How do we know

[Jac3510]

Ah, I think I am seeing what you are saying. Correct me where I'm wrong.

So you believe that if a person can't accept what God has said about their salvation, then they should look to their works instead--granted, of course, that those works were produced by the Spirit and not just from themselves . . .

I'm just not so sure why people would be more inclined to believe in their own works rather than in God's Word.

Concerning my own assurance, I'm one of those people that believes that assurance is of the essence of saving faith. I know I'm saved because I've believed. Notice the period there. I don't really care how I live or what I come to believe (or stop believing) in the future. John 3:16 says that I have, right now, everlasting life, and that I will never perish. To believe anything less is to call God a liar.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

So you believe that if a person can't accept what God has said about their salvation...

No. Someone who «can't accept» the word of God isn't a believer.

...then they should look to their works instead--granted, of course, that those works were produced by the Spirit and not just from themselves . . .

You seem to have misunderstood the whole of my first post on this topic because you keep coming back to it. This despite the numerous biblical quotes I typed out. Let me try to explain what I was saying from another angle:

If you say you have a cold, you should have the symptoms of a cold: runny nose, cough etc. If you have those symptoms, you still may not have a cold as the symptoms may be from something else. Now, if it is confirmed that you have been infected by a cold virus, then you will show evidence of this: runny nose, cough etc.

In this analogy, Faith = cold virus and symptoms = works.

I'm just not so sure why people would be more inclined to believe in their own works rather than in God's Word.

Those that trust their works are not His followers. Their have their reward already by admiring their works.

Concerning my own assurance, I'm one of those people that believes that assurance is of the essence of saving faith. I know I'm saved because I've believed.

Well, you are right:

Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness. -Ge 15:6

I don't really care how I live or what I come to believe (or stop believing) in the future. John 3:16 says that I have, right now, everlasting life, and that I will never perish. To believe anything less is to call God a liar.

I wouldn't have put it so bluntly, but you are right. Not you, the LORD is right. Here - perhaps - is the reason why a deathbed conversion is so freeing: nothing else is required.

So we agree after all! You just have a hard head.

FL

[Byblos]

Here - perhaps - is the reason why a deathbed conversion is so freeing: nothing else is required.

In other words dying in a state of grace? Where have I heard that one before?

But that's not exactly where Jac is coming from though. Take the following scenario: a man believes, is saved, then goes on with his life without a single outward display of being saved. Worse yet, he goes on to commit a number of atrocities against his fellow man and never repents. Is this man still saved? You (FL) might say well, this is evidence he was never saved. Jac says nope, it doesn't matter what he does or doesn't do after being saved, the man is still saved regardless. Do you agree? (warning: this could drag on for several pages, it has before).

[zoegirl]

[cslewislover]

Argh. I had this longish post all made, then the webpage went down and I lost it all.

This seems like such a vain debate. Why bother? "The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children" (Romans 8:16). You can know you're saved, but others may not necessarily be able to see it.

However, claiming that you can do whatever you want after you're saved sounds like some kind of heresy to me. I haven't studied them all, so I can't get into that. Maybe someone else can.

Jac, maybe you should give an example or two. Do you mean that if a person claims to have faith in Christ, yet still goes around raping, murdering, and pillaging (and never stops), that they are actually saved? This seems like it would make a mockery of the Spirit. Just wondering, lol. It seems like a vain debate.

[Byblos]

Argh. I had this longish post all made, then the webpage went down and I lost it all.

I know this could be annoying as heck, especially when you type this long post, click Preview, click back to correct and you get this stupid error that the page has expired. What the ... do you mean it expired? It was just here .

This seems like such a vain debate. Why bother? "The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children" (Romans 8:16). You can know you're saved, but others may not necessarily be able to see it.

Not a silly debate at all. It goes to the heart of understanding the gospel the way it was meant to be understood (trouble is who can agree on precisely what that is so the debate rages on).

However, claiming that you can do whatever you want after you're saved sounds like some kind of heresy to me. I haven't studied them all, so I can't get into that. Maybe someone else can.

It's called antinomianism (but for the record, Jac does not advocate it so far as I know).

Jac, maybe you should give an example or two. Do you mean that if a person claims to have faith in Christ, yet still goes around raping, murdering, and pillaging (and never stops), that they are actually saved?

That is exactly what it means. In free grace theology OSAS is taken to its only logical conclusion, OSAS.

This seems like it would make a mockery of the Spirit. Just wondering, lol. It seems like a vain debate.

I don't think it's a vain debate at all, it is fundamental. Whether or not it makes a mockery of the Spirit is also moot but ultimately for God to sort out.

[cslewislover]

Well, what about the verses about becoming a new creation, a new man, and being renewed? Those would seem to be not necessarily true, then, and the heresy you mention (and gnosticism too), would seem OK. If we are a new creation, I don't think that means that it only appears to be so once we get to heaven. Just wondering what you and Jac think of that?

As far as it being vain, I say that because this is another one of those things that very learned and spiritual people cannot really answer or agree upon. So it causes divisions (if the debate is raging on after 2000 years, maybe it should stop already, lol). As you said too, only God and the person know for sure.

[Byblos]

Well, what about the verses about becoming a new creation, a new man, and being renewed? Those would seem to be not necessarily true, then, and the heresy you mention (and gnosticism too), would seem OK. If we are a new creation, I don't think that means that it only appears to be so once we get to heaven. Just wondering what you and Jac think of that?

I think I've already said enough on Jac's behalf so I will let him respond for himself (but if I were to say something It'd be that whatever happens after a person is saved has to do with sanctification, not justification as the latter already attached with no chance of revocation). And by the way, I didn't say I agree with him, just that insofar as his conclusion goes (and if one ascribes to OSAS), then I think Jac's interpretation makes the most sense.

As far as it being vain, I say that because this is another one of those things that very learned and spiritual people cannot really answer or agree upon. So it causes divisions (if the debate is raging on after 2000 years, maybe it should stop already, lol). As you said too, only God and the person know for sure.

Debating is fun though.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

Take the following scenario: a man believes, is saved, then goes on with his life without a single outward display of being saved. Worse yet, he goes on to commit a number of atrocities against his fellow man and never repents. Is this man still saved? You (FL) might say well, this is evidence he was never saved.

I would say that this is evidence that he was never saved. However, only God knows.

There is a case I like to share: At work, this one guy comes around to chat with me every so often. He calls me «Pastor» and likes to talk about Jesus, faith, the church and so on. I believe the guy is saved because what comes out of his mouth is consistent with what a person with a repentant heart would say...except that this man's brain is totally fried. He's not all there. Sometimes he sounds like an idiot, sometimes he's calm and makes sense. He will occasionally use the Lord's name in vain but I think this is more out of habit than out of any malicious intent.

This man smokes a marijuana joint every morning, eats a king size bag of Cheetos and washes it down with a liter of beer. I'm not sure if his brain was fried before he was saved or afterwards. But I'm pretty sure he's saved.

So there! I'm just dropping this guy's story in your lap because I have a painting class to attend tonight, so I won't be around.

Oh yeah:

Jac says... it doesn't matter what he does or doesn't do after being saved, the man is still saved regardless. Do you agree? (warning: this could drag on for several pages, it has before).

Is Jac's brain fried?

FL

[cslewislover]

Earlier, I mentioned that a person willfully sinning after claiming to be saved would be a mockery of the Spirit. I think motive is important in looking at sinful behavior. I could very easily see a saved person stealing food if they're starving; there is a natural purpose to it and the motivation is survival, not causing harm. Whereas a person raping and murdering is doing it for other reasons. It would be hard to believe that Jesus is in that person or that the Spirit is in them or guiding them. I knew there was a verse concerning this but could not remember it at the time. I simply don't have that kind of memory. But the verse is:

"Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life" (Gal 6:7-8). Interestingly, it doesn't say here that if we live to please our sinful nature we will have fewer rewards in heaven, it says we will reap destruction.

Concerning whether this debate is vain or not, I mean it in practical terms. I couldn't think of one example of how knowing if someone is saved or not - as opposed to God only knowing - would change the way I relate to them in my everyday life. As Christians we are to be wary of wolves in sheep's clothing, and we are called to help each other not to sin (even if it means turning them out of the church) and to turn to God's will and commands (we're even to encourage them to get a job! 2 Thess 11-13). So biblically, we are to be discerning, but not judgmental regarding salvation. In practical terms, if a guy that has committed sexual assaults came to me and claimed he was saved and wanted to date my daughter, I would say "no." Perhaps after time passed and I could observe that the Lord changed him, I would change my mind. There are all kinds of lesser practical things like that too.

I do believe that (1) once you are saved you are always saved, that (2) only God knows for sure, and (3) that through sanctification your behavior will change (sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly) and that this will be obvious to at least some people. I think if a person continues to do evil or heinous things, or continues to worship other gods after claiming to be saved, then we would rightfully be wary of that person.

How does Jac's position differ from this, I wonder, and what does the heresy espouse?

[B. W.]

Zoe, you have the right idea - Pass the popcorn...

[cslewislover]

Zoe, you have the right idea - Pass the popcorn...

Well, this is kind-of discouraging. I guess I won't post anymore, as I never liked being part of a spectacle.

"My sacrifice, O God, is a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise" (Psalm 51:17). I'm too broken for big dog debates, I guess. Lol.

[Byblos]

Well, this is kind-of discouraging. I guess I won't post anymore, as I never liked being part of a spectacle.

Don't take it to heart cslewislover, all Zoegirl and B.W. are saying is that they've done this before and this time they just want to be on the sidelines (and frankly I don't blame them).

[Byblos]

Take the following scenario: a man believes, is saved, then goes on with his life without a single outward display of being saved. Worse yet, he goes on to commit a number of atrocities against his fellow man and never repents. Is this man still saved? You (FL) might say well, this is evidence he was never saved.

I would say that this is evidence that he was never saved. However, only God knows.

I figured you might say that, to which Jac would answer (why do I keep doing this? Jac where are you?) what does that do to your assurance of being saved? How can you be sure you will not fall away just the same way he did? After all, your assurance today is absolute just the same way his assurance was absolute the day he believed (by virtue of OSAS). Still, he went back to his old wicked ways. What guarantees do you have you won't do the same? And if you don't have any guarantees, if the possibility is there, however remote, what does that tell you about OSAS?

...

Jac says... it doesn't matter what he does or doesn't do after being saved, the man is still saved regardless. Do you agree? (warning: this could drag on for several pages, it has before).

Is Jac's brain fried?

FL

Oh, on the contrary my friend, he is deadly serious and quite sane (I know you were joking FL but please curb the ad homonyms as this will not serve anything but getting the thread locked, yet again).

[Jac3510]

I certainly didn't mean to start a spectacle . . . ok, maybe just a little one.

In all seriousness, I'm less interested in "the debate" per se, as us "old timers" have had it too many times before, than in seeing if some of the others who have become consistent posters are consistent in their own theology. I'm sure you'll agree, Byblos, that a good many people have simply never stopped to question their own view of assurance and what that means to their view on OSAS.

To FL, Byblo's answers have been my own. He knows my position very well. If you believe that a person's sin can prove that they weren't REALLY saved, then I'd have to ask on what basis a new convert can believed that they are saved. Earlier, you rightly pointed to belief, but what happens if a person falls into such willful sin, as happens on a sadly regular basis? If you then turn around and say that such a person did not really believe, then on what basis can you tell the new convert that they can be sure that they really did believe, and thus, are really saved?

Put it this way:

1. Those who have truly believed are saved;
2. I have truly believed;
3. Therefore, I am saved.

This is correct and sounds sure. However, how do you know if (1) is true if you will turn around and deny (1) on the basis of works (or lackthereof)? In fact, you can have no assurance unless you look to your works. Thus, my original question.