Evidence for God from Science

I, for one, would take a different view on progressive sanctification. I believe in imputation, not infusion. The day I was justified (imputed with the righteousness of Christ), I got ALL the Jesus and Holy Spirit I am ever going to get. I don't get infused with "more Jesus" or "more righteousness," not even in the progressive sense. I don't have a "baby new spirit" that needs to grow up. The righteousness I receive upon placing my faith in Christ is total, absolute, non-divisible, and completely imputed. There is no room for infusion or progression of any kind as it relates to righteousness.

Ok, this is clear, and I am with you here. I guess my question would be, does this imputation and filling of the Holy Spirit have an impact on your life, and what is that impact? Does the reality of the Holy Spirit living in you produce something that is not available otherwise?

I don't view progressive sanctification of getting more righteousness. I don't think one can get a dose of the spirit here a dose there. How would you view this statement. Yes we get THE Holy Spirit. But how much of us does the Holy Spirit get? That seems to jive with what you are saying. I am totally with you on John 15. I've been studying there for a couple of months now. Obviously abiding is living in all the truth and all the light that God has given us. I don't take this as a salvation lesson, but post salvation instruction. Jesus says this is only possible because He abides in the Father, and He in us.

Here's the big question. If God, who has saved us and then filled us, and set the table with equipping, preperation of good works, etc. it seems strange to me that when we don't see such things, that we wouldn't question whether a saving work really happened in the first place.

Sorry about the link, http://www.libertytothecaptives.net/und ... tance.html

No sweat on the condeming stuff. I'm way past that. I'd rather get my feathers ruffled and be certain of my theology, than get a pat on the head and be content in my ignorance.

Ok, this is clear, and I am with you here. I guess my question would be, does this imputation and filling of the Holy Spirit have an impact on your life, and what is that impact? Does the reality of the Holy Spirit living in you produce something that is not available otherwise?

I like the way you phrased this. THIS is the discussion we ought to be having. The impact of the Holy Spirit is a pneumatological question, NOT a soteriological question!

My own view would distinguish between imputation of righteousness and the filling of the Spirit. The former is a soteriological matter. It part of the process by which we are saved. The latter is happens to us once we are saved, at least, so the logical order goes. In reality, that happen at the same time.

As far as the impact that the filling of the Spirit has on our live, it depends on how you use the term. Are we talking about the baptism of the Spirit by which we are baptized into both Christ's death and the universal Church? Are we talking about positional filling which refers to indwelling (which, I think, is how you are using it here)? Or are we talking about conditional filling (i.e., Eph. 5:18), which I take to be a reference to abiding in the Word. Still further we could be talking about the Spirit's special empowering of a person to accomplish a specific task.

In light of that, I'll take your question as to whether or not the indwelling of the Spirit has an impact on my life, and the answer is, "Yes, it does." Always. What is that impact? Lots. I don't pretend to be able to list them all . . . I know it allows me to pray in God's will; it is the means by which I can say "Jesus is Lord"; it is the means by which I, as a believer, am convicted of sin (which is to be distinguished from the means by which the unbeliever is convicted of sin), etc. In the case of the last, we might note that everyone has a conscience, and our conscience convicts all of us--believer or unbeliever--when we do something wrong. So I wouldn't equate the Spirit's work with the conscience. It seems better to me to say this is a case in which the Scriptures are applied to my life--how Christ expects His Church to live and walk before Him. Such is not in the least required of the non-Christian (1 Cor. 5:12). So the idea here is illumination.

Notice, finally, that few, if any, of these things are behavioral. They are mostly doctrinal. I absolutely agree with you that we only respond to God--whether believer or unbeliever. And what we respond to is the Spirit. Thus, no one can have faith in Christ unless He is drawn by the Spirit, and no one can live in faith unless He is drawn by the Spirit. I just think there is free will in our response; believer or unbeliever.

A final impact worth mentioning that may not be directly related to the indwelling of the Spirit but at least indirectly is the discipline that comes to the believer who sins. I certainly, then, agree that it is NORMAL for a Christian to bear fruit. That is what is EXPECTED. It is ABNORMAL for a Christian to not bear fruit. I just object to the claim that if a Christian is not bearing fruit, then he MUST NOT be a Christian . . .

I don't view progressive sanctification of getting more righteousness. I don't think one can get a dose of the spirit here a dose there. How would you view this statement. Yes we get THE Holy Spirit. But how much of us does the Holy Spirit get? That seems to jive with what you are saying. I am totally with you on John 15. I've been studying there for a couple of months now. Obviously abiding is living in all the truth and all the light that God has given us. I don't take this as a salvation lesson, but post salvation instruction. Jesus says this is only possible because He abides in the Father, and He in us.

I can have no other comment to any of this except

Here's the big question. If God, who has saved us and then filled us, and set the table with equipping, preperation of good works, etc. it seems strange to me that when we don't see such things, that we wouldn't question whether a saving work really happened in the first place.

I can absolutely agree that it is strange. But is it impossible? No. I think it happens, and, sadly, I think we may even have a propensity towards it if we don't carefully heed the Bible's warnings on the matter. I would not, then, question whether or not the saving work really happened (remember, people can sear their conscience, which makes me wonder if they can sear it so much that the witness of the Spirit becomes very dim).

So strange? Yes. Expected? No. Possible? Yes. Desirable? Of course not. But if we truly believe in imputation and OSAS, then we have no other choice. If not, there are too many practical questions. How much sin must I not commit before I know the Spirit has actually worked? Why can I hate but not murder? And if I can murder, what sin is "too much" before I must question my salvation? One sin? Two? One hundred? How can I know I've repented enough? In the end, if ANYTHING is absolutely necessary following salvation (as it relates to sanctification), then there is NO WAY I can have assurance of salvation. I can pretend I do. I can have false assurance. I can tell people that I have assurance, but I'm just being dishonest with both myself and others. I've become a Pharisee who thinks I'm actually good enough to warrant assurance . . . how sad . . .

But just as clearly, this doesn't mean that we should practice sin or even that we are free to. We are no more free as saved believers to practice sin now than we were before we were saved. There are still consequences. Worse now, in fact! Now we suffer the discipline of God!

Sorry about the link, http://www.libertytothecaptives.net/und ... tance.html

No sweat on the condeming stuff. I'm way past that. I'd rather get my feathers ruffled and be certain of my theology, than get a pat on the head and be content in my ignorance.

Will look at the link later tonight. God bless

OK, a response to your article, J:

In order to understand salvation crystal-clear you must also understand genuine repentance. The first thing I would say to you if you are under conviction is this: the first thing you ought to do is repent. The Spirit of God works repentance. The Bible says, "godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation" (2 Corinthians 7:10). The Spirit of God comes to your heart and begins to weigh down your heart and to tell you that you are a sinner and that you're on your way to Hell. You begin to have godly sorrow and that godly sorrow turns you to repentance. Then that repentance turns you to salvation. Godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation.

Jesus said, "except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish" (Luke 13:3). Peter in his Second Epistle said, "The Lord.., is longsuffering... not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance" (2 Peter 3:9). This is a teaching that really needs to be taught. You need to know what true biblical repentance is.

2 Cor 7:10 is written to believers who are already saved telling them that they needed (past tense!) to repent. Specifically, the comment came with reference to their reception of his first letter (1 Cor is certainly pretty harsh at times). Paul is talking about the church's "salvation" from God's wrath. If they had not turned from the wickedness they had been practicing, Jesus would have put out the candle (cf. Rev 1-3).

So the first error is to assume that the word "salvation" has to mean "salvation from Hell." The context clearly indicates that is not what is in viewl

We have already talked about Luke 13, so I won't go into it again. 2 Peter is the same situation. The "perishing" there refers to physical death, not eternal damnation. The context is the coming Day of the Lord, but more specifically, the judgment that comes with it. The immediately preceding illustration is the Noahic flood. Just as all the world was destroyed in that judgment, so also those who don't repent will be destroyed in the judgment to come. On what basis, though, do they equate that judgment with eternal damnation? It seems far more likely that it is referring to the actual judgments that will kill millions of people! Isn't this thought, after all, perfectly parallel with Eze. 33:11? In fact, might this not be an allusion to that passage?

Look at Luke 15. I'd like to share with you what you really need to do to be saved. As you realize that you're a sinner, you realize that you're on your way to eternal destruction. You realize that the Spirit of God is speaking to your heart. "How do I repent?" you ask. In Luke 15 the Lord Jesus says this:

• "Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth. And He said, 'A certain man had two sons: And the younger of them said to his father, 'Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me.' And he divided unto them his living. And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living. And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in that land; and he began to be in want. And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine. And he would vain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat: and no man gave unto him. And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father's have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger! I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, 'Father, I have sinned against Heaven, and before thee, And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants. "(Luke 15:10-19KJV)

I would like you to see that there are three things in this story that Jesus teaches us regarding true biblical repentance.

Isn't it interesting that the lost son was . . . a SON?!? This is not a picture of salvation. It is a picture of restoration. Now, look at the context. The Pharisees were complaining that Jesus was eating with "sinners." Clearly, those sinners were the lost sheep of the story (and the lost son in the next); the Pharisees themselves were the safe sheep and the safe son. But this second story is especially interesting, because the so-called obedient son actually less righteous than the sinning son! Why? Because he was being judgmental . . . he thought he had earned his fathers love and rewards.

In any case, it makes much more sense to me to take this as a reference to Jesus gathering the "lost sheep of Israel" so that He can establish His kingdom. The idea has nothing to do with personal salvation and everything to do with the same thing that all the synoptics have to do with: Jesus as the Savior and King of Israel.

Forsake your sin

And he would vain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat: and no man gave unto him. And when he came to himself, he said, 'How many hired servants of my father's have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger! I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, 'Father, I have sinned against Heaven, and before thee.'

I want you to notice here first of all that repentance that is true and genuine makes a man willing to forsake his sin. The man that Jesus was talking about in this parable, this prodigal son, was willing to say,

'I need to get up and get out of this mess I'm in and I need to go to my Heavenly Father.' He was willing first of all to give up his sin. That is true repentance. Repentance produces a willingness to forsake sin.

John the Baptist came preaching the Gospel of repentance and do you know what he said? He said to the tax collector, 'You want to repent? Stop taking more from people than that which is right. '(Luke 3:12-13). Men, if you want to repent, 'he looked at the soldiers and said, 'stop robbing people by violence and be content with your wages' (Luke 3:14). He looked at the rich man and said, 'If you want to repent, go and take those two extra coats that you have and share them with someone who has none' (Luke 3:11). Could John the Baptist come to your closet and say, 'if you want to repent, maybe you ought to take one or two of those dresses and sell them and maybe you ought to take those two coats that you have and give one to the poor'?

When Jesus was on the road to Jericho, one day He stopped and there was a man up in a tree. The man's name was Zacchaeus. Zacchaeus wanted to repent. Do you know what the response was that Zach gave to the Lord Jesus? He said, "Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold" (Luke 19:8). Here was a man whose heart was willing to forsake his sin.

I ask you: are you willing to forsake your sin?

He is right, of course, that Jesus is calling for a genuine turning from sin, but I can't help but notice that he (rightly) ties this message into John's ministry. Now, what was John's ministry but to prepare the people for the coming of the Messiah who was to establish the kingdom.

I have no quarrel with the argument that the Jews must turn from their sin and turn to their God and Christ to receive their kingdom. That is, in fact, what the entire seven year period of the Tribulation will be about. But when you confuse that with what anyone has to do--Jew or Gentile--to receive eternal life, you get a false gospel like this one.

Confess your sin

Next I would like you to see in verse 18 the second thing that established true repentance: a willingness to confess your sin. It's coming and showing your deeds and confessing your sin before God. 1 Timothy 5:24 says, "Some men's sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment; and some men they follow after." You have a choice to make. Your sins have either already gone to Heaven before you or your sins are still with you and they will follow you to judgment. Confess your sins now. Send them on ahead of you lest you die and the weight of your sin sinks you into the sides of Hell. Confess your sins and let them go before you into judgment.

Are you willing to confess your sins to God and to the people you've sinned against? The prodigal son left the pigpen. He was willing to forsake his sin and he confessed his sin to God and to man.

Again, I have no problem with the need to confess our sins. In context, the prodigal son had to do that to restore his fellowship with his father (notice that word--FELLOWSHIP). Likewise, the Jews will have to turn from their sins to restore their fellowship with their Father and receive their kingdom. And likewise again, we must confess our sins to have fellowship with God (see 1 John 1:8-9).

It is, of course, ridiculous to say that anyone will go to Hell for their sins. both 1 John 2:2 and Rev. 20:11ff disprove that. Jesus died for ALL sin. Sin is not the problem. People go to Hell, not for their sin, but for not being in the Book of Life. Look at the text in revelation for yourself.

Again, this author has taken a proper thing that believers are to do to restore their fellowship and the Jews must do to receive their kingdom and falsely required unbelievers to do it to receive salvation.

Serve God

The prodigal son had a willingness to serve. By overlooking that, many people make a mistake. Look at verse 19. There this dear man comes to his father and says these words: I am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants.

Do you know how I can tell when a man is truly repenting? When a man is truly under the conviction of the Spirit of God, when a man is ready to be born again, the Bible says he will come and confess his sin; he will forsake his sin; and he will come with a heart that says, "Lord Jesus, I want to serve you. I want to serve you and I don't want my way anymore. Lord Jesus, make me a servant. Make me a servant." True repentance produces a broken heart and a willingness to serve.

Our society and the nominal churches are becoming perverted about this concept of repentance, even going so far as to claim that you can be saved without a willingness to be a servant of Christ. But listen to the words of Malachi: "Then shall ye return, and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not" (Malachi 3:18).

There was a time when a different rich man came to Jesus and asked for eternal life. Jesus said, 'Go and sell all that you have and come and be My servant. Follow Me' (Matthew 19:2 1). But the rich man didn't have a repentant heart. And the Bible says that the rich man "went away sorrowful" (Matthew 19:22). He turned to His disciples, and Peter looked up to Him and said, 'Lord, we have forsaken all to follow Thee' (Matthew 19:27).

Too much to comment on here . . .

1. It's interesting to note that while the PS does indeed ask his father to make him a slave, but that hardly denotes a desire to serve. On the contrary, it simply means that, even in servanthood, he would have it better. In the second place, it is more interesting to note that the father NEVER LETS THE SON MAKE HIS SPEECH! While the son was still a long way off, before he could say anything, the father went out to him and exalted to him to his rightful place.

By extension, God isn't interested in our desire to serve him anymore than that father was interested in his son being a servant. Yet this author says that we must make that speech . . . goes against the text.

2. The Mal. passage was directed at Jewish people with no reference to eternal salvation (by all means, check the context)

3. We have talked about the RYR. Jesus wasn't giving him the Gospel. He was showing him his sinfulness and NEED for the Gospel. Thus, this author wrongly takes Jesus' challenge as the Gospel of Grace. He totally missed the point.

Have you truly repented?

I would ask you: have you truly repented? Was there a time in your life when you realized you were a sinner, when you realized you were under the judgment of God, on your way to Hell, and you felt the conviction of the Spirit? Did you come to the Lord Jesus and confess your sin? Did you come to the Lord Jesus and forsake your sin? Did you come to the Lord Jesus and say, "Lord, I want to be your servant"? That is true biblical repentance. if you do that you are following the steps in the example that Jesus gave of the Prodigal Son. I wonder: where is your heart on this subject? Have you truly repented?

Jesus said, "So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be My disciple" (Luke 14:33).

From my background, people are coming by the thousands down aisles to receive Christ. They are kneeling at an altar. They are being told that if they pray and ask Jesus to come into their heart that's all they need to do. They get up from that altar and they go back to their seat. And they're just as much lost and now even more lost than when they got up and went to the altar because the Lord Jesus said except you repent, you shall all likewise perish. Have you truly repented?

True repentance consists of a willingness to forsake sin, a willingness to confess, and a willingness to serve Jesus. If God grants you repentance, you will do these very things. I ask you again: have you truly repented? if you've not, Jesus would say if you haven't repented you shall perish.

So I've commented on the theology of this paragraph already, but let's take it to its logical conclusion. If repenting is turning from and confessing sin and being willing to serve God, then my question is simple: who has done that? Can we partially repent, partially confess our sin, partially serve God for our salvation? I don't know about you, but I have to repent on a daily basis, confess on a daily basis, renew my desire to serve God on a daily basis. And sadly, there are days--even WEEKS--that renewal doesn't come. So how do you know when you have "repented enough"? How do you know when you have turned from enough sin? There is no possibility of assurance in this, for I guarantee you that everyone--that author included--still struggles with some sins that he was living with before his salvation experience. If he hasn't turned from it and confessed it, he must not be saved, right?!?

Finally, it seems evident to me this entire website contradicts the Bible in two places:

1. How can a person who is a sinner by nature turn from his nature if he does not have a new nature? Put simply, how can a lost person repent? Does Jer. 13:23 not show the futility of asking a sinner to turn from his sins?

2. If turning from sin, confessing, and promising to serve Jesus are all necessary to be saved, then why do verses like gen 15:6, John 3:16; 5:24; 6:47; 11:24-26; 20:30-31; and Acts 16:31 all say faith is sufficient? And how do we account for those who believed but expressly DID NOT confess (see John 12:42 for on example of many)?

In short, all of the things this author mentions are important--for believers. For unbelievers, there is only ONE thing he or she must do: believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.

It is, of course, ridiculous to say that anyone will go to Hell for their sins. both 1 John 2:2 and Rev. 20:11ff disprove that. Jesus died for ALL sin. Sin is not the problem. People go to Hell, not for their sin, but for not being in the Book of Life. Look at the text in revelation for yourself.

I don't know that this is a fair way to put it. For example I can say that gravity is not the real problem for the person jumping from an airplane. The problem is that they are not wearing a parachute. However, gravity is the problem. Not placing one's trust in the parachute would indicate that the person is not going to survive the effects of gravity. If I had a plane full of people I could write down the survivors in advance based on who put on the parachute. Jesus has taken care of the 'sin' problem. And by trusting in Him we are written into the Lambs book of life. For one who is not, then their own sin is still upon them.

Acts 26:20 "So then, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the vision from heaven. First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and to the Gentiles also, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds.
Repent or repentance occurs 52 times in the NT. Obviously in some cases the context demonstrates that the use of the term is not a salvation issue. A few things pop out to me in this verse. Paul is saying that the same message was preached to Jew and Gentile alike. Please clear up this. Are you saying that there is a different way that Jew and Gentile appropriate salvation? Or, are you differentiating the individual Jew and the nation of Israel?

jlay wrote:I don't know that this is a fair way to put it.

Actually, in fairness, I should have taken the word "ridiculous" out and phrased it differently.

For example I can say that gravity is not the real problem for the person jumping from an airplane. The problem is that they are not wearing a parachute. However, gravity is the problem. Not placing one's trust in the parachute would indicate that the person is not going to survive the effects of gravity. If I had a plane full of people I could write down the survivors in advance based on who put on the parachute. Jesus has taken care of the 'sin' problem. And by trusting in Him we are written into the Lambs book of life. For one who is not, then their own sin is still upon them.

Or let me try this analogy:

Suppose I get cancer and die. Now, suppose a doctor operates on my dead body and removes all the cancer. All of it. Suppose, for the sake of argument, my body no longer has cancer. Am I cured? Obviously not. I am still dead.

In my view, we are dead in our sins. Sin killed us. We are, to put it somewhat humorously, walking zombies. Even when we trust in Christ and are born again, though our spirit is alive, our body is still dead. Truly, Adam died the very day he hate of the fruit. He did not begin to die. He actually died. Physically. It just took 900 years for the effects to be final. It is just like when you pluck a flower from the ground. It may look alive for several days, but it is dead.

For what it is worth, I also am not sure that we are written into the lambs book of life upon belief. There is no verse that actually says that, I was surprised to discover (if you know of one, please let me know, as I've looked!). There are many, though, that talk about being blotted out. It seems to me that the book of life is a record of everyone alive, and it seems likely that if a person dies without having placed their faith in Christ, then they are blotted out.

So, I go back to 1 John 2:2. It says that Jesus propitiated ALL sin, including the sin of unbelievers. You don't have to believe in Christ to have your sins atoned for. That's been done whether you believe in Jesus or not. The issue is whether or not you are spiritually alive. Are you in Christ or in Adam? Are you in life or in death? For that reason, Rev. 20:15 says that everyone whose name was not in the book of life were thrown into the lake of fire. Note the reason for the condemnation. It had nothing to do with sin. The reason was that they were dead!

I think that makes very good sense in light of the Christian walk, too. After all, as a Christian, I sin. As a Christian, you sin. So we can't really say that sin is what condemns us, for if it did, then we would be condemned after our salvation. Why would we be rescued from our sins and not others? Because we repented? But is it not obvious that many Christians die with some sins still yet unrepented of (indeed, don't we all)? But you will rightly point out that our sins don't send us to heaven or hell, for Christ is our salvation. He has paid the price for ALL our sins, both those repented of and those not. So true, and in light of that, I point you again to 1 John 2:2: "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world."

<a target="_blank" class="lbsBibleRef" href="http://bible.logos.com/passage/nasb/Acts%2026.20">Acts 26:20</a> "So then, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the vision from heaven. First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and to the Gentiles also, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds.

Repent or repentance occurs 52 times in the NT. Obviously in some cases the context demonstrates that the use of the term is not a salvation issue. A few things pop out to me in this verse. Paul is saying that the same message was preached to Jew and Gentile alike. Please clear up this. Are you saying that there is a different way that Jew and Gentile appropriate salvation? Or, are you differentiating the individual Jew and the nation of Israel?

Yes, I am differentiating between the individual Jew and the nation of Israel. The Jews had to (and have to) repent to receive their kingdom. That's evident in the OT prophecies as well. But personal salvation, be that of the Jew or Gentile, is based on mere faith alone.

Of course, once a person has been born again, there are many things that should happen, sanctification being the first of them. God has provided many tools for that: the indwelling of the Spirit, a new nature, the local church, discipleship, incentives of rewards in the next life as well as blessings and the approval of God in this, as well as the fear of discipline in this life and the loss of rewards in the next. So sanctification should be normal so long as it is intentional and followed in precisely the same way as our justification was: by faith alone.

If you ask me, then, why so many saved people are clearly not being sanctified, I would respond in two ways:

1. I fear many are not saved, for they have believed a false gospel (i.e., turn from your sins and give your life to Christ to be saved);

2. They may have started by faith, but are "now trying to attain your goal by human effort" (to quote Gal. 3:3).

Just like salvation is by faith alone, sanctification is by faith alone. The moment you try to do it yourself, you cut yourself from the vine (John 15), and you stop bearing fruit. I think the parable of the four soils demonstrates this all to well. MOST of people who have been saved won't bear fruit, and of those that do, some will bear a little, some a fair bit, and a few abundantly. But, then again, most don't live by faith; some do a little, some a fair bit, and some a lot.

The bottom line on repentance, as I see it, is simple: it is something believers are called to do to restore their fellowship with God so that they might continue to bear fruit.

Suppose I get cancer and die. Now, suppose a doctor operates on my dead body and removes all the cancer. All of it. Suppose, for the sake of argument, my body no longer has cancer. Am I cured? Obviously not. I am still dead.

In my view, we are dead in our sins. Sin killed us. We are, to put it somewhat humorously, walking zombies. Even when we trust in Christ and are born again, though our spirit is alive, our body is still dead. Truly, Adam died the very day he hate of the fruit. He did not begin to die. He actually died. Physically. It just took 900 years for the effects to be final. It is just like when you pluck a flower from the ground. It may look alive for several days, but it is dead.

For what it is worth, I also am not sure that we are written into the lambs book of life upon belief. There is no verse that actually says that, I was surprised to discover (if you know of one, please let me know, as I've looked!). There are many, though, that talk about being blotted out. It seems to me that the book of life is a record of everyone alive, and it seems likely that if a person dies without having placed their faith in Christ, then they are blotted out.

So, I go back to 1 John 2:2. It says that Jesus propitiated ALL sin, including the sin of unbelievers. You don't have to believe in Christ to have your sins atoned for. That's been done whether you believe in Jesus or not. The issue is whether or not you are spiritually alive. Are you in Christ or in Adam? Are you in life or in death? For that reason, Rev. 20:15 says that everyone whose name was not in the book of life were thrown into the lake of fire. Note the reason for the condemnation. It had nothing to do with sin. The reason was that they were dead!

No argument. I think we are talking about two sides of the same coin. I agree, Christ died for all. There is nothing special about a Christian. Christ died for their sins as well as the unbeliever. The unbeliever has the same free gift of salvation offered to them. It is a matter of a appropration. So my analogy still holds up. Whoever didn't put on the parachute has their name wiped off the suvivors list. the plane is going down. There are enough parachutes for everyone to survive, if they will simply do the appropiate thing, place their trust in the parachute and put it on.

If you ask me, then, why so many saved people are clearly not being sanctified, I would respond in two ways:

1. I fear many are not saved, for they have believed a false gospel (i.e., turn from your sins and give your life to Christ to be saved);

2. They may have started by faith, but are "now trying to attain your goal by human effort" (to quote Gal. 3:3).

This still brings me full circle. What is saving faith? What constitutes belief IN HIM. Paul said there is no condemnation for those who are IN Christ. Can false salvation be someone putting their trust in OSAS, as opposed to In Christ Himself?

Again excellent posts Jac and jlay

Let me add that it is not so much about acting better but rather what the word salvation / saved means - set free, rescued, deliverance, victory, escape from, take away, heal….

These definitions come from a composite from Mounce's Dictionary of Old and New Testament words, HB pages 609-610, 614-615 of both Hebrew (Yeshua/ Teshua / yasa / nasal / malat) and Greek (soteria — soza).

It is not about acting better but rather a living grace that sets free, rescues, delivers, achieve victory, escape from, take away, heal…etc…

So we come to these scriptures that identify how to tell a true believer from anyone in the world:

John 3:3, 8, “Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit."

Romans 6:21, 22, 23, “But what fruit were you getting at that time from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. 22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

Questions: When one becomes born Again does or does not the Holy Spirit take up residence with one?

If so, is the Holy Spirit active or passive?

What is the work that the Lord does?

This work is summed in Galatians chapter 5 and 6 but too numerous to outline here. Also Ephesians 5:9 reveals what the Lord is doing as well...

Galatians 5:22-25, “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. 24 And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.”

The Lord is doing an inner work on us, growth, so we become more fruit-filled, not fruity! This takes time. Jac you make an excellent point about being fruity so much that it appears to me that passivity is preferred due to the fear of being a fruity-flakey Christian. So I have to ask, do you trust the Lord to do His work within the believer? I know you do but have to ask just the same

I think it was George Macdonald (contemporary of CS Lewis) who was the one that used the house model: Being Born of God's Spirit means, the Lord takes up residence in our fleshly home. He then goes to work, remodeling the house of our heart. He begins to take out the garbage and throwing out the clutter from the house of our hearts. Tear out a wall here and over there knock out a wall so a window can shine destroying the darkness in the deep recesses of our souls; thus, setting you apart as a habitation for God to shine through to those in darkness.

So it is not about Behavior Modification but rather the Lord working within us to bring the fullness of His Salvation into our lives in the fullest sense of the word. In other words, living that victorious life, overcoming life, where the flesh loses, darkness removed, being made whole, etc. Painful at times but needed nevertheless...

It is true that Behavior is not the measure of this work because anyone can fake it with works; however, such inner fruit growing and changing us will cause our behaviors to change quite naturally. No Psychology can achieve this, it can help, but it cannot achieve manifesting the fruits of the Spirit.

Galatians 6:-4-5, “But let each one test his own work, and then his reason to boast will be in himself alone and not in his neighbor. 5 For each will have to bear his own load.”

We are called to test ourselves — this inner work — are we becoming more fruit filled or more fruity?

Look at Romans 8:13, 14, 15,: “For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. 15 For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, "Abba! Father!"

Salvation, leads one away from the ways of the world through a process. This process is not optional as the Holy Spirit is not optional because He lives within us - so we will become more fruit filled in due time ... Out of our hearts will overflow with living water.... as Jesus puts it.

It is correct to say we get all this in one wallop; however, do we live it or should it be better asked - how do we live in accord to the Holy Spirit within? He will produce His Fruit in our lives in due time...

In fact we all three (Jac, jlay, myself) are all saying the same things. Jac, you take the pragmatic western approach in compartmentalizing every detail so to you — every part has a piece and each fit together in sequence of order. Nothing wrong with this style of learning other then failure to step back and look at the entire picture by focusing only each individual pixel of the picture. The western learning tradition is to lead a person step back to view the whole.

The other is the Eastern method which uses the same methods as the West but sees the entire whole first and then how each piece sets within the whole. The Eastern approach does not view sanctification as an option but as the result of the progressive work of the Holy Spirit living within a Born Again person.

As it is written: Romans 8:9, “You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.”

So how does one tell if they are truly God's House? It is not by outward behaviors alone but rather that inward work daily transforming our lives by the Titus 2:11,12 and 1 John 1:9 way.

Each must bear their own load in this work...examining themselves and repenting - growing... etc.. in fact as Jac pointed out...

That inward growth of the fruits of the Spirit that teaches love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control, etc, which in turn affect our lives so eventually all can see — you are a work in progress becoming a child of Light and not of darkness any longer.

It is easy for us to make a fruity Christian but it can only take the Holy Spirit to make us fruit filled…-
-
-
-

jlay wrote:No argument. I think we are talking about two sides of the same coin. I agree, Christ died for all. There is nothing special about a Christian. Christ died for their sins as well as the unbeliever. The unbeliever has the same free gift of salvation offered to them. It is a matter of a appropration. So my analogy still holds up. Whoever didn't put on the parachute has their name wiped off the suvivors list. the plane is going down. There are enough parachutes for everyone to survive, if they will simply do the appropiate thing, place their trust in the parachute and put it on.

And there is our disagreement, which I was trying to make clear with my example. In my view, ALL have appropriated the full benefits of the Cross. The mistake people make is to equate the appropriation of the Cross' benefits (atonement) with salvation. A central premise for me is this: the unbeliever's sins have been atoned for! They have not been potentially atoned for. They HAVE BEEN atoned for, whether the person accepts that or not. The unbeliever HAS appropriated the Cross' atonement.

This still brings me full circle. What is saving faith? What constitutes belief IN HIM. Paul said there is no condemnation for those who are IN Christ. Can false salvation be someone putting their trust in OSAS, as opposed to In Christ Himself?

Oh, sure. The Gospel is not to trust in a doctrine, but in the person of Christ. My point is that there is nothing inherent in the idea of trust Jesus for your salvation that means you will necessarily be progressively sanctified. Nothing whatsoever. Therefore, we CANNOT base the assurance of our own salvation nor our ideas about others' salvation in ANY way on the presence or absence of works. A true Christian may go through life never once honoring Christ and, in fact, denying Him, and an unbeliever may go through life professing faith and doing many good works. There is NO way to know externally. The ONLY basis for assurance--the ONLY way to know if ANYONE is saved, ourselves included--is to simply asked if they have ever trusted Christ--AND CHRIST ALONE--for their salvation, that is, for eternal life. If they have trusted in Christ plus anything else (their works, repentance, baptism, etc.), then they haven't trusted Christ. If they believe they can lose their salvation, then they aren't trusting Christ alone. If they can't say that they KNOW FOR SURE that they are saved RIGHT NOW, then they are not trusting Christ. If they don't know that they have eternal life RIGHT NOW then they don't trust Christ.

But, you show me someone who knows that they know that Christ has saved them on the basis of who He is and what He has done for no other reason than the fact that He said He would, then I will show you someone who will spend eternity in heaven.

Again, if someone has believed that, regardless of their works or lackthereof, they are saved. If not, they are not, regardless of the presence of their works.

Jac, I thought we were making such progress. I'm not sure I follow you. Your last statement just seems ripe with contradiciton.

If they can't say that they KNOW FOR SURE that they are saved RIGHT NOW, then they are not trusting Christ. If they don't know that they have eternal life RIGHT NOW then they don't trust Christ.

I recall you are saying someone can be saved, then competely deny they ever had a salvation experience. They can deny Jesus NOW, but some past profession saves them eternally. Did I not hear you say something to this affect? Those people can not say for sure they are saved right now. Then you say "If they can't say that they KNOW FOR SURE that they are saved RIGHT NOW," which totally contradicts this very thing. You are saying there ARE people who have eternal life who can't "say for sure." Then you say, if they can't say for sure RIGHT NOW, they don't have eternal life. Did I hear you right before?

"Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation— if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel ....Col 1: 21-24a
"Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God." John 3:18
"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." Eph 2:8-9

And faith is not an appropriating work??

But, you show me someone who knows that they know that Christ has saved them on the basis of who He is and what He has done for no other reason than the fact that He said He would, then I will show you someone who will spend eternity in heaven.

Well I would hope that we wouldn't get any argument from anyone on that. This still does not get back to my question of what "is savign faith?" What does "belief', and "In Him" embody for the saved. BW has addressed this. What is the "basis of who He is?" I'm not asking this out of ignorance, but am curious of your position.

Jac, I thought we were making such progress

We are

I recall you are saying someone can be saved, then competely deny they ever had a salvation experience. They can deny Jesus NOW, but some past profession saves them eternally. Did I not hear you say something to this affect? Those people can not say for sure they are saved right now. Then you say "If they can't say that they KNOW FOR SURE that they are saved RIGHT NOW," which totally contradicts this very thing. You are saying there ARE people who have eternal life who can't "say for sure." Then you say, if they can't say for sure RIGHT NOW, they don't have eternal life. Did I hear you right before?

No contradiction. Look at my words more carefully. I did NOT say that if a person can't say that they know for sure right now that they are eternally saved then they are not saved. I said if a person can't say that they know for sure right now that they are eternally saved then they are not trusting Jesus (note the present these of "trusting"). You can stop trusting Jesus and still be saved, so long as you did at one time.

Basically I am saying that a person can have eternal life and not know it--that is, they can have it, yet deny that they have it or perhaps they can have it and have become confused and convinced that they don't. But in that state of not knowing that they have it, they have ceased to trust in Jesus. They have effectively lost their faith.

"Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation— if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel ....Col 1: 21-24a
"Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God." John 3:18
"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." Eph 2:8-9

And faith is not an appropriating work??

Yes, faith is an appropriating work. But what does it appropriate?

Wrong answer: atonement for sin
Right answer: salvation

The benefits of the cross--atonement--are not appropriated by faith. They are given by God to all regardless of faith. Eternal life, however, is not given to all. It is given to all who believe in Christ for it. I'm sure you are aware of the limited/unlimited atonement debate that goes on with Calvinists and everybody else (including Calvinists). I tell people that both sides are wrong. The Atonememnt is neither limited nor unlimited. It is universal. What both the traditional views have in common is the idea that the atonement is applied only to those who have faith--they just disagree as to whether or not is potentially covers unbelieves as well. I say that it does not cover potential unbelievers--it ACTUALLY covers unbelievers, for unbelievers have appropriated the full benefits of the Cross.

So the mistake comes with equating the appropriation of the atonement (having our sins covered/forgiven/propitiated/etc) with salvation itself. Salvation comes not when our sins are atoned for, but when we receive eternal life, which we do so by faith.

Well I would hope that we wouldn't get any argument from anyone on that. This still does not get back to my question of what "is savign faith?" What does "belief', and "In Him" embody for the saved. BW has addressed this. What is the "basis of who He is?" I'm not asking this out of ignorance, but am curious of your position.

I just read a beautiful chapter answering this very question in G. Michael Cocoris' Evangelism: A Biblical Approach (forwarded by Haddon Robinson). He sees (rightly, I think) three things in the nature of faith:

1. Recognition of Truth: It requires having heard the truth, for you cannot believe in that which you have not been told;
2. Reception of Truth: It requires believing the truth, for you can hear the truth and reject it;
3. Reliance on Truth: It requires relying upon that truth, for you can believe something is true without trusting in it.

Concerning the final aspect, he rightly points out the basic aspect of trust in biblical faith. This is not to be confused with commitment of life, turning from sin, or any such idea. It is nothing more than entrusting oneself to Christ. It is the recognition that I cannot save myself and the reliance upon Christ to do it for me, regardless of what I do or do not do (or believe!) in the future. That is, it is faith in Christ, not faith in my works.

In practice, that means that a person who never hears of Jesus cannot "believe in Him." It means that a person may hear of Jesus but reject His claims about Himself, and thus, do not "believe in Him." Finally, it means that a preson may hear of Jesus and believe what He says about Himself is true, but choose rather to trust something other than or in addition to Jesus (if anything at all) for their salvation--perhaps they trust their faith in Jesus, or perhaps they trust their baptism plus Jesus, or perhaps they trust their continuation in the faith plus Jesus, etc.

So what is it to believe in Jesus? It is to hear and believe His testimony and to entrust one's eternal salvation to Him and Him alone.

Yes, faith is an appropriating work. But what does it appropriate?

Wrong answer: atonement for sin
Right answer: salvation

You said we were in disagreement. I fail to see where we are in regards to this statement.
Faith appropriates salvation. Salvation from what? Sins. Jesus atoned for our sin through his death. They are all part of the cross style. Jesus did what he did and is what He is since the foundations of the earth.

I think as BW said, you are compartmentalizing the wholeness of what is In HIm.

So the mistake comes with equating the appropriation of the atonement (having our sins covered/forgiven/propitiated/etc) with salvation itself. Salvation comes not when our sins are atoned for, but when we receive eternal life, which we do so by faith.

Salvation comes not when our sins are atoned for, but when we receive eternal life, which we do so by faith.

I understand what you are saying, but I fail to see where the bible distinquishes this as you are. I see all this as universally "In Him."
We have no disagreement that Jesus death was sufficient, and that he died for all. No question Jesus' death was the propitiation for every sin.
This gets back to trusting IN HIM. In Him includes His death for the sins of man.

"Let it be known to you therefore, brothers, that through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and by him everyone who believes is freed from everything from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses."
Acts 13:38-39
Obviously those who do not believe are not freed. They are condemned already.

"If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved." Romans 10: 9-10

Let me just ask you a simple question, J. I will describe three positions concerning the atonement. You tell me which one is correct:

1. Limited atonement - Jesus' death was sufficient and effectual only for the elect
2. Unlimited atonement - Jesus' death was sufficient for all but effectual only for the elect
3. Universal atonement - Jesus' death was sufficient and effectual for all

Number 4 is correct.

I was about to say the same thing AOK.

What is correct, Calvanism or Armenianism? (Loaded question)

I would hesitate to play multiple choice, especially when the word "elect" is used. So to avoid being boxed in a corner, I am going to study your position and give further thought. You are saying that salvation is not just available to those who will trust in Christ, but is already applied to them whether they beleive it or not. And that having faith in Christ isn't what applies this to our lives, but instead faith in Christ keeps our name in the book of life. That faith in Christ appropriates eternal life, but not as specifically tied to the forgiveness of sin. So all people are saved but can still go to hell? Sorry if I have explained this crudely, but that is what I am getting. Got to admit this is a mind bender. I'll certainly study this position, but till then I will trust in the context of these verses.
"Let it be known to you therefore, brothers, that through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and by him everyone who believes is freed from everything from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses."
Acts 13:38-39

"If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved." Romans 10: 9-10

"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." Eph 2:8-9

"Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God." John 3:18

1. I am not physically capable of caring less about Calvinism or Arminianism, since I am neither and thoroughly disagree with both.
2. I am NOT saying "that salvation is not just available to those who will trust in Christ, but is already done whether they beleive it or not." That is the furthest thing from what I am saying. That would make the very mistake I am trying to correct. The ATONEMENT (what happened on the cross) is NOT the same thing as salvation. They are not related beyond the fact that the former was a thing God had to do so that He could accomplish the latter.
3. As for this:

And that having faith in Christ doesn't apply this to our lives, but keeps our name in the book of life. That faith in Christ appropriates eternal life, not the forgiveness of sin. So all people are saved but can go to hell?

I am NOT saying that anyone is saved and can go to hell. See my statement on number two. I am saying that people can have their sins atoned for and still go to Hell. In fact, I am saying that EVERYONE who goes to Hell has had their sins atoned for, because EVERYONE'S sins have been atoned for. I am saying that the moment you sin in this life, you die spiritually. If you die in that state of spiritual death, then your name is removed from the book of life and will suffer a second death at the GWTJ. I am saying that if you place your faith in Christ, then you receive eternal LIFE, and thus are born again, and thus will NEVER die (John 3:16; 5:24; 11:24-27).

4. So, again, I ask my question--it's actually two:

a. For whom was the atoning sacrifice of Christ sufficient?
b. For whom was the atoning sacrifice of Christ effective?

I say "all" to both. Arminians and Calvinists say "the elect" (however they define that word) for the second. You?