Other things necessary for salvation?

[YLTYLT]

I have a few thoughts on this....

We are saved by Grace and grace alone. Not works or Grace plus works, not even Grace then works. Salvation is all a work of God in us. The Word "knocks us down" then the Holy Spirit lifts us us. The Holy Spirit has not endwelled us yet. But where the Word is being presented, the Holy Spirit is there. So when the Gospel is properly presented, then the Holy Spirit (kind of like a parent or a coach) says to our us, "come on you can do it, you know its the right thing to do.....". So by faith, (taking the word of God over our own), we receive Christ as our Savior, but some do think their own word has more value than the Word of God (they have no faith), so they do not receive Christ as there Savior. Each [person when they are saved receives a spiritual gift. And I know you all agree with this mostly. (except for maybe PL on when the Holy Spirit endwells the new believer.) But regardless......

Serving God (sanctification) works the same way.....
We read or hear the word. The Holy Spirit encourages us that we can to it even when we feel we cannot. And then we receive the Grace to have God work though us. But God will not work through us if we do not receive that Grace as well. And we do not have the opportunity to receive that Grace if we are not studying the Word. In other words, you cannot take the Word of God over you own if you do not know what the Word of God says.

Some people study the word more than others and have more responsibility to the Grace that has been presented before them by allowing God to work though them. Some Christians never get out of the milk stage. They may be only "taking in" all the time and never giving,... never serving,..... never growing into a mature Christian. Churches are full of people like this. I know the some people might say that these folks may not be saved....., but it is not our job to judge if they are saved or not. We may want to ask them whom they have trusted and go through the Gospel again if (due to confusing teaching) they have begun to put there trust in the wrong place. This will serve to remind them of their salvation. But to tell someone that if they are save they should be doing this or that is JUST WRONG and corrupts the Gospel..... It does not hurt to share the Gospel with saved people, it reminds them of there salvation and brings forth the gratitude necessary to receive the Grace to serve. Sharing the Gospel also reminds me of my own salvation. I try to share it every day. Even if it is to the mirror or my steering wheel.

So, our response to the Grace presented to us to serve God, in no way diminishes (or increases) the Grace that was presented to us for salvation otherwise this is adding to the Grace provided to us for Salvation. Both Graces are a work DONE by God. But we must receive ONE to be saved and ONE to have God work thsough us. But the fact that we received one does not mean we must receive the other.

For example....
Some people have the spiritual gift of mercy. Some do not have that gift at all and they are merciful anyway, but only by the Grace of God. The person who does not have the gift of mercy but is merciful anyway has taken the word of God over their own (faith) and allowed God to work through them to show mercy.


Hopefully this makes sense...... I am still not sure about the idea of mulitple Graces.............

Any thoughts...............

[Jac3510]

I must confess I am with Byblos...don't see the problem with PL's statement...don't see how reformed faith denies a person assurance of faith. Effectual Grace is from Christ...it is His work in us that provides our assurance. My belief in Christ at the moment of my belief then allows Him to work in me. My committment to Christ is a product of sactifying grace (please feel free, PL, to polish my reformed theology), not a requirement of being saved. He is "the author and perfector of our faith"

It denies assurance because, in essence, the Calvinist (and Arminian) both say to the unbeliever, "Hey - I don't know where I'm going when I die, and if you give me five minutes, I can help you not know, too!"

The Arminian doesn't know because he might fall from grace and lose his salvation. The Calvinist doesn't know because he might fall from grace, proving he was never really saved to begin with (because he wasn't elect). The best the latter can say is, "Well, I'm pretty sure I have believed in Jesus to save me. I think I see the works of the Spirit, and that is evidence I really am saved. Of course, if I'm NOT really elect then I will eventually fall away in the future, but if I AM one of th elect, I don't have to worry about that."

And, of course, there is no objective way to know whether or not you were elected or if you are just Hebrews 6 "Christian" waiting to fall away.

Besides all that, Calvinism denies the Gospel. Jesus says, "Whoever believes has everlasting life." The Calvinist says, "No, whoever has everlasting life will believe." Or as one preacher here put it, "You aren't saved because you believed. You believed because you are saved!" So, it's a matter of whether you believe Jesus or not. Either we are saved through being persuaded that Jesus is the Christ, or we are't. The Lordship Salvationist says we aren't. In fact, let me just prove this whole thig:

PL, in your view, is the Free Grace Gospel a heresy?

YLT - I don't have any problems with your post. It is nicely done and it recognizes the event of justification as different from the process of sanctification, and it further recognizes that all of this is a gracious work of God.

[zoegirl]

"The Arminian doesn't know because he might fall from grace and lose his salvation. The Calvinist doesn't know because he might fall from grace, proving he was never really saved to begin with (because he wasn't elect)."

I know in all of the posts that you have probably said this but as I not going to search all of your pages...so do you believe you can lose your salvation?

"recognizes the event of justification as different from the process of sanctification, and it further recognizes that all of this is a gracious work of God"

I know all of the reformed theology I have read recognizes this. We are justified through Christ (event) and also sanctified through Christ (process)...

[Jac3510]

I believe in the preservation of the saints, that is, in eternal security, even though I reject the perseverance of the saints. So, no, you cannot lose your salvation, even though you may cease to believe.

Second, while RT uses the words "justification" and "santification," they are viewed as different aspects of the same thing. In fact, if you want to be more technical, the idea here is actually positional vs progressive sanctification. All agree that the moment we believe we are positionally sanctified. That cannot change, no matter what we do, thus, the doctrine of once saved always saved. However, RT says that Pos. sanct necessarily results in prog. sanct. Because of this, in RT, the fruit we bear becomes the basis of our assurance. It is how we know we are elect.

Like I said, pure heresy. It calls Jesus a liar when He said, "Whoever believes has everlasting life." Either you believe that, or you don't. PL does not believe that "whoever believes has everlasting life." PL, and all RTers, believe that "whoever is elect has everlasting life." I may believe for a little while, but if I stop believing, it is proof I was never elect. And therefore Jesus' words were wrong. Calling Him a liar is the same as saying you don't believe Him, which is the same as saying you don't believe the Gospel.

As an aside here, in RT, there is such a thing as "spurious faith." RTers freely admit there are people who once believed but then fell away. So they are forced to say, "but their faith wasn't real." So notice the contradiction:

1. Jesus said whoever believes has everlasting life,
2. John believes, but doesn't have everlasting life (because his belief is spurious)
3. Therefore, Jesus was wrong.

It is here you have to start importing meaning into Jesus' words. You change what He meant. You say, "No, Jesus did NOT say whoever believes . . . He said, whoever TRULY believes." Of course, the text just says no such thing. Jesus meant what He said. Whoever believes has, right now, everlasting life. RT rejects that. Therefore, RT is heresy.

[YLTYLT]

I guess the question would be is it possible for a person to believe that he believes but is actually fooling himself. But then is that belief in his belief, truely believing that he believes.....


I think we should exclude from this group those that act like they believe, but know in their hearts that they have not "truely" believed. In which case they were never saved to begin with. They may still trying to work there way to heaven. Maybe this is the group PL is speaking of.

[ttoews]

Jac3510, I believe (with few reservations) that I have discussed this with you before.

As an aside here, in RT, there is such a thing as "spurious faith." RTers freely admit there are people who once believed but then fell away. So they are forced to say, "but their faith wasn't real." So notice the contradiction:

1. Jesus said whoever believes has everlasting life,
2. John believes, but doesn't have everlasting life (because his belief is spurious)
3. Therefore, Jesus was wrong.

It is here you have to start importing meaning into Jesus' words. You change what He meant. You say, "No, Jesus did NOT say whoever believes . . . He said, whoever TRULY believes." Of course, the text just says no such thing.

nor does it say "whosoever spuriously believes...."
As such, it becomes a question of whether us non-heretics are correct in making a distinction between spurious belief and non-spurious belief, and if so, did Jesus mean to include all forms of belief or was it that Jesus knew that his audience could not have even conceived of such a ridiculous notion as a faith that did not result in works....

Jesus meant what He said.

of course He did....it is a question of what He meant....and sadly, I have come to the conclusion that you are terribly confused in that regard.

Whoever believes has, right now, everlasting life. RT rejects that. Therefore, RT is heresy.

actually it isn't just RT that rejects your group's novel interpretation of the Word....it is the vast majority of all Christians that ever existed that reject your particular heresy....from the apostles onwards (though, no doubt, you believe (w/o any reservations) that the apostles agreed with your position)

[zoegirl]

BW

I don't have any suggestions on paragraphs or actual text or whatever. I just think that you should clearly distinguish between the EVENT of justification and the PROCESS of sanctification. Both are by grace, in their own way; both have different ideas, and you cannot let your hearers think that the aspects of sanctification are involved in justification. If you do, they will have the wrong idea about justification, and then you will never get anything other than moralistic disciples who are as lost as Hitler ever was.

So, yes, there is a difference in the grace of justification and the grace of sanctification. Don't mix the two. I would suggest deciding WHO the article is directed at. If to believers, then assure them of their justification based on their belief in Jesus' promise (i.e., John 6:47), and then go on to talk about the need to press on to maturity. If, though, you are writing to unbelievers, let the sanctification issue rest until they have come to believe the justifying proposition. If you just feel you HAVE to have more (although I wonder why the Gospel wouldn't be enough???), use Eph 2:10 to mention what we are saved FOR. Naturally, just because a person doesn't do what they are supposed to do as a Christian doesn't make them any less saved, nor are good works guaranteed in the life of any believer. But if you want them to know this salvation is for a purpose, then that may be a good way to break down the article.
....

I have a BIG problem with the ideas presented here. If you HAVE to have more?! Although I wonder why the Gospel woulldn't be enough?! Oy!
Yes, If it were simply unbelievers, then presenting doctrinal terms would be unrealistic. HOWEVER, I feel that too many churches ignore the doctrine of sanctification, and, as such, fail to equip believers with the tools necessary and thus promote new believers failing to root, as in the parable of the seeds. So many churches seem to present such a diluted view of living as a Christian that I wonder if the church is sometimes being the stumbling block for these growing Christians.

because I think it has some great truths in it about the conditionality of sancitification. Do note, BW, that the chapter is full of exhortations to do things. We have a choice in that matter. We don't in salvation. We either believe Jesus' promise or we don't! Also, please note that not one chapter later, Paul is confessing that his flesh is still sold under sin, and because of that he finds himself habitually in the same sins. His conclusion: thank God for the future resurrection, and because of THAT, there is NO CONDEMNATION to those in Jesus.

Please clarify "conditionality of sanctification", because to me, if I am reading you correctly, then I do disagree here. While sanctification does not make us perfect, it is Christ working in us to be more Christ-like. What sort of grace does Christ give us if it does not enable us live in Him and sanctify us?

A choice in the matter? Not clear, clarify please, in relation to the above conditionalty.

"Nor are good works guaranteed in the life of a belieiver?" ?! If Christ cannot guarantee a change in us, then He is not much of a savior. My savior conquered death, He can surely effect changes and will effect changes in believers.

We are a new creation...
Sanctification is a process, and no, it does not make us perfect, but it is a process. "He is the author and perfector of our faith"

[Jac3510]

delete

[FFC]

Good debates Guys and girls! Let's blow the dust off of this thread.

[Jac3510]

You're right, FFC. I'm not going through this again. No time, and no energy. I just had a fight with my gf because I was short with her from being so upset about this. So yeah . . . no time for this. No energy.

[YLTYLT]

zoegirl,
I am thinking that we do have a choice in the matter of sanctification. But not the way you would think. We do not have a choice in whether or not we will be sanctified. But we do have a choice in how we will be sanctified. Although both ways are by God, sanctification can be by Grace or by Fire. (And fire does not mean hell here, I am referring to sanctification only for Christians). I would expect that all Christians will have some part of the works that were done in the flesh, even though these works may have been intended for God. When we receive the Grace to have God work though us we are being sanctified by Grace. Those things we do in the flesh will not be sanctified by Grace but by the Fire.

Sanctification by Grace is probably the preferred method

And just like our salvation(but separate), the Grace to be sanctified is received by faith. And faith comes by hearing the Word and taking it over your own word, just as you did when you were saved. But we cannot take the Word of God over our own if we have not read (or heard) it. (There are some passages of scriptures that some Christians never take time to read. How can you obey what you do not know to obey?)

2 Pet 2:2
As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby

This word "desire" is in the imperative, instructing us to desire the word like a baby desires milk. In other words is is an exhortation to do so. We would not be exhorted to do something that we do not have choice in. If we had no choice it would have said, "As newborn babes, you will desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby." (Being more prophetic than exhortative.)

In other words, if we get saved and do not continue to read (or hear) the Word we will not be able to see the Grace available to us to receive it and be sanctified by allowing God to work through us, by taking His word over our own (which is done by the prompting of the Holy Spirit). Instead we would be sanctified by Fire.

(edit: Actually the fire is a form of Grace as well.)

And you are right that sanctification by Grace is a process. I believe that God will not show us additional Grace to increase our sanctification until we have received the Grace already presented to us, by taking his word over our own.

Mind you that this is just my opinion and I am just a sinful man and could easily be wrong. But until I find other scripture to refute it, I will continue in this belief. I realize that I may not have given much scripture to back this up, but I have already written more than I originally intended.

[bizzt]

You're right, FFC. I'm not going through this again. No time, and no energy. I just had a fight with my gf because I was short with her from being so upset about this. So yeah . . . no time for this. No energy.

Deep breaths buddy. Be Passionate about what you teach but be aware that others Believe differently . Oh yeah and don't take it home to the GF... Definate no no

[FFC]

You're right, FFC. I'm not going through this again. No time, and no energy. I just had a fight with my gf because I was short with her from being so upset about this. So yeah . . . no time for this. No energy.

Deep breaths buddy. Be Passionate about what you teach but be aware that others Believe differently . Oh yeah and don't take it home to the GF... Definate no no

Wise words...especially since I don't see Jac or ttoews being swayed from what they sincerely believe...but who knows. Miracles do happen.

[ttoews]

Wise words...especially since I don't see Jac or ttoews being swayed from what they sincerely believe...but who knows. Miracles do happen.

now hold on there FFC,....I note you said sincerely believe....are you suggesting that we should distinguish between sincere belief and insincere belief? Oh dear! I am afraid Jac may take issue with such a suggestion and get his knickers in a bigger knot.

Anyhow, I agree that there is little to be gained in rehashing this ....which is why I waited so long to say something in the first place....but I also believe that one should respond to Jac accusations wrt false gospels and heresies by pointing out that his is the novel intepretation of the Word (which would make it the heretical view by an objective standard) and that his criticisms and accusations simply ignore explanations that have been provided before and of which he is well aware.

[FFC]

now hold on there FFC,....I note you said sincerely believe....are you suggesting that we should distinguish between sincere belief and insincere belief?

Uh......................................unkle.