Evidence for God from Science

Jac3510 wrote:

Period?...now this can't really be what you meant....I thought that you believed that a person could turn around and deny that Jesus is the Christ, and deny His resurrection, and deny salvation by faith alone, and all of these such things, and teach salvation by works and become a Satanist and blaspheme the Father and Son in all ways imaginable, but as long as that person (at some time in the past) simply believed for a moment, then that person would be saved. So what fruits would you reference so as to know that simple believer turned Satanist?

OK, I'm out. We are not getting anywhere. I meant exactly what I said, and the only reason for this quote is that you aren't trying to see my position. Anyone on this board will know exactly how I will answer that.

well I thought I knew how you would answer too....but now I am not sure.
Earlier (Mar 8th) I had quoted Matt 10: 32-33 "Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.

you responded by saying:

Now, do these passages say these people lose their salvation? No. Does it say they were never saved? No. But it says clearly that the person who puts his faith in Christ and later rejects that faith, especially for fear of the world, Jesus will be ashamed of him and not confess him before the Father. He will, thus, lose his right to rule with Christ

now it seems that what I described at the start of this post (Satanism being thrown in for effect)were examples of someone disowning Christ after briefly believing...from what you said above and from your remarks concerning commitment and perseverance it was my understanding that you would say such a person was still saved, but would lose his "right to rule with Christ" b/c disowning, mocking, lack of perseverance and lack of commitment only effect potential rewards and not salvation itself. If that isn't your response, then you sure haven't made that clear (to me at least)....

On the other hand, if you found the post offensive (yes, I used the extreme example of Satanism to sensationalize what I understand to be an error in your position)....then I apologize.

You've been convinced I was wrong from the beginning, and you've not stopped even once to consider what I'm trying to say.

...and of course, I feel the same way....particularly wrt your insistence that mine is a soteriology of works...I simply feel that you do not and will not listen. Nevertheless, for those others that are following this thread (if any are out there) and who agree with you that mine is a soteriology of works (and who are prepared to listen to one more effort to explain why you are wrong in that regard)....I offer this:

I have a friend Jesus who knows that I can't live in my Canadian house forever. Jesus is generous and before I could ask Him, He bought a home (the "Home") for me in Heaven Estates (in a far off land). The cost of the Home was 100,000 righteous dollars (Rdollars). Now I am unable to earn any Rdollars as that currency does not exist where I live and Rdollars are the only currency accepted for purchase of a Home, so even if I tried, I could not contribute one penny to the purchase of the Home. Further, payment for the Home is not due until I need to move into it and so (as part of the deal Jesus offers to every future resident of Heaven Estates) the 100,000 Rdollars purchase price is put on deposit for me (guaranteeing that the Home will be there for me when I need it). That deposit earns interest for my benefit. This interest, however, is not paid in Rdollars, but is paid in Canadian dollars which are, in turn, made available for me to use presently. B/c Jesus always offers the same deal to every future resident of Heaven Estates (therefore interest is always paid) one can properly say that interest (good fruit) necessarily follows the purchase of a home in Heaven Estates (salvation)....but it is entirely improper to say that the interest (good fruit) in any way contributes to the purchase price for the Home (salvation) as Jesus paid that price in full ....and so no balance is owing (and further, even if Jesus hadn't paid the price in full, the interest is in the wrong currency and can't be exchanged for Rdollars and so can't be applied to the purchase price).

Now folks, I am inclined to believe that Jac won't like this little tale and will continue to insist that mine is a soteriology of works (as that seems to serve his purpose), but hopefully (to those who are prepared to listen) this 'economic' example will show why I think salvation is a gift from Jesus and that our good works (although they follow from salvation) do not in any way contribute to our salvation. So in conclusion, mine is not a soteriology of works and I wish that Jac would stop trying to justify his soteriology by denigrating the soteriology of others by insisting that they teach salvation by works (when the same has been flatly and repeatedly denied with clarifications offered).

Lastly, if I understand Jac, how he and I would actually differ wrt our soteriologies is that (using the Heaven Estates example) Jac would say that we have the option of refusing to accept any interest....that it is ultimately up to us as to whether any interest is earned and paid to us on the deposit and I would say that we do not have the option of refusing to accept all interest....that it is ultimately up to God as to whether some interest is earned and paid to us on the deposit.

now it seems that what I described at the start of this post (Satanism being thrown in for effect)were examples of someone disowning Christ after briefly believing...from what you said above and from your remarks concerning commitment and perseverance it was my understanding that you would say such a person was still saved, but would lose his "right to rule with Christ" b/c disowning, mocking, lack of perseverance and lack of commitment only effect potential rewards and not salvation itself. If that isn't your response, then you sure haven't made that clear (to me at least)....

Yes, that was and is my position. Nothing I said in my previous post implies the contrary.

On the other hand, if you found the post offensive (yes, I used the extreme example of Satanism to sensationalize what I understand to be an error in your position)....then I apologize.

I didn't find the post offensive. I am finding the argument tiresome, simply because we aren't getting anywhere. It's become an argument, which is a waste of time.

..and of course, I feel the same way....particularly wrt your insistence that mine is a soteriology of works...I simply feel that you do not and will not listen. Nevertheless, for those others that are following this thread (if any are out there) and who agree with you that mine is a soteriology of works (and who are prepared to listen to one more effort to explain why you are wrong in that regard)

The difference in me and you, ttoews, is that I used to hold to your position. I understand your position, whereas you never have held mine nor do you understand it. You've been so busy trying to prove me wrong you've not stopped to try to grasp what I am saying. I can say that yours is salvation by works because I used to hold to it absolutely. Guess what? When I held your position, I was holding to a salvation by works. And I have personally turned people away from the gospel with it, much to my regret. My condolence is that God is big enough to get the real gospel to them before it is too late. But I will bear the consequences, should they exist (that's debatable in our camp) for my false teaching at the Bema Seat. I am only thankful that I have come to understand again the gospel of grace so early in my ministry before I had the chance to lead an untold number astray.

Let's make this clear. I reject what you teach as heresy. I used to believe it. I once defended it. I thoroughly understand it. You reject what I teach as heresy without understanding, and you do so not only to your own peril, but to those lost souls around you.

Now folks, I am inclined to believe that Jac won't like this little tale and will continue to insist that mine is a soteriology of works (as that seems to serve his purpose), but hopefully (to those who are prepared to listen) this 'economic' example will show why I think salvation is a gift from Jesus and that our good works (although they follow from salvation) do not in any way contribute to our salvation. So in conclusion, mine is not a soteriology of works and I wish that Jac would stop trying to justify his soteriology by denigrating the soteriology of others by insisting that they teach salvation by works (when the same has been flatly and repeatedly denied with clarifications offered).

Lastly, if I understand Jac, how he and I would actually differ wrt our soteriologies is that (using the Heaven Estates example) Jac would say that we have the option of refusing to accept any interest....that it is ultimately up to us as to whether any interest is earned and paid to us on the deposit and I would say that we do not have the option of refusing to accept all interest....that it is ultimately up to God as to whether some interest is earned and paid to us on the deposit.

Obviously I have problems with your scenario - if nothing else, it shows that you've completely misunderstood the doctrine of propitiation. But, again, I figured as much, because I used to believe the same things. You are tired of me saying you teach salvation by works. Here's my simplification of the whole thing.

You believe that where there are no works, there is no salvation. You can pretty that up with whatever theological language and reasoning you would like, but for you, if there are absolutely no good fruits, then a person isn't "really" saved. If no works = no salvation in ANY sense, you believe in salvation by works.

More importantly, you believe that a person can believe in Jesus for salvation and still go to hell. You reject the notion that a person can simply believe and be saved. Thus, you reject the Gospel and have substituted for it a message of your own. Arminians reject the nature of the gift. You reject the terms on which it is received.

Like I said, you can use whatever language you want, but in the final analysis, for you, salvation is not by simple belief, and if there are no works, then there is no salvation. Call it what you want. I call it salvation by works. Call it what you want. It is a rejection of John 6:47, that anyone who believes has everlasting life.

God bless

Jac3510 wrote:Yes, that was and is my position. Nothing I said in my previous post implies the contrary.

ahhh...so it seems that I do indeed understand your position

I didn't find the post offensive. I am finding the argument tiresome, simply because we aren't getting anywhere.

translation-- Jac is frustrated that ttoews hasn't recognized the vast superiority in Jac's experience, in his logic and in his ability to interpret the Bible and hasn't simply accepted everything Jac has said, joined Jac's camp and thanked Jac for enlightening ttoews as to the true gospel message.

The difference in me and you, ttoews, is that I used to hold to your position. I understand your position, whereas you never have held mine nor do you understand it.

if I don't understand your position, how is it that I can nail your answer? ...And if you do understand my position, how is it that you have continued to make straw men and continued to insist that I believe something that I deny? ....has it occurred to you that something might be amiss when you repeatedly need to declare: "ttoews you don't believe what you say you believe, but you do believe what I say you believe..."

I am only thankful that I have come to understand again the gospel of grace so early in my ministry before I had the chance to lead an untold number astray.

"an untold number" is it now? ....oh, I don't know if you're all that influential....and who knows, once you had a chance to mature a bit....you might flip-flop again or go yet another way....catholicism perhaps?

Obviously I have problems with your scenario - if nothing else, it shows that you've completely misunderstood the doctrine of propitiation.

you do understand that it was intended as a simple illustration and not as a treatise on the doctrine of propitiation, don't you?....in other words, I don't actually believe in the existence in Righteous Dollars....you did know that, didn't you Jac? ....but I do believe that only the sacrifice of the perfect Lamb of God can pay for my sins and nothing I will do can ever be applied to that payment....therefore, no salvation by works over here.

If no works = no salvation in ANY sense, you believe in salvation by works.

nice touch....when all else fails, change the definition of "salvation by works" so that you can continue to slander. The problem for you is that this definition of yours bites you in the butt and makes you an advocate of salvation by works. I'll just tweak your rant, and voila...salvation by works a la Jacque:
Jac believes that where there are no works, there is no eternal life in heaven. Jac can pretty that up with whatever theological language and reasoning he would like, but for him, if there are absolutely no good fruits, then a person isn't going to live eternally in heaven. If no works = no salvation in ANY sense, then you believe in salvation by works...Like Jac is prone to repeat, you can use whatever language you want, but in the final analysis, for Jac, salvation is not by simple belief for works will be guaranteed in heaven, and if there are no works, then there is no salvation. Call it what you want, but by Jac's definition, Jac himself believes in "salvation by works"...he just hasn't figured it out yet.

It is a rejection of John 6:47, that anyone who believes has everlasting life

No, I embrace John 6:47....but I possess a different understanding of "believes" than do you...and it is this sort of false accusation that has gotten tiresome.

Getting a bit testy? Why don't you avoid the niceties of left handed insults and just come out with the name-calling, ttoews?

ahhh...so it seems that I do indeed understand your position

And if you understand, then you are simply debating for the pointless sake of debate. Again, go back to the comment that started all of this. If you genuinely understood my position, and yet you brought the objection anyway, then you aren't trying to have a rational discussion. You are trying to argue for its own sake. That is what I am not going to participate in.

translation-- Jac is frustrated that ttoews hasn't recognized the vast superiority in Jac's experience, in his logic and in his ability to interpret the Bible and hasn't simply accepted everything Jac has said, joined Jac's camp and thanked Jac for enlightening ttoews as to the true gospel message.

Very mature, ttoews. I meant what I said. I am tired of the argument because only one of two scenarios is possible. Either you have do not understand my position and have rejected it outright - in which case, further discussion is futile - or you have understood my position and are making arguments that you well understand do not apply - in which case, further discussion is futile.

And now you have resorted to sarcasm and personal attacks. Do you think Jesus is pleased with your conduct?

if I don't understand your position, how is it that I can nail your answer? ...And if you do understand my position, how is it that you have continued to make straw men and continued to insist that I believe something that I deny? ....has it occurred to you that something might be amiss when you repeatedly need to declare: "ttoews you don't believe what you say you believe, but you do believe what I say you believe..."

If you can nail my answer, then why do you put forward arguments you know don't apply? I can only assume it is because you are not trying to have a rational discussion. As far as putting forward straw men, I suppose God will be the judge of that. All I have insisted is that you advocate a salvation by works because you argue that mere belief is not enough. You defend your belief in a variety of ways. Well, by definition, I am not putting up a straw man. I've not put forward a position you don't advocate in order to tear it down. I've pointed out what I see to be the logical conclusion of what you advocate. If in the end I am wrong, that doesn't qualify as a straw man, ttoews.

I can't help it if you refuse to see those implications. All I can do is call the facts as I see them. You say that belief is not enough. You say that "real belief" is the type of belief that results in/produces repentance/good works, etc. That is salvation by works. You deny the Gospel of grace. You said it yourself. A person can simply believe and still go to Hell. John 3:16 says otherwise, but that isn't my problem. That's yours.

"an untold number" is it now? ....oh, I don't know if you're all that influential....and who knows, once you had a chance to mature a bit....you might flip-flop again or go yet another way....catholicism perhaps?

More personal attacks? We all affect an "untold number", ttoews. You may explain your doctrine to a person who will teach that to his child and his child may teach the Sunday school class that the next Billy Graham is sitting in. In my case, it's even more direct, as I'm in the ministry. I preach and teach on a very regular basis. I thank God that I've discovered grace.

you do understand that it was intended as a simple illustration and not as a treatise on the doctrine of propitiation, don't you?....in other words, I don't actually believe in the existence in Righteous Dollars....you did know that, didn't you Jac? ....but I do believe that only the sacrifice of the perfect Lamb of God can pay for my sins and nothing I will do can ever be applied to that payment....therefore, no salvation by works over here.

Of course I understand that it was a simple illustration and that you don't believe in "righteous dollars." But I also see several other implications - indeed, requirements - that the illustration is built on. Tell me, ttoews: suppose John Doe dies having never believed in Jesus in any form or fashion. In fact, he rejected Christ and died by execution because he was a mass murderer. How does the cross relate to Mr. Doe? I would argue that every single one of his sins - ALL of them - have been covered by the blood of Christ in exactly the same sense as those of any believer. Christ is not the POTENTIAL propitiation of sinners. He is the ACTUAL propitiation of sinners. You view salvation via propitation, which is another one of your problems. You view Christ's death as putting righteousness in a bank of some sort, and anyone may draw from it freely. That's wrong, and that's another reason your soteriology is off.

nice touch....when all else fails, change the definition of "salvation by works" so that you can continue to slander. The problem for you is that this definition of yours bites you in the butt and makes you an advocate of salvation by works. I'll just tweak your rant, and voila...salvation by works a la Jacque:
Jac believes that where there are no works, there is no eternal life in heaven. Jac can pretty that up with whatever theological language and reasoning he would like, but for him, if there are absolutely no good fruits, then a person isn't going to live eternally in heaven. If no works = no salvation in ANY sense, then you believe in salvation by works...Like Jac is prone to repeat, you can use whatever language you want, but in the final analysis, for Jac, salvation is not by simple belief for works will be guaranteed in heaven, and if there are no works, then there is no salvation. Call it what you want, but by Jac's definition, Jac himself believes in "salvation by works"...he just hasn't figured it out yet.

I find portraying positions and ideas I disagree with in the negative light I see them as to be far more effective, and appropriate, than portraying the person I'm talking with in a negative light.

May I suggest that you be more careful with your wording? I've not offered any slander of any kind. I have argued that your position is one of salvation by works. That, ttoews, is not slander. I've not said anything about you personally other than my personal feeling that you are disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. Regardless, notice the bolded part above. I disagree with that. It is exactly the opposite of what I believe.

ttoews, listen: works - either good or bad - have NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on a person's eternal destination. I can "get saved" and go be a Hitler if that's my fancy. I can reject Christ and be a Mother Teresa, and it won't do anything for me. Now, you are right in your quoting me above that "no works = no salvation" is salvation by works. But, I do not believe that no works = no salvation. A person is perfectly capable of not ever doing a single good work - in fact, they are capable of doing nothing but evil works from the moment of salvation, and THEY ARE STILL SAVED.

Needless to say, you can't say the same. That's because you believe that if a person doesn't do good works, then they aren't saved.

No, I embrace John 6:47....but I possess a different understanding of "believes" than do you...and it is this sort of false accusation that has gotten tiresome.

Yes, you do possess a different understanding of "believe." The problem is the word by defintion means "to be convinced that something is true" or "to consider something reliable." It has no connotation of repentance or commitment or any other such nonsense. To believe in Christ for eternal life means just that - it means to trust Him to give it to you. PERIOD. Now, if you believe it means more, then YOU have to prove it, because, from a lexical perspective, you don't have anything to stand on.

The Bible says that everyone who believes in Jesus for eternal life has it. It does not say that everyone who repents or commits or any other such nonsense has it. You have flat asserted that a person can believe and still go to Hell. You deny the Gospel. I can understand how you would get upset, but notice how you are handling this. You've resorted to personal attacks, sarcasm, and outright double talk (claiming to understand my position and then arguing something you know to be false).

ttoews, I have GOOD NEWS: SALVATION IS FREE. You just have to trust Jesus to give it to you. What you do after that is a totally different story, but salvation itself is FREE!!! That's is WONDERFUL news! And yet, you would deny that. You pay lip-service to the concept of free, but can't you see that you are actually trying to purchase salvation??? Can't you see that giving your life to Jesus has nothing to do with salvation? Can't you see that your VERY BEST is absolutely disgusting before God? You have to take it for free, because you couldn't even start trying to pay for it. Jesus said everyone who believes in Him has everlasting life. That's the only condition. Who are you to add to it?

ttoews wrote:

Jac wrote:]I am only thankful that I have come to understand again the gospel of grace so early in my ministry before I had the chance to lead an untold number astray.

"an untold number" is it now? ....oh, I don't know if you're all that influential....and who knows, once you had a chance to mature a bit....you might flip-flop again or go yet another way....catholicism perhaps?

Jac? A Catholic? Oy Vay! Let's not get carried away now. Deep down inside, though (way, way deep), aren't we all catholic? (hey since I am, I can also claim you all are too ).

I've been keeping up with this thread and I think I may be able to help narrow it down a bit and see if we can bring it to an understanding. I don't think either of you is really disagreeing with the other but the way I see it you're both looking at it from different perspectives. It would help a great deal if we define those perspectives in clearer terms. I will attempt to do so and please feel free to correct me.

Each of you please state if you disagree with any of these:

1) Salvation is a free gift from God thru his son Jesus Christ

2) Works do not earn salvation

3) Believers may do works (of charity, love, penance, keeping the commandments, etc). These works (or lack thereof) have no bearing on the believer's salvation (it is secured). They do, however, increase fellowship with God and merit heavenly rewards. A believer may see these works as a necessary outward sign of his or her belief.

4) Unbelievers may pretend to do works (of charity, love, penance, keeping the commandments, etc). These works have no bearing on the unbeliever's salvation (as it hasn't been secured). Obviously, they merit nothing (well, other than a trip down).

And most importantly (as this is where I think both of you differ in perspectives):

5) Only the individuals themselves and God know if they are believers or unbelievers. Their works are not an indication of their status to others, only to themselves and to God. Believers know their works are the product of faith. Unbelievers know their works are in vain. No other person is able to distinguish between the two. In the end God will sort them out.

If you disagree with any of the above, please state why.

If you do not disagree with any of the above, then please state what it is you're disagreeing about (since the above pretty much sums up both your respective positions).

God Bless,

Byblos.

Byblos wrote:
Jac? A Catholic? Oy Vay! Let's not get carried away now.

well at least someone saw the humor in the remark...BTW is Byblos greek for breath of fresh air?

Deep down inside, though (way, way deep), aren't we all catholic?

i am sure I have been called worse

Each of you please state if you disagree with any of these:

1) Salvation is a free gift from God thru his son Jesus Christ

agreed

2) Works do not earn salvation

agreed

3) Believers may do works (of charity, love, penance, keeping the commandments, etc).

I would say that believers will (not may) produce good works in due course (as a result of God's Spirit at work)....in contrast, Jac says that true believers may or may not produce good works ever

These works (or lack thereof) have no bearing on the believer's salvation (it is secured).

yes, no bearing in securing...merely evidence thereof

They do, however, increase fellowship with God and merit heavenly rewards. A believer may see these works as a necessary outward sign of his or her belief.

close enough

4) Unbelievers may pretend to do works (of charity, love, penance, keeping the commandments, etc). These works have no bearing on the unbeliever's salvation (as it hasn't been secured). Obviously, they merit nothing (well, other than a trip down).

I don't think "pretend to" is necessary and they may have merit outside of salvation....I understand different levels of punishment are possible

And most importantly (as this is where I think both of you differ in perspectives):

5) Only the individuals themselves and God know if they are believers or unbelievers.

I wouldn't classify this as the most important thing....#3 was. A clear minded Christian fellow should know and God of course will know

Their works are not an indication of their status to others, only to themselves and to God.

no...works are fruit by which a tree can be known (with the understanding that a man's knowledge is not infallible)

Believers know their works are the product of faith. Unbelievers know their works are in vain.

not necessarily in either case...some believers, (bless them) may have just gone about doing God's work of loving their neighbour w/o developing a soteriology etc and unbelievers may have not bothered to think about it at all or may be of another faith that possesses a belief in merit

No other person is able to distinguish between the two. In the end God will sort them out.

I would say that no other person can infallibly distinguish between the two...

If you do not disagree with any of the above, then please state what it is you're disagreeing about (since the above pretty much sums up both your respective positions).

I think you missed the importance of our disagreement on point 3

God Bless,

Byblos.

thanks for trying to help

ttoews wrote:BTW is Byblos greek for breath of fresh air?

The word 'Byblos' is the greek origin of the word 'bible', meaning 'the book'. It was coined by the greeks onto the city of Jbeil on the Mediterranean in modern day Lebanon (where I was born). They called it that because of the numerous papyruses they found in the city (the phoenicians were busy inventing the alphabet). It is said to be one of the world's oldest continuously inhabited cities.

ttoews wrote:

Deep down inside, though (way, way deep), aren't we all catholic?

i am sure I have been called worse

Yeah, me too. When people call me catholic, they usually mean it. It doesn't offend me, though.

ttoews wrote:

Each of you please state if you disagree with any of these:

1) Salvation is a free gift from God thru his son Jesus Christ

agreed

2) Works do not earn salvation

agreed

3) Believers may do works (of charity, love, penance, keeping the commandments, etc).

I would say that believers will (not may) produce good works in due course (as a result of God's Spirit at work)....in contrast, Jac says that true believers may or may not produce good works ever

These works (or lack thereof) have no bearing on the believer's salvation (it is secured).

yes, no bearing in securing...merely evidence thereof

They do, however, increase fellowship with God and merit heavenly rewards. A believer may see these works as a necessary outward sign of his or her belief.

close enough

4) Unbelievers may pretend to do works (of charity, love, penance, keeping the commandments, etc). These works have no bearing on the unbeliever's salvation (as it hasn't been secured). Obviously, they merit nothing (well, other than a trip down).

I don't think "pretend to" is necessary and they may have merit outside of salvation....I understand different levels of punishment are possible

And most importantly (as this is where I think both of you differ in perspectives):

5) Only the individuals themselves and God know if they are believers or unbelievers.

I wouldn't classify this as the most important thing....#3 was. A clear minded Christian fellow should know and God of course will know

Their works are not an indication of their status to others, only to themselves and to God.

no...works are fruit by which a tree can be known (with the understanding that a man's knowledge is not infallible)

Believers know their works are the product of faith. Unbelievers know their works are in vain.

not necessarily in either case...some believers, (bless them) may have just gone about doing God's work of loving their neighbour w/o developing a soteriology etc and unbelievers may have not bothered to think about it at all or may be of another faith that possesses a belief in merit

No other person is able to distinguish between the two. In the end God will sort them out.

I would say that no other person can infallibly distinguish between the two...

If you do not disagree with any of the above, then please state what it is you're disagreeing about (since the above pretty much sums up both your respective positions).

I think you missed the importance of our disagreement on point 3

God Bless,

Byblos.

thanks for trying to help

This is a work in progress. I will wait for Jac to offer his comments then see if I can re-word and come up with common language we can all agree on or simply abandon the effort.

God Bless,

Byblos.

1) Salvation is a free gift from God thru his son Jesus Christ

2) Works do not earn salvation

3) Believers may do works (of charity, love, penance, keeping the commandments, etc). These works (or lack thereof) have no bearing on the believer's salvation (it is secured). They do, however, increase fellowship with God and merit heavenly rewards. A believer may see these works as a necessary outward sign of his or her belief.

I'm in total agreement here. I can understand how a genuine believer may see works as a necessary outward sign, but if a person professes that, I'm going to question them very critically about WHAT they believe because works are not a necessary result of salvation.

4) Unbelievers may pretend to do works (of charity, love, penance, keeping the commandments, etc). These works have no bearing on the unbeliever's salvation (as it hasn't been secured). Obviously, they merit nothing (well, other than a trip down).

Eh, I happen to think that unbelievers can, and do, do good works. They don't merit salvation, however, as you noted. I just would pick on the word "pretend." They actually do good works.

5) Only the individuals themselves and God know if they are believers or unbelievers. Their works are not an indication of their status to others, only to themselves and to God. Believers know their works are the product of faith. Unbelievers know their works are in vain. No other person is able to distinguish between the two. In the end God will sort them out.

Philosophically, I would be in agreement here. But, I choose to give the benefit of the doubt to the person who professes faith alone in Christ alone. In other words, I don't see why someone would lie about that, so why argue they are?

Again, it comes down to WHAT you believe. It's not even about what you SAY you believe, because we can all use biblical language to describe what we believe. As Zane Hodges says, you aren't saved by believing biblical language; you are saved by believing biblical truth.

My central problem with ttoews is that he denies the biblical truth that we are saved by faith alone. He has said himself that a person can believe and still be unsaved. The reason is that his position is one that argues that "true belief" is one that includes repentance/commitment, etc. Thus, faith is not enough. One must repent. He believes that where there are no works, there is no salvation. In fact, there are much deeper issues here as they relate to absolute assurance of salvation. You and I have had that discussion, Byblos, and I believe that we agree that if a person does not have absolute, objective assurance that they have been saved, then they do not believe the Gospel. ttoews' position logically excludes the possibility of absolute, objective assurance, so we have yet another problem.

This is a work in progress. I will wait for Jac to offer his comments then see if I can re-word and come up with common language we can all agree on or simply abandon the effort.

I really don't think it's a language problem. I think it is a belief system problem, as we believe different things. We are flatly declaring different gospels. The question is, which one of us (if either) is right?

Hope this helps.

Jac3510 wrote:Getting a bit testy? Why don't you avoid the niceties of left handed insults and just come out with the name-calling, ttoews?

testy? Jac, with your insistence that mine is a doctrine of "salvation by works" in the face of my denials, I find that I can no longer take you seriously wrt this topic...so I am just kidding around a bit....BTW I believe the phrase is left-handed compliments

And now you have resorted to sarcasm and personal attacks. Do you think Jesus is pleased with your conduct?

oh come on Jac....lighten up. If you can assert that I "disagree for the sake of disagreement", surely I am allowed to be a little sarcastic rt your continuing theme of "I once believed like you, but now I know better and so now I know all about why and how you are wrong" and its variation of "you don't believe what you say you believe, rather you believe what I say you believe.

I can't help it if you refuse to see those implications.

as I said, Jac is frustrated that ttoews hasn't recognized the vast superiority in Jac's logic

May I suggest that you be more careful with your wording? I've not offered any slander of any kind. I have argued that your position is one of salvation by works. That, ttoews, is not slander.

I checked my wording....slander is a statement that damages another's reputation...in a Prot community declaring a soteriology to be one of "salvation by works" is most certainly defamatory ...and in this case, your comments cannot be justified on the basis that the assertion is true.

Now, you are right in your quoting me above that "no works = no salvation" is salvation by works. But, I do not believe that no works = no salvation.....

sure you do...you believe good works necessarily follow the destruction of the sinful nature and that there will be no sinning in heaven...therefore, by your reasoning you believe that good works are necessary for one to remain in heaven (and that's part of salvation/eternal life). You must understand Jac that I don't actually think that you believe in "salvation by works", it is just that your reasoning says that you do.

The Bible says that everyone who believes in Jesus for eternal life has it.

this isn't particularly important but none of my translations read this way....they all read whoever "believes in Jesus has eternal life" and not "believes in Jesus for eternal life..."

ttoews, I have GOOD NEWS: SALVATION IS FREE. You just have to trust Jesus to give it to you. What you do after that is a totally different story, but salvation itself is FREE!!! That's is WONDERFUL news! And yet, you would deny that. You pay lip-service to the concept of free, but can't you see that you are actually trying to purchase salvation???

Of course its free...I have said its a gift and and I have explained repeatedly why it would be impossible for any man to contribute to the purchase of his salvation...how am I supposed to take you seriously when you refuse you to accept such a clear concept?

Clarity, not Consensus

Charity, not Circumcision

testy? Jac, with your insistence that mine is a doctrine of "salvation by works" in the face of my denials, I find that I can no longer take you seriously wrt this topic...so I am just kidding around a bit....BTW I believe the phrase is left-handed compliments

ttoews, if someone advocates salvation by works, they can deny it until they are blue in the face. You believe that if a person doesn't do good works then they aren't really saved. How is that not salvation by works??? The only response you can give is that works are a necessary result of salvation, but that doesn't change the fact that works are necessary. But, even more to the point, you argue that belief is not enough, but repentance is necessary. Again, how is that not salvation by works?

You want to talk about not taking each other seriously . . . show me where in this thread you ever took what I'm saying seriously in the first place? You believe that the terms of salvation are different that I do. One of us has to be wrong.

oh come on Jac....lighten up. If you can assert that I "disagree for the sake of disagreement", surely I am allowed to be a little sarcastic rt your continuing theme of "I once believed like you, but now I know better and so now I know all about why and how you are wrong" and its variation of "you don't believe what you say you believe, rather you believe what I say you believe.

I've not been sarcastic in this thread. I do my best to avoid it, so no, I don't allow "a little sarcas[m]." Secondly, I did believe what you believe at a time in the past. But the point is not that I now know better, and therefore I am "better" than you as your paraphrase of me implies. The point is that I understand your position thoroughly. Perhaps if you decided to take this seriously, you would see that?

as I said, Jac is frustrated that ttoews hasn't recognized the vast superiority in Jac's logic

More sarcasm . . . "vast superiority in Jac's logic." This is simply inflammatory language, and you then tell me to "lighten up" when I call you on it?

I checked my wording....slander is a statement that damages another's reputation...in a Prot community declaring a soteriology to be one of "salvation by works" is most certainly defamatory ...and in this case, your comments cannot be justified on the basis that the assertion is true.

I've said your soteriology is a salvation by works. That says nothing of your character or reputation. It says something of your position. If a person's position is intrinsically tied to their reputation/character, then we are never allowed to tell another that they are wrong about anything.

Salvation is a tricky issue in that there are only two catagories. Either you believe in salvation by faith, or you believe in salvation by works. There is absolutely NO middle ground on this. You certainly don't believe in faith alone as I do, and therefore, in my view, your position is salvation by works. I came to see that last year, which is why I dropped the position.

sure you do...you believe good works necessarily follow the destruction of the sinful nature and that there will be no sinning in heaven...therefore, by your reasoning you believe that good works are necessary for one to remain in heaven (and that's part of salvation/eternal life). You must understand Jac that I don't actually think that you believe in "salvation by works", it is just that your reasoning says that you do.

If you are going to try to turn my reasoning back on me, use the same reasoning that I used on you and not a twisted version of it. I've already demonstrated how we are talking about two separate issues, you and me. Now, there are at least three reasons I said you hold to meritorious salvation:

1) You argue that a person cannot mock God and be saved - God regenerates them and controls them soas to eliminate/limit their mocking. However, that has absolutely NO bearing on my position, because, for me, "mocking" has no soteriological context. You put it in that context, ttoews, not me. For me, its context is discipleship and rewards.

2) You hold that repentance is necessary for salvation.

3) You believe that "simple faith" is not enough.

Any three of these is enough to relagate your soteriology to salvation by works because it confuses/rejects the terms of the Gospel. As I said in the Catholic/non-Catholic thread, I see the Gospel in three distinct parts: the person (Jesus Christ), the offer (eternal life), and the terms (faith alone). You've rejected the terms, and I suspect we have a different understanding of the offer as well.

this isn't particularly important but none of my translations read this way....they all read whoever "believes in Jesus has eternal life" and not "believes in Jesus for eternal life..."

This would require an entirely different discussion. Like I said, I have an idea that you and I understand the offer differently . . .

Of course its free...I have said its a gift and and I have explained repeatedly why it would be impossible for any man to contribute to the purchase of his salvation...how am I supposed to take you seriously when you refuse you to accept such a clear concept?

How am I supposed to take you seriously when you are being so inconsistent in your logic? Bonhoffer had this same problem . . . he talks about "costly grace" in his book The Cost of Discipleship. Talk about an oxymoron . . . costly grace :p

If salvation is free, then it is just that - FREE. You say that we can't purchase it, but then you argue that a person has to do more than believe to receive the gift. They have to repent, or turn from sins, or have the type of faith that produces works, whatever. Again, you said it yourself, ttoews - a person can believe and still go to Hell. See, let's put it this way:

You and I both say that in order to be saved a person has to "believe in Jesus." However, we define "believe" differently. For me, "believe" means just that - it means to believe. It means to accept Him and His Word as true. He offers us everlasting life, so we trust Him to give it to us free of charge, end of story.

You, though, find that sort of belief to be a unilateral contract and reject it. You mix other ideas into it, such as confession, repentance, and commtiment. From these flow good works. Thus, if a person does not do these things, then he has not believed. You can use whatever wording you want here, I don't really care. For me, salvation is received freely because Jesus said He would give it to us. For you, salvation is received by some process of repentance. That means it isn't free, because you had to do something to get it. You had to trade something for it.

You certainly don't have to accept my position, but I would expect you to be consistent, and open, about yours. At least PL, R7, and others come out and say what they believe about salvation and repentance/commitment. At least MacArthur and Bonhoffer are open about their positions. I expect the same from you.

Now, would you care to discuss our POSITIONS rather than set out personal attacks and purposefully inflamatory language?

Ok, given both your responses above, I will drop 4 and 5 as clearly the issue is in number 3 like ttoews said.

The reason I went into 4 and 5 is that I thought the main issue was one of whose perspective each of you are looking at things. Jac seemed to be looking from an observer's perspective and saying that one cannot infallibly distinguish between genuine works of faith and works of unbelievers and as such, the outward display of works is meaningless (from an observer's viewpoint). Whereas ttowes is looking at it from the perspective of the individual looking inward at his or her own faith and recognizing the need to do good works as a result of faith.

In any case, seeing that this is not the crux of the problem, I will concentrate on 3 for a while and see how it goes. Now Jac agreed on point 1, 2 and 3 and ttoews did the same for 1 and 2 but had this so say on 3:

ttoews wrote:

Byblos wrote:3) Believers may do works (of charity, love, penance, keeping the commandments, etc).

I would say that believers will (not may) produce good works in due course (as a result of God's Spirit at work)....in contrast, Jac says that true believers may or may not produce good works ever

These works (or lack thereof) have no bearing on the believer's salvation (it is secured).

yes, no bearing in securing...merely evidence thereof

They do, however, increase fellowship with God and merit heavenly rewards. A believer may see these works as a necessary outward sign of his or her belief.

close enough

ttoews, what do you think would be the result of the true believer not producing good works? Does that mean they're not really believers? Does it mean they lose their status as believers? Or are you saying it is simply impossible for a believer not to produce good works because of the presence of the Holy Spirit working in them?

-
I've been reading this thread but have been unable to post as I have been busy posting elsewhere on the Forum a long response - I am finished there and will answer questions on that thread if any are asked - HERE


Now on to this subject:

Maybe we need to refocus the issue with this question:

If a person just believed in Jesus Christ and then died the next second after believing, would they go to heaven to be with the Lord or to hell for having no evidence of salvation?
-
-
-

Bylbos wrote: Or are you saying it is simply impossible for a believer not to produce good works because of the presence of the Holy Spirit working in them?

yes, also I believe that true belief includes what Jac would call good works....to believe one must:
believe God exists, that we need redemption/saving, that God sent His only Son, that Jesus died to save us and that we can accept that sacrifice for our salvation....
now Jac can theorize that one can actually believe all those things w/o actually repenting in one way or another....but I doubt such is possible in the real world....has any sane person ever truly believed those things and not repented? Jac would call that repentance a bit of work, I would call it part of actual belief.

ttoews wrote:

Bylbos wrote: Or are you saying it is simply impossible for a believer not to produce good works because of the presence of the Holy Spirit working in them?

yes, also I believe that true belief includes what Jac would call good works....to believe one must:
believe God exists, that we need redemption/saving, that God sent His only Son, that Jesus died to save us and that we can accept that sacrifice for our salvation....
now Jac can theorize that one can actually believe all those things w/o actually repenting in one way or another....but I doubt such is possible in the real world....has any sane person ever truly believed those things and not repented? Jac would call that repentance a bit of work, I would call it part of actual belief.

ttoews, can I just throw you a quick question? If a "good" and moral person repents and believes in Christ for salvation how do you know the difference between the fruits of his good and moral charactor and the fruits of him having the Spirit indwelling him? I ask because some non believers act more like Christians than Christians.

FFC

ttoews,

I hope you don't feel overwhelmed by all of these questions, but I have one as well.

If the good works that a saved person sees within himself gives evidence of salvation, how many good works or how much fruit is necessary for one to be assured of this salvation. Would this amount not be subjective as well?

It seems like this would be relying a lot on our own subjective reasoning to assure ourselves of salvation.


May God Bless ALL on this forum. They have all been a blessing to me, and increased my understanding even when I did not completely agree.