Page 2 of 10

Re: Saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 11:53 am
by Byblos
Jac3510 wrote:
YLTYLT wrote:I believe that people can fall into this category. That never believed, and they were just using religion to try to get what they want. It did not work for them so they walked away.

But I also believe there are those who are saved and they cross the line of God's mercy. This does not mean they are no loger saved it just means that God will no longer use them in the capacity that they were previously being used. For many of these people in this situation, they may feel as though they no longer have salvation, because nothing they do for God seems to stick. But they are still saved, although they will not receive many, if any, rewards in heaven.

But then there is the person the claims he once believed and then no longer believes. I am guessing this is the tough one, where all this discussion is centered. Right? I think each circumstance here would be different. I think some of these are saved people, but let themselves be influenced by bad teaching. But some other probably believed in vain, (they thought they beleived, but were believing the wrong thing) and were therefore never saved. I do not think there can be a blanket ruling for all people in this category. Only the person and God knows what they actually believed. And sometimes the person does not even know what they believed - I think this happens a lot. Some people call themselves Christians because they do all the same things that Christians do. Therefore they believe they are a Christian. But they may have never heard or understood the Gospel of grace. These are not saved although they may claim to be and even believe that they are saved. But one day they may no longer claim to believe.

But the person that has actually believed the Gospel, can never lose that even if they decide they want to go to hell instead. I think Paul talks about this. He says if it were possible, he would go to hell for his Jewish brothers who have not accepted Christ if they would receive Christ. (I have forgotten the verse, you all are probably familiar with it, I need to reboot my computer before I can look it up - I'll edit this post when I find it)
You are talking about the opening verses of Romans 9. I just wanted to say ths post is outstanding. The bolded part above is the all important distinction to me. Good suff.
Let me throw my 2 cents in the mix and start by saying I agree with pretty much everything Jac & YLT said. The only issue I have is how one can tell the difference between believing the right thing or the wrong thing. It is a rather difficult task even if there exists (and I believe it does) an absolute, objective yardstick against which one's belief is measured. Now the way I see it, for a person to be saved they must believe the Gospel and the Gospel is simply that Christ died for our sins and was resurrected on the 3rd day in fulfillment of scripture (1 Cor. 15:1-4). There aren't many ways this can be believed; it's either a person believes it to be true or they don't. That's the most fundamental tenet of Christianity. In fact, I would venture to say, if one does not believe the Gospel as defined by 1 Cor. 15:1-4 then they cannot profess to be Christian (now or ever). For those who did not truly believe the Gospel's message are certainly not saved and only them and God can truly know if this is the case.

Having said all of that, now the question in my mind becomes what if the person who truly believed the Gospel as per above, are not so sure now that they did believe it or not so sure that the Gospel's promise holds true any more? Does that change God's promise in any way? The answer is obviously no; God's promise cannot be changed nor rescinded. But what assurance does the doubter now have that he is saved? Jac says (paraphrasing), even if a person is a doubter now, he should be able to look back at the time he did actually believe and say to himself 'I did believe once, therefore even if I doubt now, I am still assured of my salvation'. The problem is that this is self-contradictory since by definition the doubter no longer believes what he used to believe. As such, there must be a way for the doubter who's looking inwardly and not believing, to restore his belief in the unchanging Word of God, and that, I believe, is through confession (and the works of charity and love). Does doubting change his salvation status? No. It merely plays tricks on him as he succumbs to sin but it doesn't change the fact that he is and always will be one of God's children.

Bottom line is, belief in the Gospel results in a re-birth as we die in our sins and are re-born into Christ. Once that bell rings it cannot be unrung; we cannot die again and be re-born again and again and again. It is a one-time event. It can, however, be doubted or believed untrue but that in and of itself does not change the outcome, only the rewards or lack thereof.

God bless,

Byblos.

Re: Saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 3:25 pm
by FFC
What about the person believed that Jesus died on the cross for him, walked in a close and personal relationship with Jesus, and then years later decided that it was all just a bunch of rubbish. Is that person still saved. I would say yes, but it makes me wonder.

Re: Saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 6:03 pm
by Kurieuo
Byblos wrote:Bottom line is, belief in the Gospel results in a re-birth as we die in our sins and are re-born into Christ. Once that bell rings it cannot be unrung; we cannot die again and be re-born again and again and again. It is a one-time event. It can, however, be doubted or believed untrue but that in and of itself does not change the outcome, only the rewards or lack thereof.
Just a quick post for now in response.

I think you put it quite nicely here. I guess this is why both Jac and I both want to affirm a person is only saved once. One of our differences I believe related more to whether what constitutes the person ("the who") matters to being saved. These are two underlying questions as I see them:

1) Is God saving us because of the person we are when we die who is the person we ultimately become?
2) Is God saving us because of the person we once were when we came to Christ?

In either case both persons are "re-born" into Christ. I say it is (1). Jac believes it is two (2). If one believes in (2), then while it is possible it that way, it just seems extremely strange to me why on earth God would do it that way, especially if God is so concerned with "us" and our freedom to choose. This would puzzle me.

Re: Saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 6:11 pm
by Kurieuo
FFC wrote:What about the person believed that Jesus died on the cross for him, walked in a close and personal relationship with Jesus, and then years later decided that it was all just a bunch of rubbish. Is that person still saved. I would say yes, but it makes me wonder.
Another quick response. You say "yes" the person is still saved, but when a "but" is used its intention often negate everything previously said. So why does such a scenario make you uncertain and wonder?

Is it because you are not sure whether the person who came to a belief in Christ was really sincere? If this is why you wonder, then I think this makes total sense to me. It should be "who" the person is that matters in response Christ, not a one time affirmative action.

Re: Saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 7:03 pm
by FFC
Kurieuo wrote:
FFC wrote:What about the person believed that Jesus died on the cross for him, walked in a close and personal relationship with Jesus, and then years later decided that it was all just a bunch of rubbish. Is that person still saved. I would say yes, but it makes me wonder.
Another quick response. You say "yes" the person is still saved, but when a "but" is used its intention often negate everything previously said. So why does such a scenario make you uncertain and wonder?

Is it because you are not sure whether the person who came to a belief in Christ was really sincere? If this is why you wonder, then I think this makes total sense to me. It should be "who" the person is that matters in response Christ, not a one time affirmative action.
What makes me wonder, is how a person who has truly put their faith in Christ for eternal life, can throw that away at a later point in their lives, and say that at one time they were sincere in their belief. Yes, I question their sincerity.

I'm sorry. I'm not sure what your point was, Kurieuo.

Re: Saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 7:09 pm
by Kurieuo
YLTYLT wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:I said previously a person can not lose their salvation. The Anthony illustration above should answer "why", as I see "the person" as the whole of their life. However, what about from a purely temporal perspective of a person who accepts Christ and then later on walks away from Christ and dies. Now from my own perspective I see that they did not ever lose or walk away from their salvation because they never had it. Yet, looking at it from a purely temporal perspective it was not like they "lost" salvation either. I do not know who began using the term "lost", but someone who turns away from Christ does not just lose salvation as though it fell out of their pocket. Rather they gave salvation up by knowingly walking away from Christ. And I would say their decision to walk away strikes at the heart of "who" they really are more so than the person who accepted Christ.
I believe that people can fall into this category. That never believed, and they were just using religion to try to get what they want. It did not work for them so they walked away.
You are here attaching a reason as to why a person would walk away from Christ. Is it really unfathomable to you though, that someone could sincerely come to know Christ without any prior agenda and then walk away?
YLTYLT wrote:But I also believe there are those who are saved and they cross the line of God's mercy. This does not mean they are no loger saved it just means that God will no longer use them in the capacity that they were previously being used. For many of these people in this situation, they may feel as though they no longer have salvation, because nothing they do for God seems to stick. But they are still saved, although they will not receive many, if any, rewards in heaven.
You say "they may feel as though they no longer have salvation". Do you have in mind a Christian with doubts or who keeps on sinning? To make clear my own beliefs so there is no misunderstanding, I believe a doubting Christian or a Christian who continually sins are each saved. Sin is no longer an issue since Christ and I believe to say otherwise diminishes Christ's redemptive act. So what makes someone "cross the line of God's mercy" for you?

I see someone who crosses the line of God's mercy as being someone who does not want God's mercy and so either rejects or walks away from it. Such a person would not "feel as though they no longer have salvation" because as Byblos highlights, "the doubter no longer believes what he use to believe." For the person who walks away there it is no longer a feeling of doubt about being saved because such a person has thrown away the idea being saved. They do not care. If anything, they find the idea of being saved amusing because they think themselves wiser than it. So if they do not care about being saved, then they can not get started seriously doubting their salvation. If they do, then such a person for me has not really walked away from God's mercy.
YLTYLT wrote:But then there is the person the claims he once believed and then no longer believes. I am guessing this is the tough one, where all this discussion is centered. Right? I think each circumstance here would be different. I think some of these are saved people, but let themselves be influenced by bad teaching. But some other probably believed in vain, (they thought they beleived, but were believing the wrong thing) and were therefore never saved. I do not think there can be a blanket ruling for all people in this category. Only the person and God knows what they actually believed. And sometimes the person does not even know what they believed - I think this happens a lot. Some people call themselves Christians because they do all the same things that Christians do. Therefore they believe they are a Christian. But they may have never heard or understood the Gospel of grace. These are not saved although they may claim to be and even believe that they are saved. But one day they may no longer claim to believe.
I am unsure whether this is the portion Jac was talking about highlighting in bold, but if he did, I also find myself in full agreement with you here! It is all about "the person" and "who they really are". And "who we are" changes as our world is governed by time and we gain new experiences and so forth which brings out "who we truly are".

From your words, I hear you saying only God knows the person, even better than the person themself. Yes - I agree! For I believe since God can see the end from the beginning, that He knows the person "we really are" (the one we will be in the end). God does not need to save us at one point in time, and then "unsave" as at another point in time if we walk away, because He knows whether "we" are truly genuine on the first time we come to Christ. God knows whether our faith is sincere or insincere, for God knows whether or not our faith gets proved genuine: "These have come so that your faith—of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire—may be proved genuine and may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed." (1 Peter 1:7)
YLTYLT wrote:But the person that has actually believed the Gospel, can never lose that even if they decide they want to go to hell instead. I think Paul talks about this. He says if it were possible, he would go to hell for his Jewish brothers who have not accepted Christ if they would receive Christ. (I have forgotten the verse, you all are probably familiar with it, I need to reboot my computer before I can look it up - I'll edit this post when I find it)
Think about this first sentence of yours for a moment: "the person that has actually believed the Gospel, can never lose that even if they decide they want to go to hell instead." Can one believe the Gospel is true and yet decide they still will not come to Christ? I think so. Yet, a saving belief in the Gospel cannot be divorced from Christ Himself. So let me make your statement more tight: "the person that has actually believed the Gospel and come to Christ, can never lose that even if they decide they want to go to hell instead." Let us consider this revised format.

Can a person desire to come to Christ and not to come to Christ at the same time? This doesn't make any sense. Either a person does or does not desire to come to Christ. If a person actually came to Christ through belief in the Gospel, but then later on walked away from Christ, what are we to make of this? Building off your statements in the quoted paragraph that I made bold above, perhaps "the person" did not know themselves enough until time unravelled a bit more and they came to realise they did not actually want Christ. God already knowing this would have therefore withheld any justification until their truer decision came to fruition. Does this not make complete sense?

Re: Saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 7:38 pm
by Kurieuo
FFC wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:
FFC wrote:What about the person believed that Jesus died on the cross for him, walked in a close and personal relationship with Jesus, and then years later decided that it was all just a bunch of rubbish. Is that person still saved. I would say yes, but it makes me wonder.
Another quick response. You say "yes" the person is still saved, but when a "but" is used its intention often negate everything previously said. So why does such a scenario make you uncertain and wonder?

Is it because you are not sure whether the person who came to a belief in Christ was really sincere? If this is why you wonder, then I think this makes total sense to me. It should be "who" the person is that matters in response Christ, not a one time affirmative action.
What makes me wonder, is how a person who has truly put their faith in Christ for eternal life, can throw that away at a later point in their lives, and say that at one time they were sincere in their belief. Yes, I question their sincerity.

I'm sorry. I'm not sure what your point was, Kurieuo.
So you would agree moreso with God saving a person based upon "who" they are in response to Christ, rather than a one time response to Christ in the past? If so, the next step is to work out who a person is.

Is a person the person they were in the past, the person they are today, or the person they will be in the future? I believe who a person is, while it fluctuates throughout life, becomes more obvious and stable as they live their life. Who a person is at death is the culmination of their development into the person they really are. So it seems obvious to me that God extends salvation based on who a person really is, and not based upon one state of that person.

Re: Saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:52 pm
by Jac3510
So much I could say here, but I suppose I'll wait until you respond to my questions . . .

Re: Saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 6:21 am
by YLTYLT
Kurieuo wrote:You say "they may feel as though they no longer have salvation". Do you have in mind a Christian with doubts or who keeps on sinning? To make clear my own beliefs so there is no misunderstanding, I believe a doubting Christian or a Christian who continually sins are each saved. Sin is no longer an issue since Christ and I believe to say otherwise diminishes Christ's redemptive act. So what makes someone "cross the line of God's mercy" for you?
Yes this is the actual idea I was trying to explain. Thanks for making it clearer....
Kurieuo wrote:I see someone who crosses the line of God's mercy as being someone who does not want God's mercy and so either rejects or walks away from it. Such a person would not "feel as though they no longer have salvation" because as Byblos highlights, "the doubter no longer believes what he use to believe." For the person who walks away there it is no longer a feeling of doubt about being saved because such a person has thrown away the idea being saved. They do not care. If anything, they find the idea of being saved amusing because they think themselves wiser than it. So if they do not care about being saved, then they can not get started seriously doubting their salvation. If they do, then such a person for me has not really walked away from God's mercy.
In the paragraph that you responded to here, I was not intending on describing someone that no longer believes. (That was my next paragraph.) I am referring to someone that still believes, but at some point in their life they chose there own will over the will of the Holy Spirit. And I am not talking about a one time lapse in judgement. This would be the result of someone that after receiving great light (someone deep in the word, a pastor for instance), they decide to do something completely against the Holy Spirits guiding, and continued in that direction without repentance. If a person goes to far in that direction without turning back, then that person's ministry will be taken away from them even though they still believe the Gospel. They will still be saved ("yet so as by fire"), but the Holy Spirit will no longer guide them and none of the work they try to do for God will produce fruit, because it will not be the Holy Spirit working through them, it is only their old nature trying to serve God, which never produces fruit.

I know of a man like this. He was a pastor and started an adulterous relationship. He ran off with her. After much couseling and admonition from the head pastor of the church where he was a pastor, he still chose to obey his sinful nature and left his wife and ran off with the other woman, so the church asked him to find other employment and church membership.

He later broke up with that woman and moved back to town, but in his recent conversations with the head pastor, he admits that he has tried to get back to God, but nothing seems to work.
This man was a pastor for 10 years, and lead many people to Christ and had a great understanding of the Gospel and was lead to Christ by the Head pastor. The Head pastor has told me that he truly believes that this man is saved.

This was what I was referring to as far as "crossing the line of God's mercy". This man still believes, is still saved as he could not lose it, but realizes that he messed up, and will not be able to serve God in the same capacity as he had in the past.

Re: Saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 6:53 am
by Byblos
Kurieuo wrote:
Byblos wrote:Bottom line is, belief in the Gospel results in a re-birth as we die in our sins and are re-born into Christ. Once that bell rings it cannot be unrung; we cannot die again and be re-born again and again and again. It is a one-time event. It can, however, be doubted or believed untrue but that in and of itself does not change the outcome, only the rewards or lack thereof.
Just a quick post for now in response.

I think you put it quite nicely here. I guess this is why both Jac and I both want to affirm a person is only saved once. One of our differences I believe related more to whether what constitutes the person ("the who") matters to being saved. These are two underlying questions as I see them:

1) Is God saving us because of the person we are when we die who is the person we ultimately become?
2) Is God saving us because of the person we once were when we came to Christ?

In either case both persons are "re-born" into Christ. I say it is (1). Jac believes it is two (2). If one believes in (2), then while it is possible it that way, it just seems extremely strange to me why on earth God would do it that way, especially if God is so concerned with "us" and our freedom to choose. This would puzzle me.
The issue I see with what you are saying then centers on assurance. I can accept the premise that God saves us based on who we are as a person but where does that leave my objective assurance of being saved? How do I truly know I'm saved unless I wait until the moment of my death? And how many of us get to have a moment of clarity at that point anyway? I do not see a difference between that and the doctrine of perseverance of the saints (unless I missed your point entirely, which is of course a distinct possibility).

Re: Saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 7:23 am
by Kurieuo
Jac3510 wrote:Ok, regarding the first issue ("ontological faith"):

Perhaps it is better to speak of your view as the continuum of faith rather that continuance of faith?
Yes, I only thought of "continuum" in my last post to you to describe it ;) and I think it is the better terminology. At the same time is can be understood as a "continual faith" but not in the sense one must continue in their faith, rather that faith is a continual property which can change as a person changes. It is perhaps misleading to say "a continuing faith" insomuch as it can be misunderstood as "a faith one must continue in". I mean it to describe the ontological nature of faith, and not as a predicate of a person.
Jac3510 wrote:It is not actually the faith of the person in question, but the person themselves in question. Do they have "faith" (which is a continuum) or not? It seems to be impossible to have a "once-off" faith in your view, because such a faith is excluded in your definition.

I'm pretty sure I follow your line of thought. I am just trying to get the semantics down.
Yes, I think you are understanding me correctly.
Jac3510 wrote:I do have one specific request for clarification here. Let's consider your example of Anthony being always saved. Do you mean he was always saved from the point of acceptance of Christ at 10, or do you mean that He was "born saved" because . . . why . . . maybe God knew he would develop into a person of faith?

Let me change the time line just a LITTLE bit. Let's move everything back ten years. Anthony accepts at 20, becomes an atheist at 30. He returns at 55. You say he was "always saved". I just want to find out how you meant that.
This could get tricky, especially as what lays beneath is the great controversy of the Reformed idea of election and predestination versus the priority Arminianism places on our freedom to choose. I will attempt to avoid this for now, unless or until it becomes necessary.

To be as clear as possible I believe Anthony in the given example was saved based on his free decision to accept Christ period. I believe it is wrong to dissect the person Anthony was at age 10, and separate this person from the fully developed Anthony who died at 50 who is an outgrowth of the person at age 10. Yet, I see that God could have justified Anthony at age 10 upon his acceptance of Christ, due to God knowing who the true Anthony is and/or foreseeing the the completely developed Anthony accepts Christ.

Allow me to provide an illustration which however inadequate it might be will serve my illustrative purposes well enough. Consider a fig tree which Christ also used as analogous to us. A fig tree develops from seed into a fully grown tree. Whether it has fruit will only be known by seeing it mature into the fig tree it will become. Now consider our own lives. We develop from the very start of our existence into who we ultimately are. Likewise, whether we have faith in Christ can only be known by seeing us fully mature into who we are. I do not know whether such an analogy is really adequate, but I guess it will do.

Now while I believe God could have, and perhaps would have, justified Anthony at age 10, this is only because God knew Anthony better than Anthony knew himself. God does not need to wait to see who we become, nor do I think God necessarily needs to foresee who we become, because I think God knows our heart and who we are so entirely and intimately that he knows the real us even while we are developing into the person we will ultimately become. And so I think God would give us the chance to become this person if it is beneficial to a relationship with Him.
Jac wrote:Let's move everything back ten years. Anthony accepts at 20, becomes an atheist at 30. He returns at 55.... What if he had died at 19? Or what if he had died at 54?
My belief is that is depends on who the true Anthony was. We ourselves I guess can only tell who a person is by what we perceive about them through their actions, stated beliefs and so on. We even judge who we are according to what we do and our interactions in the world. It could be we don't really know who we are. Perhaps we have been so abused or troubled in life that we do not know where we begin or end to know who we are. I believe God knows however, and as mentioned I am inclined to think God gives us the opportunity to fully develop into our self.

Taking your scenario, let us say Anthony dies at 19 before he came to accept Christ but that he would have had he lived a year longer. My response is not decisive, but consists of one of two options.

1) Perhaps God knows the Anthony who would have been, and so gives Anthony the opportunity to develop into who he is, and thus Anthony will choose Christ.
2) If Anthony is not given a chance to develop further, then as sad as it might be, Anthony is the person who died at 19 years. Thus, Anthony is not saved.

Given God desires all to come to Him I am inclined to accept option (1), that is, God somehow allows Anthony to develop further. Scripture on the other hand does not hint whether such an opportunity exists beyond this life (at least I am not aware to any passages). And factoring that God would be entirely just in condemning us all if He so desired, I must remain open to the possibility that God does not provide Anthony an opportunity to develop further. Yet, I think if it is a real outcome someone will accept Christ, God would more than likely do all He can (I mean He incarnated Himself in the form of man to die for our sake!) to extend the opportunity for such a person to come to Himself.
Jac wrote:Calvinists believe that a person cannot lose their salvation. If a person professes belief and later dies in unbelief, then it proves they never genuinely believed in the first place. Arminians believe that we can lose our salvation--that a person can genuinely be saved and have everlasting life, but a relapse into sin can cause us to lose that salvation. Thus, in Arminian theology, in the timeline I suggested for Anthony, if he dies at 29 he goes to heaven. At 31-54 he goes to hell. At 55 plus he goes to heaven.
And I am neither, although I by no means think they should simply be disregarded without any respect or special attention. They go a long way to framing the boundaries of discussions such as this. I think people on both sides and inbetween however, will more often than not admit to some sort of grey area where they feel more comfortable saying whatever God does with a person is what God does.
Jac wrote:Here's my point: from a practical level, these two systems teach exactly the same thing. It is six and one half a dozen. It is little comfort for a person to die and say, "Well, I may be in Hell, but at least I didn't lose my salvation. I guess I just never had it!" The end result for both systems is that for a person to be saved, their faith must still be in Christ at the time of their . . . ah . . . expiration. in short form, they both believe that perseverene is necessary for salvation. Arminians say we have to do it. Calvinists say that God does it for us. But the doctrine is the same.
I never thought of that and actually appreciate the insight.

My experience has been though (however limited it may be) that those who align themselves with Calvin theology are not necessarily cut and dry Calvinists. Some will often swallow the bullet to say such a person is still saved. And I am sure the Arminians may lax the rules to say they really don't know whether someone was saved even though they did not persevere with works or what have you. What I am saying, is that while the two are black and white in strict doctrine (or our perception of such doctrines), you will rarely find someone who is black and white in such a manner. Then again perhaps I am wrong on this, however from what I have seen many people tend to shy away from both extremes and prefer to leave it up to God when really pushed.
Jac wrote:OK, so let's apply that same thinking to your view. For you, the issue may not be the perseverence of faith, but the end result of your system and that of Arminianism/Calvinism is exactly the same, is it not? If a person professes faith and later rejects that faith, i.e., Dan Barker, then regardless of if they lost their salvation, or if they proved they never had it because 1) God didn't elect them (Calvinism) or 2) they weren't the type of person who truly believed (Kism ;)), the end result is just the same. So, while I recognize the differences in each of your systems (we could even throw Catholicism in there for further comparison!), the final doctrine is agreed on--that to be saved, a person must have faith in some form of fashion until they die. Your reasons for this are different, but practically speaking, you are all saying the same thing. Am I right on this?
Yes, strictly speaking of a black and white Calvinism and Arminianism as you put it, you would be correct. In general the end result would appear to be the same, my own beliefs included, except I think my position allows the greater flexibility with God's judgement as detailed with my explanation regarding Anthony who died before accepting Christ. I will add I believe such is the exception however, rather than the rule. Mainly because Scripture sheds no light on such possibilities and I believe tends to stress the importance of our decision in life here.
Jac wrote:Regarding the second issue ("exclusivity of the belief systems"):

You have my view right, I think. Do you agree that what we are suggesting are mutually exclusive ideas? Obviously, I believe you are wrong, but can you see that in my view, like YLT pointed out, a person who rejects "once-off faith" as you call it is actually rejecting the Gospel in view of the fact that, in my understanding of things, "faith" is absolutely nothing more than believing a propositio to be true?
I am seeing disagreements, but at the same I think we agree on a great many things, or at least have an understanding of why each other would want to believe what they do (which is also perhaps why we have been able to be quite civil in our discussions so far). Maybe this will change, but I am eager to understand your position and any challenges more, as this will I am sure help me to refine my own position.

Regarding your belief that "faith" is absolutely nothing more than believing a proposition to be true (unless I misunderstood your comment?), I would diverge. Rather than go into why however, I just want to clarify whether such is an explicit acceptance of some proposition, and if so what this exact proposition is? Or is it a more of an implicit trust in Christ regardless of know the details of how Christ makes everything good between us and God?
Jac wrote:On the third and final issue ("doctrine of assurance"):

I can certainly understand you not being able to fathom disbelieving Christ. I am in the same boat. But I can accept the logical possibility that I may fall from the faith at some point in the future. Of course, in my view, that doesn't change the fact that I still know I am going to be in heaven. Thus, I can say I have 100% assurance of my salvation.
I accept the logical possibility that "I" actually do not care about accepting Christ and this will become evident later in my life, but I am certain such will not really happen. Likewise I accept the logical possibility that God could create a world where everyone freely came to Christ, yet out of every world that can be actualised such an option may not exist.
Jac wrote:Can you recognize the fact that, while it may be foreign to you, that it is possible that you could prove to be a person, through development, who does not in fact believe? Is it a logical possibility that you are, in fact, not saved, and that you may yet still end up in Hell? How sure would you say you are that you are going to heaven? 50%? 75%? 99.995%?
Yes, I do recognise that it is a logical possibility that I could turn out to not believe. In my previous I actually developed an example with myself in as such, but removed it when revising my own words and what I thought important to write. ;) However, I did still attempt to capture this possibility where I wrote:
  • I said previously a person can not lose their salvation. The Anthony illustration above should answer "why", as I see "the person" as the whole of their life. However, what about from a purely temporal perspective of a person who accepts Christ and then later on walks away from Christ and dies. Now from my own perspective I see that they did not ever lose or walk away from their salvation because they never had it. Yet, looking at it from a purely temporal perspective it was not like they "lost" salvation either. I do not know who began using the term "lost", but someone who turns away from Christ does not just lose salvation as though it fell out of their pocket. Rather they gave salvation up by knowingly walking away from Christ. And I would say their decision to walk away strikes at the heart of "who" they really are more so than the person who accepted Christ.
Without getting into a discussion of epistemology and how one can be justified in believing something, and whether complete certainty of anything is possible, I will answer clearly that it is logically possible according to my view that I am not saved. Yet, I am as certain as certain can be that I my faith in Christ will remain true. But, anything is possible. For example, I may be deceived about who I really am. Now even if I could be 100% certain my faith in Christ would not change, the most I can do is hope in Christ's promise. Complete assurance is not possible, since hope is less than being 100% certain. And as Paul himself writes in 1 Cor 15:17-19: "if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men."

So a question I would put to you is whether you are actually hoping in something, namely the belief that once a person accepts the Gospel they are always saved, in order to try grasp a holy grail (?) of complete assurance of salvation without any logical possibility of losing it? But is this really assurance? Is complete assurance possible when there is hope? It is logically possible you could be wrong right? And if so, how can you have complete assurance of being saved? I have here just reversed the issue. Do you think it is legitimate of me to do so, or is this unfair? As far as I see, the most we can do is hope in, put our faith in, Christ? Am I missing something?

If you were to ask me whether someone who comes to Christ and believes they are saved regardless of what they do thereafter has more assurance of being saved than I do with what I believe, then I would disagree. Perhaps this can be understood by the fact we only know ourselves in the present. If someone knows their faith in Christ, then they are assured they are saved. Yet, if they walk away from Christ, "assurance" does not even matter any longer to such a person. It is true I can not logically rule out I will change according to my position, however such a logical possibility does not mean it is really feasible to me, and as such it has no impact upon my doubting whether I am saved.
Jac wrote:If I can understand exactly where you are coming from on these issues, we can move on to discuss which view is biblically supported, I think. But obviously I need to know where your mind is first.
I look forward to discussing Scripture. As far as I am aware my view is compatible with Scripture, although I am sure it would run against certain interpretations. I do not want to believe my position, however reasonable it seems to me or sounds, if it is not actually how it all works.

I look forward to your response.

Re: Saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 2:09 pm
by FFC
Kurieuo wrote:So it seems obvious to me that God extends salvation based on who a person really is, and not based upon one state of that person.
But before we are saved aren't we all depraved sinners that deserve divine justice. At what point in our lives are we worthy enough to be saved?

Re: Saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 6:25 pm
by zoegirl
FFC wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:So it seems obvious to me that God extends salvation based on who a person really is, and not based upon one state of that person.
But before we are saved aren't we all depraved sinners that deserve divine justice. At what point in our lives are we worthy enough to be saved?
Yes, absolutely to the first.

His justification alone means that we are saved. We bring nothing to the table, so to speak. But His sanctifying grace works in us to continue our faith. Of course, this is more reformed than perhaps those want to consider, just offering it up for consideration.

Re: Saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 6:45 pm
by Kurieuo
FFC wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:So it seems obvious to me that God extends salvation based on who a person really is, and not based upon one state of that person.
But before we are saved aren't we all depraved sinners that deserve divine justice. At what point in our lives are we worthy enough to be saved?
Perhaps I was not consistently clear throughout my reply. This sentence is separated the whole frame of my thought and so on its own is very misleading of what I believe. I would say we are not worthy of being saved. It is something God freely chose to do.

The key to what I mean is established in the first sentence of my response to you: "So you would agree moreso with God saving a person based upon "who" they are in response to Christ, rather than a one time response to Christ in the past?"

So what I actually meant in the conclusion to my reasoning you quoted here is: "So it seems obvious to me that God extends salvation based on who a person really is [in response to Christ], and not based upon one state of that person['s response to Christ]."

Re: Saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 7:00 pm
by FFC
Kurieuo wrote:So what I actually meant in the conclusion to my reasoning you quoted here is: "So it seems obvious to me that God extends salvation based on who a person really is [in response to Christ], and not based upon one state of that person['s response to Christ]."
:? Is this the difference between heart belief and head belief?