No I don't....and I believe that you are wrong with this accusation as well. Perhaps you could stick to dealing with my argument and avoid trying to build more straw men?
For what it's worth, whether intentional or not, you do a good job of attempting to define the opponent. I should have dealt with the straw man theme some time ago . . . I've let that go too long.
The actual idea of a straw man is to put forward a position the opponent doesn't hold to and then procede to tear that down. This gives the impression that you have "won" the debate. Now, I know that you
claim not to believe in salvation by works. And, on a very real level, of course you believe that salvation is by grace. How couldn't you? However, as you have admitted yourself, you pick and choose among various interpretations that you think are best . . . we shouldn't be surprised to find inconsistency. What I am doing is pointing out the logical conclusions of your various positions. In other words, you pay lip service to grace through faith, but your position isn't actualy that. Let me just provide two real life examples of this. On these very boards, Byblos, a Catholic, thoroughly claims to believe in salvation by grace through faith alone. He has even given a Papal quote to prove that is what Catholics believe! Now, he also believes that you can lose your salvation, that you have to be baptized, that you have to do penance, etc. to stay saved. But, he still holds to the "faith alone" label . . . is it a straw man to say that he is holding a works based salvation? No, and it is no more of a straw man for me to assert that you are. We are dealing with the implications of your positions, not what you claim your position is. This leads me to my second example. I was accused by Byblos of antinomianism. Rather than tell him that he was putting up a straw man, I explained what antinomianism actually is and showed where it sereverly differed from my view. Further, I used to hold the exact position you hold now, ttoews. And I was a STAUNCH advocate of "faith alone," or so I thought. In reality, I believed in a works-based salvation. I was wrong. I came to see that, and I turned to what the Scriptures clearly teach.
I am aware of various interpretations of scripture and select for myself the one I think is best (still looking for something from your soteriology to select for my own)....what I had not seen before was your interpretation...I am sure it must be in Canada by now, but no one that I have talked to has encountered it...out of curiosity when and where did the modern version (I suspect you think it is the original soteriology) of your soteriology originate?
I think you are going to have a very, very hard time "selecting" something from my soteriology to integrate into your system of beliefs. The reason is that the core propositions are, in most ways, diametrically opposed. Let me do this, and you can totally skip this if you want, but this is as much for the sake of those following as anything else . . .
It is immediately obvious that no single verse or passage provides a comprehensive or exhaustive explanation of any given doctrine. If we want to understand a biblical doctrine, and even further, if we want to understand how biblical doctrines work together, we have to examine a variety of texts. We have to start with what is called Exegetical Theology. In other words, we take a passage, or a series of passages, that relate to a subect, and we study each one in its own context. Through this study, we come to a series of inductively supported conclusions. This is the general goal of Biblical Theology, to come to inductively supported propositions relating to various doctrines.
Once we have done that, we then take these propositions and compare, contrast, and systematize them through deductive interpretation. So, for a practical example, we find through inductive study that there is only one God. We find through inductive study that Jesus is called God, that the Holy Spirit is called God, and that the Father is called God. We know that each of these are different persons. Therefore, when we deductively compare these, we come to the doctrine of the Trinity. It would be a SERIOUS mistake, however, to
begin with the Trinity and then start interpreting passages in that light. You simply can't do that. It is backwards. This same rule works with progressive revelation. You can't interpret a verse based on future revelation. Again, that is backwards. That's why a true Biblical Theology is first exegetical and secondly progressive. Only then will your propositions be sound enough to begin a proper deductive study.
What you have done, though, is take a series of conclusions (i.e., election) and then interpreted various texts in that light. For example, you have taken a particular conclusion with reference to what it means to "know," and have interpreted Matt. 7:20-23 in that light. That is backwards. Or, again, you have taken a particular tree/fruit motif and interpreted Matt 7:14-19 in that light, which is again backwards. That's why you are going to be inconsistent, and that is I find several aspects of your soteriology to be works based.
As for where my soteriology originated (obviously, I believe this is the biblical position), this is the original position of the Reformers. Free Grace is rooted in the idea that salvation comes by faith alone, and that faith alone is defined in terms of absolute, objective assurance that
Christ has saved me. Both Calvin and Luther were influenced by earlier men, but they were the ones who made it popular. Immediately after this, though, Luther's followers split into two camps. Melanchthon began teaching - contrary to Luther - that faith alone saves, but that the faith that saves is never alone. Calvin's followers ultimately rejected his teachings via the Westminster Confession, and the English Puritans popularized "Lordship" theology. The two sides - the Lordship group and the Free Grace group - clashed in the eighteenth century in what is called the Marrow Controversy. The battle has been raging ever since.
The key dispute, then, is not whether faith alone saves. It is whether a person can have absolute, objective assurance of salvation. One side (Free Grace) says, and has always said, "Yes," because assurance IS faith. The other side (Lordship) says "No," as they hold to a subjective assurance by viewing the fruit of our life. They argue that progressive sanctification via the indwelling of the Holy Spirit ALWAYS follows justification. All true believers experience progressive sanctification and thus produce good fruits (works).
So, I summarize it this way: the historical position of the church, including the Catholic church, is Lordship. In order to be saved, we must commit our lives to Jesus Christ and obey His commandments. The Reformation argued Free Grace, that is, faith alone. However, Reformed theologians within the Reformation began teaching that true faith always results in commitment and obeying of Christ's commandments, even as it allowed for backsliding. Hope that helps
No, I think that is exactly what they are doing... the difference between you and me are the assumptions you make and how we understand what Christ meant by "fruit", "will" and "know".
ttoews . . .
Then you need to reread my exegesis of this passage. You agree that these people are offering a defense. They are saying, "God, this is why you should not damn us!" That is what a defense IS. They appeal to their works to save them. Now, bear in mind that the works they did in life, they did
in Jesus' name. What does that tell me? That tells me that there are "many" who do works in Christ's name who are not regenerate. Just because someone professes to be a Christian - just because some acts like a Christian - just because someone does the work of a Christian - that is in no way an indication of their spiritual condition. Thus, we come to the saying, "Inspect the root, not the fruit." We don't know if a person is saved by looking at their works. These people prove that. We know if a person is saved by looking at their doctrine, which is exactly what the parable of the fruit and tree tell us. Now, what in that would you disagree with?!?
it looks like we have misunderstood each other yet again,...when you said that "false prophets bear what looks like fruit" I was thinking you meant casting out demons etc....which isn't doctrine, now is it?
So you differentiate between works (casting out demons) and fruit? If so, that is odd. Wouldn't you agree that the "fruit" in Matt. 7:15-20 is the same as the works of the false prophets in 21-23? Look at verse 20, which is the key and the transitional verse: "Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them." Forget for a minute what "fruit" means . . . Jesus makes this statement. And we know that "fruit" definitely refers to false prophets in this statement. Ok, fair enough. So by their fruit, we will know false prophtes. Jesus then says that not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" will be saved. Isn't He still talking about false prophets? Isn't He still warning people about wolves in sheep's clothing? These wolves say "Lord, Lord," but that doesn't mean they are saved. Thoughts?
Allow me to be very candid. I only have so much time Jac...I look at this as a learning exercise for me as I am unfamiliar with your soteriology and although I have seen nothing from you which will cause me to rethink my beliefs I would still like to see you make your case....on the other hand, it seems that you know it all from all sides, so I think it sufficient to provide you with the basis of my position, for given your familiarity with the issue you can surely grasp where I am coming from based on your knowledge....and as for anyone who is following along (such as FFC), I think the passages in question are plain enough to speak for themselves....and so I am happy to leave it with them to decide between my view and yours wrt "fruit".
I do understand your time limitations, even if I don't necessarily show it as I should. I think where my mistake has been - not necessarily in logic, but in presentation - is jumping straight to the implications of what you claim to believe rather than doing a step-by-step of them. Please remember that I used to believe exactly what you do now. I used to believe that works didn't save, but if you really were saved, then you would do good works. My Scriptural basis was James 2:14ff. Real faith works, I would say. My theological basis was the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Everyone indwelt produces the fruit of the Spirit, and thus, if you really believed and were saved, you would produce fruit. If you accused me of works based salvation, I would have laughed at you and said, "No, the works are a RESULT of salvation." But, in reality, that position WAS (is) works-based. I just couldn't see it before.
Anyway, with respect to your time, you can reply to as much or as little of this as you like. I only ask that, with reference to biblical interpretation, that we make sure our exegeses are clearly laid out. If you have a problem with an interpretation of mine, say why, as I will with you. You did exactly that with the Matt. 7 passage, which is why I am content to let it rest if you are. Anyone can read our explanations and come to their own conclusions, but I want them coming to conclusions based on Scriptural arguments rather than debate tactics
I take it you don't understand the phrase "as a rule". If I understand you correctly, you want to say that good fruit is the product of "sons" and bad fruit is produced by "non-sons". Do sons only produce good fruit and never bad? Do they jump out and in of sonship with every sin and repentance? ...or is there a sort of "as a rule" thing going on here from your perspective too?
I understand what you are saying perfectly well. What I am saying is that your "rule" doesn't make sense. If I look at someone who is producing good fruit, then your rule says that I can conclude they are probably believers. However, we know that false prophets produce what appears to be good fruit, too. Likewise, I may look at a person who is bearing no fruit, or even bad fruit, and by the rule I should be able to conclude that they are not believers. However, we know that there are people who believe and do not bear fruit, and even those who bear bad fruit! So, then, what good is the rule, or is it even a rule at all? What I am saying makes much more sense even on a practical level. You ask a person what they believe, and THAT is how you make the judgment. In this case, good trees (believers) will ALWAYS produce good fruit, which is proper doctrine. Evil trees (false prophets) will ALWAYS produce heresy.
As for my position, no, I don't hold that "sons" produce fruit whereas "non-sons" don't produce fruit. How are you using these terms? If you mean "good works" by "fruit," then "sons" do produce good fruit, if you mean "mature believers" by "sons." However, in these senses "non sons" may not produce "bad fruit." If you means "sons" as "saved people" then they may or may not produce "good fruit," if you mean works. Same with "non sons." If we are referring to doctrine as the fruit, then "sons" produce good fruit and "non sons" may or may not, depending on whether or not you define the terms as "saved/unsaved" or "mature/immature."
To break that down into much easier terms: mature believers are sons of God. Immature believers are not. All believers are children of God. Mature believers produce the Fruit of the Spirit (love, joy, peace, etc.). Mature believers produce good doctrine. Immature believers may or may not produce either of these.
As for whether or not mature believers produce "bad fruit," we are getting into an entirely different issue. Do you believe there is such thing as carnal Christians? I do. Strict Calvinism would and does reject that. Believers, mature or not, still have a sin nature. The sin nature never does good, and the regenerate nature never does evil. If I sin, be it as a mature believer or as an immature believer, it is never an expression of the new nature. It is always an expression of the sin nature. Thus, if a son of God sins, it is because he has given in to his old nature, and the old nature expresses itself. The son will be chastized by God, even moreso than an immature believer will be.
No I don't....Jac, this is really simple. If I say no one deserves salvation, then it means...(hope you are sitting down) no one deserves salvation. It's just that simple.
We can let the meritorious idea drop for now . . . we have enough to deal with without getting into this. If it comes up again, we can deal with it. All I was pointing out was that you have a problem with the idea that a person can "get saved" and then live in deep, unrepentant sin. Such a person shouldn't be saved because that would be a mockery of God. Thus, the logical conclusion to your claim is that we have to be good after we are saved. God makes us "deserve" our salvation.
Now, whether that's true or not, you do believe that the Holy Spirit controls us to some extent. Thus, any good works we do are from the Spirit's work in us, and not from us ourselves, right? But if this is true, then how can we be rewarded on various levels? If every good thing I do, I do because God does it in me, then how does God reward me? Isn't it God that did it, and not me?
I see the straw man lives on. If you were as familiar with Calvinism as you claim, you should know of the points of "unconditional election" and "total depravity" which absolutely dismiss the possibility of any merit on the part of the elect. Calvinists believe that salvation is a gift from God and that merit plays no part in it.
Again, they claim to dismiss merit, but they don't. Puritan Lad and I had a very long discussio on Calvinism. If you want my views there, you should read through that when you get some time. I believe it's on this forum and is titled, "Is Calvinism a Heresy?" I say yes.
and here I thought I was the one letting the text speak for itself and not cluttering the text with groundless assumptions.
Like I said, you are taking deductive conclusions and interpreting the texts through them. That's backwards.
so tell me, being the staunch literalist that you are... am I to understand that you literally believe that:
If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away....And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away (Matt 5:28-29)
If anyone comes to Jesus and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be Christ's disciple (Luke 14:26)
Would you like me to be more literal? Very well. When I say I am a staunch literalist, I am referring to the grammatical-historical method of interpretation. In this method, the first thing the exegete does is find out what the text meant to the original audience. Context, culture, figures of speech, text genre, words, etc. are all considered. Hyperboles are recognized as such, as are straight forward statements. So, we are not supposed to literally cut of our hands or eyes, but the poit - literally speaking - is to cut from our lives the thing causing us to sin. This is an example of hyperbole. We are not to hate our families, but we are to love Christ first and above all, such that if our families get in the way, we are to put them behind us. If you don't love Christ first and above all, then you cannot be his disciples. These are
literal interpretations because they take the text for what it is, including figures of speech, teaching methods, etc.
If you have the time, I would highly recommend Roy Zuck's
Basic Bible Interpretation. It presents a very, very good overview of the historical-grammatical method of interpretation, including the history of interpretation in general.
So, I hope all this helps, and I hope to be getting back to Scripture soon.
God bless
