, I really do. And if I haven't said it before let me say it now, I hold a tremendous amount of respect for you and many others on this board as my theological knowledge pales in comparison. I do get it but I simply disagree with it. There's no basis whatsoever to say that Jesus would have no free will if I choose to reject him. God sacrificed his only begotten son so that my sins MAY be forgiven and to assure me that eternal salvation is available for everyone free of charge. Either I accept it or I reject it, much the same way Adam and Eve were presented with a choice in the garden of Eden. They chose to disobey the word of God out of their own free will. To say that our choosing God would invalidate his own free will is totally baseless. God wants us to chose him or reject him and He gave us the means of doing so, through Jesus Christ. I'm a rather simple man Jac, and I tend to read scripture from a very simplistic, almost child-like point of view. That's what I get from scripture (and other places, but then again I'm allowed, after all I'm catholic, right?).

[Jac3510]

Good deal, so you agree that my system completely allows for, and in fact requires, human free will. It also allows for, and requires, Divine free will.

Let me press the point with reference to my charge that Romanism doesn't allow for Divine free will. It seems to me that this will was free only to the point that God said He would save those who did certain things. After that, He has obligated Himself to Man.

Consider it this way: suppose I choose to be saved. So I do the things you say are necessary. However, after a time, I choose to be unsaved, for whatever my silly reasons. Now, Jesus does not have the choice of saving me! If He decides to save me ANYWAY, then He has, according to you, overridden my free will. Likewise, if I choose to be saved and do things necessary, then Jesus does not have the choice NOT to save me, because that would make Him a liar. Thus, while God is the One who saves, He does so under obligation and at our bidding.

That's the general problem, as I see it, with all types of thought that are not strictly "faith alone" in the reformed sense of the word. Yes, Protestants clearly disagree on the issue of Lordship, but we allow Divine free will. There are some Protestants who have the same problem I see in Romanism . . . the Church of Christ is a good example. They believe that five things are necessary for salvation: belief, repentance, baptism, good works, and perseverance. They strongly denounce "faith alone" messages as heretical . . . and, as such, they reject Divine freedom.

Free Grace theology doesn't have that problem. Unlike Reformed teaching, though, we also don't have the problem of ignoring man's responsibility. For all their talk, I view their statements that they really do believe in human responsibility much like I do MacArthur's claim that he believes in assurance, or the Catholic claim that salvation is by faith alone. They've redefined the terms so much that they just don't have any real meaning, in my opinion (and it's only that ). Regardless, what we can agree on is that, in FG theology, there is a very real sense in which both humans and God have free will, and as this is taught in Scripture, this is a strong indication that we are, in fact, correct on this matter.

On a side note, I appreciate the appeal to simplicity. It has a nice ring to it, but I just find the whole thing impractical. Puritan Lad made the same argument, and I addressed here. The context of the thread is predestination, but the general principle is still the same. I do find it a bit surprising, though, that you would think that Scriptures are simple. You believe that you have to have an authoritative body to tell you what the Scriptures actually mean . . . I would assume (correct me if I am wrong here) that people are encouraged to study for themselves, but their interpretations must line up with the interpretation of the RCC. If that's the case, then clearly, Scriptures aren't simple, otherwise, everyone would agree on the meaning!

Anyway, you obviously have the right to appeal to any authority you choose to. I don't hold that against you. Obviously, though, you understand that some authorities to which you appeal have no bearing/weight with me so far as my interpretation of Scriptures go

God bless

[Byblos]

Good deal, so you agree that my system completely allows for, and in fact requires, human free will. It also allows for, and requires, Divine free will.

Let's not get carried away now, Jac. I said I got it (I get where you're coming from). I believe I also said I didn't agree with it. I don't agree that your system allows for human free will at all but I will agree that it is a matter of subjective interpretation. Only time will tell.

Let me press the point with reference to my charge that Romanism doesn't allow for Divine free will. It seems to me that this will was free only to the point that God said He would save those who did certain things. After that, He has obligated Himself to Man.

Consider it this way: suppose I choose to be saved. So I do the things you say are necessary. However, after a time, I choose to be unsaved, for whatever my silly reasons. Now, Jesus does not have the choice of saving me! If He decides to save me ANYWAY, then He has, according to you, overridden my free will. Likewise, if I choose to be saved and do things necessary, then Jesus does not have the choice NOT to save me, because that would make Him a liar. Thus, while God is the One who saves, He does so under obligation and at our bidding.

I swear sometimes I just don't get what kind of logic you're employing. How is it that you think if God allowed me the choice then I'm negating His? Makes no sense whatsoever. Like I said before, God presented me with a path that doesn't cost me anything to travel upon. Whether or not I choose to take that path or another is totally up to me. In the end, God will judge me based on my choices. How is that negating His free will? That's what he wants me to do; that is what scripture reveals (as per my interpretation).

On the other hand, let me present you with a couple of scenarios that will clearly show the absurdity of your position.

Let's assume you can communicate with every living soul on earth at exactly the same time and you convince them all to suspend whatever different belief systems they hold and to put their trust in Jesus Christ, just for a moment. They listen to you, they genuinely believe they put their trust in Jesus to save them. Boom, you've just managed to offer eternal salvation for 6.5 billion living beings on earth. The moment passes and now everyone goes back to their old selves as Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Catholics, farmers, clerks, doctors, lawyers, thieves, rapists, murderers, terrorists and dictators. Under your system of salvation this scenario is entirely possible and is as equally absurd.

Take another, even worse, scenario and assume that Hitler in his youth had accepted Jesus Christ in his heart and really trusted him to be saved. Guess what Jac, in your system of salvation Hitler is sitting in heaven right now. Do you really not see the absurdity of that position? But then again, that is my subjective interpretation.

On a side note, I appreciate the appeal to simplicity. It has a nice ring to it, but I just find the whole thing impractical. Puritan Lad made the same argument, and I addressed here. The context of the thread is predestination, but the general principle is still the same. I do find it a bit surprising, though, that you would think that Scriptures are simple. You believe that you have to have an authoritative body to tell you what the Scriptures actually mean . . . I would assume (correct me if I am wrong here) that people are encouraged to study for themselves, but their interpretations must line up with the interpretation of the RCC. If that's the case, then clearly, Scriptures aren't simple, otherwise, everyone would agree on the meaning!

It is neither impractical nor surprising. I read scripture with simplicity because I believe the message is universal. I also have no problem referring to a higher authority that is more learned and more inspired when I feel the need for it. I don't know about you Jac but I'd rather trust the supreme court to interpret the constitution of the United States for me than to put that trust in myself. Not because I'm not capable nor because there are others who are equally or more capable. It's because the alternative is unthinkable. You trust 300 million persons to interpret the constitution you will get 310 million different interpretations and the end result is anarchy. I would think you can see the self-evidence of that in the multitude of different interpretation among the reformist denominations themselves. They all claim to be inspired by the Holy Spirit, yet the differences of opinion are fundamental and at times insurmountable. Clearly some of them are wrong; so do you think it is their respective interpretations that are wrong or do you think the Holy Spirit botched it?

In any case, you've said it best when you said you're not going to convince me of your position nor I you of mine. We both put our trust in Jesus Christ to show us the way. You believe Jesus will carry you over the path whereas I believe I need to walk it. In the end, it really is up to him to decide who's right (you see, the ultimate choice is his after all. )

Always in Christ,

Byblos.

[Jac3510]

Let's not get carried away now, Jac. I said I got it (I get where you're coming from). I believe I also said I didn't agree with it. I don't agree that your system allows for human free will at all but I will agree that it is a matter of subjective interpretation. Only time will tell.

What is "subjective interpretation" is whether or not the system is RIGHT, not what it does or does not allow. As an objective FACT, free will is allowed if Free Grace theology for both God and Man, as Man is not choosing to be saved, but choosing to trust Christ. God chooses whether or not to save Man. Both have the ability to make THESE choices. None other.

I swear sometimes I just don't get what kind of logic you're employing. How is it that you think if God allowed me the choice then I'm negating His? Makes no sense whatsoever. Like I said before, God presented me with a path that doesn't cost me anything to travel upon. Whether or not I choose to take that path or another is totally up to me. In the end, God will judge me based on my choices. How is that negating His free will? That's what he wants me to do; that is what scripture reveals (as per my interpretation).

I already answered the question, Byblos. If God allows me to make the choice, and I choose salvation, then He has NO CHOICE but to save me. Equally, if I choose NOT to be saved, the He does NOT have the CHOICE to save me. The fact that "whether or not I choose to take that path or another is totally up to me" proves that God has no choice. He judges me based on MY choice. Not His. You render God impotent. He is forced to simply ratify our decisions. Of course it is what He want me to do, but, again, suppose I choose not to walk the path. He CANNOT choose to save me. He has NO CHOICE--only I do, in Romanism, anyway.

Let's assume you can communicate with every living soul on earth at exactly the same time and you convince them all to suspend whatever different belief systems they hold and to put their trust in Jesus Christ, just for a moment. They listen to you, they genuinely believe they put their trust in Jesus to save them. Boom, you've just managed to offer eternal salvation for 6.5 billion living beings on earth. The moment passes and now everyone goes back to their old selves as Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Catholics, farmers, clerks, doctors, lawyers, thieves, rapists, murderers, terrorists and dictators. Under your system of salvation this scenario is entirely possible and is as equally absurd.

Take another, even worse, scenario and assume that Hitler in his youth had accepted Jesus Christ in his heart and really trusted him to be saved. Guess what Jac, in your system of salvation Hitler is sitting in heaven right now. Do you really not see the absurdity of that position? But then again, that is my subjective interpretation.

I really appreciate this discussion . . .

So your argument is that these Muslims, Hindues, Jews, atheists, and even *gasp* Hitler don't deserve Heaven?

It is neither impractical nor surprising. I read scripture with simplicity because I believe the message is universal. I also have no problem referring to a higher authority that is more learned and more inspired when I feel the need for it. I don't know about you Jac but I'd rather trust the supreme court to interpret the constitution of the United States for me than to put that trust in myself. Not because I'm not capable nor because there are others who are equally or more capable. It's because the alternative is unthinkable. You trust 300 million persons to interpret the constitution you will get 310 million different interpretations and the end result is anarchy. I would think you can see the self-evidence of that in the multitude of different interpretation among the reformist denominations themselves. They all claim to be inspired by the Holy Spirit, yet the differences of opinion are fundamental and at times insurmountable. Clearly some of them are wrong; so do you think it is their respective interpretations that are wrong or do you think the Holy Spirit botched it?

Again, you have the right to trust what you will. My problem is only that you think that Scriptures are simple.

1. The Scriptures are simple (easy to understand)
2. People are capable of understanding the simple,
3. Therefore, people are capable of understanding Scripture.

If (3) is true, there should be no plethora of interpretations. So, we all agree that "simple" here is misdefined. I don't know how you define "simple," Byblos, but however it is, I don't think it supports your contention that Scripture should be read "simply." It is a complex thing that requires interpretation, as you have admitted in your analogy of certain people being "qualified" to interpret. Are there those who claim they are inspired and are not? Of course. But does mean that EVERYONE is wrong? Again, of course not, because that would mean your own chuch is wrong. Their claim to infallibility is just as fallible as my claim that I have understood the doctrine of salvation correctly.

Anyway, I really don't care about this line of thought. I just found it a bit humorous that you complained about the complexity of Scripture, saying that it should be simple, and then turn around and claim that certain people must be "qualified" to interpret it correctly (the RCC)

In any case, you've said it best when you said you're not going to convince me of your position nor I you of mine. We both put our trust in Jesus Christ to show us the way. You believe Jesus will carry you over the path whereas I believe I need to walk it. In the end, it really is up to him to decide who's right (you see, the ultimate choice is his after all.)

I'm not shooting to change your mind. Clarity, not consensus. People reading this will judge for themselves who is right. It's not for you, it's for the one reading us. I want them to clearly see the arguments . . . no more, no less.

As far as you lost comment about Jesus' choice goes . . . you should know better. Suppose you and I are presented with a math equation. We come up with different answers, and then present them to the professor. Does he "choose" who is right? Of course not. Jesus isn't going to CHOOSE which one of us is right. He is going to declare that, or both, of us is wrong, based on what He knows to be correct.

[bizzt]

Jac may I intercede for a Moment? I am not wanting to get into a "Debate" but more of a Conversation. I agree with Byblos first and foremost. God gave us a free gift for us to choose to follow it or not. If we agree and accept the Lord Jesus into our heart then that Free Gift is ours. HOWEVER at any time because we have free will we can take that Free Gift back to God and say you know what I don't want it anymore. Therefore your Salvation has been taken away!!!! HOWEVER where I might different from Byblos (Don't know if I do) is that you have to give that Free Gift back. You may abuse that free Gift, etc but that Free Gift is still yours until you return it (if you return it)

I look at Judas Iscariot for an Example did he receive the Free Gift? Was he Saved? Is he in Heaven? What does scripture tell us?

Anyways Thanks for the reading Guys. Keep it civilized

[Byblos]

Let's not get carried away now, Jac. I said I got it (I get where you're coming from). I believe I also said I didn't agree with it. I don't agree that your system allows for human free will at all but I will agree that it is a matter of subjective interpretation. Only time will tell.

What is "subjective interpretation" is whether or not the system is RIGHT, not what it does or does not allow. As an objective FACT, free will is allowed if Free Grace theology for both God and Man, as Man is not choosing to be saved, but choosing to trust Christ. God chooses whether or not to save Man. Both have the ability to make THESE choices. None other.

Sorry, Jac, the fact is that your objectivity is very much subjective as long as others do not interpret it the way you do. That's the thing about objectivity, everyone must agree it's objective, otherwise it's meaningless.

I swear sometimes I just don't get what kind of logic you're employing. How is it that you think if God allowed me the choice then I'm negating His? Makes no sense whatsoever. Like I said before, God presented me with a path that doesn't cost me anything to travel upon. Whether or not I choose to take that path or another is totally up to me. In the end, God will judge me based on my choices. How is that negating His free will? That's what he wants me to do; that is what scripture reveals (as per my interpretation).

I already answered the question, Byblos. If God allows me to make the choice, and I choose salvation, then He has NO CHOICE but to save me. Equally, if I choose NOT to be saved, the He does NOT have the CHOICE to save me. The fact that "whether or not I choose to take that path or another is totally up to me" proves that God has no choice. He judges me based on MY choice. Not His. You render God impotent. He is forced to simply ratify our decisions. Of course it is what He want me to do, but, again, suppose I choose not to walk the path. He CANNOT choose to save me. He has NO CHOICE--only I do, in Romanism, anyway.

You answered the question but not to my satisfaction. I most certainly do not render God impotent. That is ludicrous. It is His judgment after all that will or will not allow me thru the gates of heaven. How could you say He has no say so in that decision? Totally untrue. In the same way it is our choice to accept or reject him, it is his decision to look upon our lives and decide whether or not we are deservent of him.

Let's assume you can communicate with every living soul on earth at exactly the same time and you convince them all to suspend whatever different belief systems they hold and to put their trust in Jesus Christ, just for a moment. They listen to you, they genuinely believe they put their trust in Jesus to save them. Boom, you've just managed to offer eternal salvation for 6.5 billion living beings on earth. The moment passes and now everyone goes back to their old selves as Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Catholics, farmers, clerks, doctors, lawyers, thieves, rapists, murderers, terrorists and dictators. Under your system of salvation this scenario is entirely possible and is as equally absurd.

Take another, even worse, scenario and assume that Hitler in his youth had accepted Jesus Christ in his heart and really trusted him to be saved. Guess what Jac, in your system of salvation Hitler is sitting in heaven right now. Do you really not see the absurdity of that position? But then again, that is my subjective interpretation.

I really appreciate this discussion . . .

So your argument is that these Muslims, Hindues, Jews, atheists, and even *gasp* Hitler don't deserve Heaven?

I'm confused Jac. On the one hand you say Catholics and Calvanists are preaching a false Gospel and are in danger of going to hell, a point very much far away from universalism; then you say Muslims, Jews, atheists, even Hitler are deserving of heaven; a point very much from the center of universalism. Which is it? Are you preaching universalism or are you not?

While it is certainly not up to me to decide whether or not Hitler deserves heaven, I have a hard time believing he was accepted there with open arms. You try witnessing to Jews telling them Hitler is in heaven then report back to me on your rate of success.

It is neither impractical nor surprising. I read scripture with simplicity because I believe the message is universal. I also have no problem referring to a higher authority that is more learned and more inspired when I feel the need for it. I don't know about you Jac but I'd rather trust the supreme court to interpret the constitution of the United States for me than to put that trust in myself. Not because I'm not capable nor because there are others who are equally or more capable. It's because the alternative is unthinkable. You trust 300 million persons to interpret the constitution you will get 310 million different interpretations and the end result is anarchy. I would think you can see the self-evidence of that in the multitude of different interpretation among the reformist denominations themselves. They all claim to be inspired by the Holy Spirit, yet the differences of opinion are fundamental and at times insurmountable. Clearly some of them are wrong; so do you think it is their respective interpretations that are wrong or do you think the Holy Spirit botched it?

Again, you have the right to trust what you will. My problem is only that you think that Scriptures are simple.

1. The Scriptures are simple (easy to understand)
2. People are capable of understanding the simple,
3. Therefore, people are capable of understanding Scripture.

If (3) is true, there should be no plethora of interpretations. So, we all agree that "simple" here is misdefined. I don't know how you define "simple," Byblos, but however it is, I don't think it supports your contention that Scripture should be read "simply." It is a complex thing that requires interpretation, as you have admitted in your analogy of certain people being "qualified" to interpret. Are there those who claim they are inspired and are not? Of course. But does mean that EVERYONE is wrong? Again, of course not, because that would mean your own chuch is wrong. Their claim to infallibility is just as fallible as my claim that I have understood the doctrine of salvation correctly.

Anyway, I really don't care about this line of thought. I just found it a bit humorous that you complained about the complexity of Scripture, saying that it should be simple, and then turn around and claim that certain people must be "qualified" to interpret it correctly (the RCC)

Do you understand the basic principles of the United States constitution, Jac? Do you have a hard time understanding the principles of freedom, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Do you understand the basic principles of criminality and subsequent due process? I would think any good citizen does understand and appreciate those basic principles without having to resort to the supreme court, don't you agree? If, on the other hand, there's a situation where 2 people disagree on the constitutionality of a matter, who do you think is the most appropriate body to resolve the dispute? Themselves or the experts in the constitution? Come on, Jac, it's really not a very hard concept to grasp.

In any case, you've said it best when you said you're not going to convince me of your position nor I you of mine. We both put our trust in Jesus Christ to show us the way. You believe Jesus will carry you over the path whereas I believe I need to walk it. In the end, it really is up to him to decide who's right (you see, the ultimate choice is his after all.)

I'm not shooting to change your mind. Clarity, not consensus. People reading this will judge for themselves who is right. It's not for you, it's for the one reading us. I want them to clearly see the arguments . . . no more, no less.

Finally, a point we can agree on.

As far as you lost comment about Jesus' choice goes . . . you should know better. Suppose you and I are presented with a math equation. We come up with different answers, and then present them to the professor. Does he "choose" who is right? Of course not. Jesus isn't going to CHOOSE which one of us is right. He is going to declare that, or both, of us is wrong, based on what He knows to be correct.

Except this is not exactly a math test, is it? It is rather like a project assigned to us by our boss. Since it was assigned to you, you choose to ignore directions and not do anything at all, considering your boss trusted you with the project. You expect his trust in you to be enough for him to say 'well done, Jac, here's your reward' even though you have done nothing to show that you believe he trusted you.

I choose to actually do the project and let him decide whether or not I am deserving of a reward. Free will all the way around, Jac.

Stay well my friend.

Always in Christ,

Byblos.

[Jac3510]

I'm just going to keep bring up the same arguments until you decide to deal with them, Byblos:

Sorry, Jac, the fact is that your objectivity is very much subjective as long as others do not interpret it the way you do. That's the thing about objectivity, everyone must agree it's objective, otherwise it's meaningless.

This discussion has enough parameters already without adding to it what "subjective" and "objective" means. What you CANNOT deny is that Free Grace theology allows for both the free will of God and the free will of man. I've shown that to be true throughout this thread, and you've not commented on the logic. If you disagree, it's up to you to show otherwise. Whether or not the FG interpretation of Scripture is true or not, well that's another issue.

You answered the question but not to my satisfaction. I most certainly do not render God impotent. That is ludicrous. It is His judgment after all that will or will not allow me thru the gates of heaven. How could you say He has no say so in that decision? Totally untrue. In the same way it is our choice to accept or reject him, it is his decision to look upon our lives and decide whether or not we are deservent of him.

How do you not render Him impotent? You have turned God into a Cosmic Vending Machine. Does the soda dispenser have a choice on whether or not to give me what I pay for? Of course not. Now, for the THIRD time, answer this scenario:

1. I choose to do the things necessary for salvation: Christ MUST save me.
2. I choose NOT do to the things necessary for salvation: Christ CANNOT save me.

By your own admission, if Christ saves the perosn who "gives back the gift," then He has overridden their free will. Therefore, Christ does not have Free Will. He can only do what we tell Him to do.

I'm confused Jac. On the one hand you say Catholics and Calvanists are preaching a false Gospel and are in danger of going to hell, a point very much far away from universalism; then you say Muslims, Jews, atheists, even Hitler are deserving of heaven; a point very much from the center of universalism. Which is it? Are you preaching universalism or are you not?

You can trust me in that I'm not a universalist. Now, did I say that Muslims, Jews, and atheists, and even Hitler are deserving of heaven? No, I did not. I don't think they are. So, let's get back to the point we were discussing:

A person "gets saved" and then converts (back) to Hinduism. You claim that person goes to hell. Similarly, let's say Hitler trusted Christ for his salvation at an early age. He then committed his later atrocities. So, he must go to Hell.

Byblos: why "must" they go to Hell? Must they go there because they don't deserve heaven, yes or no?

While it is certainly not up to me to decide whether or not Hitler deserves heaven, I have a hard time believing he was accepted there with open arms. You try witnessing to Jews telling them Hitler is in heaven then report back to me on your rate of success.

Arguments of incredulity aren't worth much in debate, Byblos. Did Hitler deserve heaven or hell?

Secondly, I suspect that not just Jews, but most decent human beings, would say that Hitler deserved Hell and would be repulsed by the idea that he could be in Heaven. The good news is that men aren't our judge. God is. So, Byblos . . . if Hitler actually did trust Christ for his salvation as a child, and then later did the things he did, did he go to heaven or hell? Did he deserve heaven? Did he deserve hell? You can answer that.

Do you understand the basic principles of the United States constitution, Jac? Do you have a hard time understanding the principles of freedom, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Do you understand the basic principles of criminality and subsequent due process? I would think any good citizen does understand and appreciate those basic principles without having to resort to the supreme court, don't you agree? If, on the other hand, there's a situation where 2 people disagree on the constitutionality of a matter, who do you think is the most appropriate body to resolve the dispute? Themselves or the experts in the constitution? Come on, Jac, it's really not a very hard concept to grasp.

The Supreme Court doesn't make a good comparison for you, Byblos, because their concern is in application. Someone has to decide how to apply it to certain situations. What does it say about this or that. It is a legal issue. Is it a "simple" document? Absolutely not. The principles are simple enough on the surface, much as Scriptural principles are simple on the surface, but when you get down to the nitty gritty, things get very complicated. This only goes to support my contention that Scripture is complex and NOT simple, which is in direct opposition to your appeal to a simplistic reading of Scripture.

Except this is not exactly a math test, is it? It is rather like a project assigned to us by our boss. Since it was assigned to you, you choose to ignore directions and not do anything at all, considering your boss trusted you with the project. You expect his trust in you to be enough for him to say 'well done, Jac, here's your reward' even though you have done nothing to show that you believe he trusted you.

Again, the analogy isn't accurate. The Scriptures only have one meaning. There is only one truth. God isn't going to listen to my arguments and then listen to your arguments and then CHOOSE which one of us is right. He is going to lay clearly the Truth, and then all will see, objectively, where we fall as it relates to that standard. So, this is much more like a math test than an assignment by a boss. That analogy would far better fit the Bema seat of Christ, where He will look at our works and decide our rewards.

Don't editorialize, Byblos.

God bless

[Jac3510]

Jac may I intercede for a Moment? I am not wanting to get into a "Debate" but more of a Conversation. I agree with Byblos first and foremost. God gave us a free gift for us to choose to follow it or not. If we agree and accept the Lord Jesus into our heart then that Free Gift is ours. HOWEVER at any time because we have free will we can take that Free Gift back to God and say you know what I don't want it anymore. Therefore your Salvation has been taken away!!!! HOWEVER where I might different from Byblos (Don't know if I do) is that you have to give that Free Gift back. You may abuse that free Gift, etc but that Free Gift is still yours until you return it (if you return it)

I look at Judas Iscariot for an Example did he receive the Free Gift? Was he Saved? Is he in Heaven? What does scripture tell us?

Anyways Thanks for the reading Guys. Keep it civilized

My understanding is that you believe that you can lose your salvation, bizzt. No offense . . . anyone who believes that is going to take Byblos' side on this. K would probably be in the same boat.

The basic point is the same: if you believe you can lose your salvation, then you make God impotent, as He is being forced to bend to OUR will. As I keep saying, if Christ can't save those who "give back" their salvation on the argument that He would be overriding our Free Will, then God has no choice in this. He does what we tell Him to do. Your position, though, is even weaker that Byblos' because Jesus said, "And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day." (John 6:39) Who are those that the Father gives to Jesus? Those who trust Jesus . . . the moment you trust Jesus, the Father gives you to Him. If you "give it back", then Christ has effectively lost something.

Of course, I don't expect you to agree, but that's fine, too.

God bless

[Canuckster1127]

Jac may I intercede for a Moment? I am not wanting to get into a "Debate" but more of a Conversation. I agree with Byblos first and foremost. God gave us a free gift for us to choose to follow it or not. If we agree and accept the Lord Jesus into our heart then that Free Gift is ours. HOWEVER at any time because we have free will we can take that Free Gift back to God and say you know what I don't want it anymore. Therefore your Salvation has been taken away!!!! HOWEVER where I might different from Byblos (Don't know if I do) is that you have to give that Free Gift back. You may abuse that free Gift, etc but that Free Gift is still yours until you return it (if you return it)

I look at Judas Iscariot for an Example did he receive the Free Gift? Was he Saved? Is he in Heaven? What does scripture tell us?

Anyways Thanks for the reading Guys. Keep it civilized

My understanding is that you believe that you can lose your salvation, bizzt. No offense . . . anyone who believes that is going to take Byblos' side on this. K would probably be in the same boat.

The basic point is the same: if you believe you can lose your salvation, then you make God impotent, as He is being forced to bend to OUR will. As I keep saying, if Christ can't save those who "give back" their salvation on the argument that He would be overriding our Free Will, then God has no choice in this. He does what we tell Him to do. Your position, though, is even weaker that Byblos' because Jesus said, "And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day." (John 6:39) Who are those that the Father gives to Jesus? Those who trust Jesus . . . the moment you trust Jesus, the Father gives you to Him. If you "give it back", then Christ has effectively lost something.

Of course, I don't expect you to agree, but that's fine, too.

God bless

The joy of Systematic Theology is that by attempting to systematize the whole counsel of God into a final form God chose not to reveal it in in the first place, you can make it say what you want to some extent without ever identifying a definitive passage for final appeal or by pushing others down in importance.

This whole argument is surrounded in mystery. It's certainly a worthy goal to seek to understand the process of salvation to the nth degree.

Flying is a wonderful thing too and were I to fly a plane I'd certainly want every bit of aerodynamics and study that I could get.

In the end however ..... I'd prefer to be a bird.

Last time I checked I haven't seen any of them in flight school.



Now .....

Return to your respective corners. I want a good clean fight. No caps ..... No ad hominems and please try and keep the non-sequitors to a minimum.

BREAK!!!!

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Flying is a wonderful thing too and were I to fly a plane I'd certainly want every bit of aerodynamics and study that I could get.

In the end however ..... I'd prefer to be a bird.

Last time I checked I haven't seen any of them in flight school.

Wonderful post.
We are spiritual birds, but many are afraid to fly.

[Byblos]

I'm just going to keep bring up the same arguments until you decide to deal with them, Byblos:

I could say the same thing but we'd be going in circles. So let's move on.

Sorry, Jac, the fact is that your objectivity is very much subjective as long as others do not interpret it the way you do. That's the thing about objectivity, everyone must agree it's objective, otherwise it's meaningless.

This discussion has enough parameters already without adding to it what "subjective" and "objective" means. What you CANNOT deny is that Free Grace theology allows for both the free will of God and the free will of man. I've shown that to be true throughout this thread, and you've not commented on the logic. If you disagree, it's up to you to show otherwise. Whether or not the FG interpretation of Scripture is true or not, well that's another issue.

I respectfully disagree with you Jac. I simply cannot see free will in your version of salvation.

You answered the question but not to my satisfaction. I most certainly do not render God impotent. That is ludicrous. It is His judgment after all that will or will not allow me thru the gates of heaven. How could you say He has no say so in that decision? Totally untrue. In the same way it is our choice to accept or reject him, it is his decision to look upon our lives and decide whether or not we are deservent of him.

How do you not render Him impotent? You have turned God into a Cosmic Vending Machine. Does the soda dispenser have a choice on whether or not to give me what I pay for? Of course not.

For the last time Jac, in the end it is God's CHOICE to judge us. If you're trying to pin me down to admit that as such I do not have absolute assurance of salvation until I am face to face with God then let me save you the trouble. I do not have absolute assurance of salvation until I am face to face with God. This gives me the free will to live my life according to whatever rules I CHOOSE, and it gives God the final say whether or not to accept it. Free will all the way around (I'm making this my motto from now on). Couldn't be any simpler or any more logical.

Now, for the THIRD time, answer this scenario:

1. I choose to do the things necessary for salvation: Christ MUST save me.
2. I choose NOT do to the things necessary for salvation: Christ CANNOT save me.

Asked and answered (see above paragraph).

By your own admission, if Christ saves the perosn who "gives back the gift," then He has overridden their free will. Therefore, Christ does not have Free Will. He can only do what we tell Him to do.

I really don't know what this means. I said nothing of the sort, to give back the gift. No one overrides anyone's free will. They are totally and completely independent. What I did say was that we needed to cherish the gift and protect it, not toss it and forget about it just because we were fortunate enough to receive it.

I'm confused Jac. On the one hand you say Catholics and Calvanists are preaching a false Gospel and are in danger of going to hell, a point very much far away from universalism; then you say Muslims, Jews, atheists, even Hitler are deserving of heaven; a point very much from the center of universalism. Which is it? Are you preaching universalism or are you not?

You can trust me in that I'm not a universalist. Now, did I say that Muslims, Jews, and atheists, and even Hitler are deserving of heaven? No, I did not. I don't think they are. So, let's get back to the point we were discussing:

A person "gets saved" and then converts (back) to Hinduism. You claim that person goes to hell. Similarly, let's say Hitler trusted Christ for his salvation at an early age. He then committed his later atrocities. So, he must go to Hell.

Byblos: why "must" they go to Hell? Must they go there because they don't deserve heaven, yes or no?

You have got to be kidding. You're asking me this question? I thought it was rather clear I thought he most certainly does belong in hell. I also made it clear the decision is not mine or yours (remember God's free will in making the final decision? The one you keep denying he has?). The question is, do you think Hitler deserves hell? Yes or no Jac?

While it is certainly not up to me to decide whether or not Hitler deserves heaven, I have a hard time believing he was accepted there with open arms. You try witnessing to Jews telling them Hitler is in heaven then report back to me on your rate of success.

Arguments of incredulity aren't worth much in debate, Byblos. Did Hitler deserve heaven or hell?

Amazing how I ask the question and you make it seem I'm the one who's not answering it. I've already answered it above, now please answer this question that you keep avoiding Jac:

Under the scenario I described before where Hitler put his trust in Jesus to save him in his youth, is Hitler saved, Jac? Yes or no. Please do not try to answer with another question.

Secondly, I suspect that not just Jews, but most decent human beings, would say that Hitler deserved Hell and would be repulsed by the idea that he could be in Heaven. The good news is that men aren't our judge. God is. So, Byblos . . . if Hitler actually did trust Christ for his salvation as a child, and then later did the things he did, did he go to heaven or hell? Did he deserve heaven? Did he deserve hell? You can answer that.

I did answer it many times. Now answer the question as to whether or not he's saved.

Do you understand the basic principles of the United States constitution, Jac? Do you have a hard time understanding the principles of freedom, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Do you understand the basic principles of criminality and subsequent due process? I would think any good citizen does understand and appreciate those basic principles without having to resort to the supreme court, don't you agree? If, on the other hand, there's a situation where 2 people disagree on the constitutionality of a matter, who do you think is the most appropriate body to resolve the dispute? Themselves or the experts in the constitution? Come on, Jac, it's really not a very hard concept to grasp.

The Supreme Court doesn't make a good comparison for you, Byblos, because their concern is in application. Someone has to decide how to apply it to certain situations. What does it say about this or that. It is a legal issue. Is it a "simple" document? Absolutely not. The principles are simple enough on the surface, much as Scriptural principles are simple on the surface, but when you get down to the nitty gritty, things get very complicated. This only goes to support my contention that Scripture is complex and NOT simple, which is in direct opposition to your appeal to a simplistic reading of Scripture.

The is reminiscent of another great debater with whom I've had the pleasure of disagreeing on more than one occasion. What applies to him doesn't apply to others. His analogies are the ones that make sense, no one else's. Please Jac, I work as an analyst because I am.

Except this is not exactly a math test, is it? It is rather like a project assigned to us by our boss. Since it was assigned to you, you choose to ignore directions and not do anything at all, considering your boss trusted you with the project. You expect his trust in you to be enough for him to say 'well done, Jac, here's your reward' even though you have done nothing to show that you believe he trusted you.

Again, the analogy isn't accurate. The Scriptures only have one meaning. There is only one truth. God isn't going to listen to my arguments and then listen to your arguments and then CHOOSE which one of us is right. He is going to lay clearly the Truth, and then all will see, objectively, where we fall as it relates to that standard. So, this is much more like a math test than an assignment by a boss. That analogy would far better fit the Bema seat of Christ, where He will look at our works and decide our rewards.

See above.

Don't editorialize, Byblos.

See what I mean? A word of advice, son, you need to get off the high and mighty horse every once in a while and mingle with the folk. It's unbecoming a Christian, a theologian, and a moderator on this board no less. Stay cool, man.

Anyway, here's something we Catholics always recite in church and I believe we can all agree on as christians: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again. Happy Easter.

Always in Christ,

Byblos.

[Byblos]

Jac may I intercede for a Moment? I am not wanting to get into a "Debate" but more of a Conversation. I agree with Byblos first and foremost. God gave us a free gift for us to choose to follow it or not. If we agree and accept the Lord Jesus into our heart then that Free Gift is ours. HOWEVER at any time because we have free will we can take that Free Gift back to God and say you know what I don't want it anymore. Therefore your Salvation has been taken away!!!! HOWEVER where I might different from Byblos (Don't know if I do) is that you have to give that Free Gift back. You may abuse that free Gift, etc but that Free Gift is still yours until you return it (if you return it)

I look at Judas Iscariot for an Example did he receive the Free Gift? Was he Saved? Is he in Heaven? What does scripture tell us?

Anyways Thanks for the reading Guys. Keep it civilized

I don't believe we are disagreeing, Bizzt. In fact, that's exactly what I mean by saying we have the choice to reject God. I.e. to reject his gift or refuse to accept it (or give it back).