Saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

[Kurieuo]

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....

I think I am in thorough agreement with you then on this. I would not question the salvation of someone doubting their being saved. For me the fact a Christian is doubting shows they are still want Christ, just like pain shows we are still alive.

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.

Thanks for the clarification and backing it up with a practical example.

I guess I was seeing your use of "mercy" over and against our need to be saved, rather than any need for mercy in our relationship with God. I am not sure I would say the adulterous pastor you mention crossed God's mercy though, but rather only that he damaged his relationship with God by ignoring and turning against God. God I see would still tolerate such a person due to Christ, just as God can tolerate us all. At the same time, I do not think the adulterous pastor has crossed any line that can not be mended.

[Kurieuo]

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?

Ahh, yes. I think this is a good distinction.

I see a response begins with the heart. When a person comes to faith in Christ, for this they need not explicitly affirm belief in Him (which is a head thing), but rather they implicitly accept Him (in their very heart). An explicit affirmation (the head) is surely bound to follow, but I think that God judges our heart in response to Christ.

If you understand me so far, I would add that if an explicit affirmation is required to be saved, that such makes being saved a work (however small an explicit affirmation might seem). Instead I believe just like water baptism symbolises our belief in Christ and spiritual rebirth, that an explicit affirmation just makes obvious the change that has happened in us, our hearts, in response to Christ.

[Kurieuo]

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?

Fair questions. Rather than duplicate my response to Jac, I direct you to my response to him. Scroll down until you reach my quote of Jac which begins: "On the third and final issue ("doctrine of assurance")"

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).

No, I see it is completely different. The distinction can be put as follows:

When I say "continual faith" (as in the poll of this thread), I do not mean in the sense that one must continue in their faith or a perseverance of the saints. But rather I mean that the nature of faith is continual and changes 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". Saying faith is a continuum is perhaps better terminology. I see a person's faith as being a continuum due to the fact it is by nature contingent upon the person, and this person is constantly changing throughout life. For example, you are likely a different person today, then the person you were as a child, teenager, and when you die.

I think I am taking for granted a lot of information that I have covered while answering Jac's questions. This is perhaps causing a bit of confusion in my responses to others here, and I apologise for not being more clear. If interested to grasp what I mean more fully though, then I would encourage reading over our exchanges.

[Jac3510]

Alright, we are definitely getting somewhere. I would be willing to take an exam on your positon now - I'm pretty sure I have it

Ok, for organization, let me keep my comments in the three areas we've been talking about. Things could obviously go in a million directions, but I'd like to stay focusd:

1. Ontological Faith

So we have a genuine disagreement between us here. You see faith as somoething of a substance. It has a definite nature, and included in that nature is the idea of longevity. However else you define it, we can say one thing it is not: it is NOT a simple matter of agreement with a fact.

I do not see faith as a substance of any kind, which is why I am forced to reject the Calvinist claim (not that you are making it) that faith is a gift. Faith is not a "thing." As such, it can have no properties. It can have no nature. Faith, for me, is persuasion. It is mental assent. It is being in agreement that an idea is true. It is, absolutely, "belief."

So what I am going to to here is offer one text (of many I believe I could choose from) to show why my position is correct. I'd like your comments on this, and I'd like to see you do the do the same.

• Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised. This is why "it was credited to him as righteousness." (Rom 4:20-22, NIV))

Notice that Abraham's belief was in the promise (which was that he would have a son). That belief, Paul says, was being fully persuaded. He was convinced the fact was true. God was able to do what He promised, and therefore, He considered God faithful. If we look at this a bit more technically, we see

1) The contrast of unbelief and belief:
a) He did not WAVER through unbelief regarding the PROMISE of God, BUT (alla, strong disjuction)
b) He was STRENGTHED through belief and gave GLORY to God.

Wavering vs. Strengthening are on one side, while God's promise and God's glory are on the other side. This all all centered on faith, and so:

2) The definition of faith:
a) Abraham was FULLY CONVINCED that
b) God ws ABLE to do what He PROMISED.

This phrase recalls all the elements of the first and drives them home. Being persuaded something is true is having faith. In believing God was able tod o what He promised, he does not waver but is strenghted, and therefore, believing this promise, God is glorified.

3) The result of faith: justification.

So we see very simply that Abraham was justified because He believed God told the truth.. This is exactly the same thing a person must to today to be saved. John 3:16 says, "For God loved the world in this way: He gave His unique Son, that everyone who believes in Him will by not perish, but will instead have everlasting life" (my translation). So, the question is, do you believe God told the truth here, that EVERYONE who believes (considers God is telling the truth about the promise of everlasting life) has, in fact, everlasting life?

I see nothing in any of these texts about the ontology of the person, but only about their agreement with the factual statements of God. Do you?

2. Assurance

I moved this up a notch

I agree that there are definite theological distinction betewen your view of faith and the Calvinist/Arminian view of faith, just as I believe there are theological distinctions in those two systems. But I want to gloss over that because it is the common conclusion of all of those that I disagree with. Regardless of your methods to get to your location, if the location is wrong, it necessarily follows that the methods are as well.

You agreed that you cannot be 100% sure of your own salvation. You can be as certain as possible, to the extent that you know yourself now, but you acknowledge the unlikely POSSIBILITY that you could develop into the type of person who does not believe, thus proving your "faith" now is not the type of saving faith we are interested in.

In that sense, I see that you can have no objective assurance of your salvation. Or, let me put it another way: the objective assurance you have is only this: All GENUINE believers can be 100% sure they will spend eternity with Christ, but no one can be 100% sure he is a GENUINE believer.

Thus, for you, assurance is subjective. You can be progressively more and more sure that you are a genuine believer, but like any science, you can never know. Your logic is inductive.

My view of assurance is deductive.

a) Everyone who has believed God told the truth regarding acquisition of everlasting life has everlasting life,
b) I have believed God told the truth regarding the acquisition of everlasting life,
c) Therefore, I have everlasting life.

This will go directily into the third issue, which is why I rearrange it. But for now, what I want you to see is that our views of assurance are mutually exclusive. I may be wrong, but I am 100% convinced on a deductive, objective basis that I am going to heaveen. You cannot say that.

A final comment on this before we move on. You made a statement regarding hope. "Hope" in the biblical sense (gk. elpis) does NOT mean "hope" in the English sense, as in, "I really want this to happen, but I'm not sure it will." Just the opposite, the word refers to a full and confident expectation based on the knowledge that something will occur. If you do not KNOW something is true, you cannot elpis for its fulfillment. A good 21st century analogy is this:

I worked about 60 hours over the past two weeks. I elpis that I am goig to have a check deposited in my account Monday morning. I "hope" I will receive it because I BELIEVE (have faith, am fully persuaded of the fact) that my company is able to make the deposit they promised me.

3. Exclusivity of our beliefs

Again, I agree that we have a lot in common, but we disagree on the central issue. My view is that faith IS assurance. Faith IS hope (as defined above). If a person does not KNOW for 100% absolute certainty that something is true, then they do not BELIEVE (have faith in) it. That is why I said faith is not a decision. It is a matter of fact. It is being persuaded by the evidence. That is why faith has no substance. It is simply conviction something is true.

For me, then, a person receives everlasting life when they believe Jesus told the truth in, say, John 6:47, "Whoever believes has everlasting life." If, then, you do not KNOW this, if you do not have 100% objective assurance that you HAVE everlasting life, then you do not, at present, believe Jesus' promise. And that is the problem I have with your ontological faith. You cannot KNOW you have everlasting life because you cannot KNOW you believe. The best you can say is that you KNOW that everyone who BELIEVES has life, but you don't KNOW that you fall into that catagory. The best you can do hope (in the English sense of the word) that you do.

I realize that I am painting a VERY narrow picture of faith and salvation, but it's not one I can apologize for. It isn't pesonal, even though many people take it that way. Narrow is the way that leads to life, right? All I can do is explain what I believe the Bible teaches about salvation, so I hope that this is taken with the same tone that the rest of our conversation has had.

Thanks much, and looking forward to your reply.

God bless

[B. W.]

BW, Two quick things: 1--On what textual, exegetical, and/or contextual basis do you interpret the word "follow" in John 10 to refer to the call to obedience?

It has nothing to do with obedience — it has everything to do with God's word and what God does with his word and how he keeps his word. It is God's Grace that saves and if he saves, you have his word on it.

It is comforting to think that God's word has no effect and no power on the soul of man and that humans are way more powerful than God in that they can just accept Christ then just tire and fall away, as you maybe reasoning here, all in a human attempt to explain away Christ owns words of John 10. God's word is not like that at all. It changes a person or will harden a person. It reveals what is in ones heart, just as it is so doing now in both of ours.

John 10:27, “My sheep hear [hear, consider, understand] my voice [phōnē, sound of speech of language used] and I know them, and they follow [follow one who leads, join him as his attendant, accompany him to join as a disciple, become or be his disciple or side with a party] me…”

A person hears and understands or he does not as Matthew 13 explains. The word of God has that effect upon a person — cutting straight to the heart of the matter, revealing the intent of the human heart. Will they hear and understand or not? Those that hear and understand God will by no means be cast away — to say they can gives human beings the ability to make God completely unable to keep his word and therefore Isaiah 55:3-13 has no truth in it at all. We have more power than God as we can subvert his word regarding the matter of His salvation by His Grace.

As I see it — that is your position on this matter: nullification of God's ability to keep his word and keep his own people he loves safe and cause them to return if they stray. Hear Christ riddle/parable on this very matter and come to your own conclusions:

Matthew 18:12, “How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray? 13 And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray.14 Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.” Sorry Jac — you stated that you despise riddles.

Never forget we who are Christians are God's what? Little one-Children. What was it I read — “He will never leave you or forsake you?” Hebrews 13:5-6. Hmmm — If God does not seek those that stray and therefore just leave you alone when you stray to honor your free will, then what type of god do you serve? So much for the love of God then...

The Lord is Great and awesome, Powerful and almighty! He keeps his word and if you stray — he goes after you ands causes your return to him and his fold. This says what about my God compared to yours?

--I've no interest in talking riddles. I, for one, find them to be ways to mask a contradiction. "How can God elect me and yet I still have a choice?" people ask. And they answer, "It is a great paradox, a great riddle indeed!" Instead, they should acknowledge the fact that the question presents a contradiction any way you look at it, and appealing to paradox and the unknown only proves it. I've given you what I belive to be a solid exegetical reason for why Jesus' words have absolutely NOTHING to do with election in these verses.

Tell me where you disagree and why:

Jesus was talking to the Pharisees about their unbelief
Jesus was explaining to the Pharisees why the could not believe
Jesus pointed out that they could not believe because they were not His sheep
Jesus explained that they were not His sheep because they had rejected OT testimony of salvation through faith alone
Jesus pointed out that those who were His sheep heard His voice
Jesus explained that those who were His sheep were those who had NOT rejected the OT testimony regarding faith
Jesus pointed out that "His sheep" "heard His voice and followed Him."
Thus, hearing and following have no reference to obedience, but to receptivity to the revelation of God as presented by Jesus Christ, as per the analogy and context.

It is shame that the bible has be reduced to proof text and historicalism so much so that the word of God is so easily explained away now days. Let us follow your line of reason. The bible is an old book written and closed 2000 years ago. Therefore, none of it can apply to the modern world. Book of Ephesians were only for the Ephesians back than and can't apply to any of us — likewise all the bible does not apply to our superior modern scholarship. If we do not like it — explain it away.

So I take it that your position is that human beings are more wise and powerful than God and is able to stop God from using his word to still speak to the modern Pharisees, Scribes, and Sadducees of our own time and age. I guess God's word is not timeless? Nor can God use any of it to call anyone to repentance?

You ask - "How can God elect me and yet I still have a choice?"

The answer is this: He spoke! He calls out! He gives his word! — now what would happen if God remained quiet? Who then could ever be elected?

As for riddles:

Ezekiel 17:2 on use of word Parable — riddle…

Quote - “Riddle — [Parable] — a continued allegory, expressed enigmatically, requiring more than common acumen and serious thought. The Hebrew is derived from a root, “sharp,” that is, calculated to stimulate attention and whet the intellect. Distinct from “fable,” in that it teaches not fiction, but fact. Not like the ordinary riddle, designed to puzzle, but to instruct. The “riddle” is here identical with the “parable,” only that the former refers to the obscurity, the latter to the likeness of the figure to the thing compared.” From Jamison, Fausset, Brown …

Jesus used these and to claim they are simply masking contradiction is not a slight toward me at all but rather toward someone else who used parables- riddles- to refine complex truths to simplicity of understanding to cause the reader-hearer to seek more information on the matter from the Lord himself at his / her own pace. I take it that you are stating that God's word has absolutely no effect?

With all do respect Jac, What is in your Heart. What is being exposed about it? For that matter, my heart also?

Proverbs 1:5-7, “A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels: 6 To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings. 7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction." KJV
-
-
-

[Jac3510]

B.W. . . . what are you talking about??? You have drawn some very, very wrong implications from my words. I have absolutely no idea how you came to the conclusions you did.

It is comforting to think that God's word has no effect and no power on the soul of man and that humans are way more powerful than God in that they can just accept Christ then just tire and fall away, as you maybe reasoning here, all in a human attempt to explain away Christ owns words of John 10.

What? When did I say God's word has no effect? When did I explain away John 10? I offered a simple exegesis of Jesus' passage there in which I hoped to show that you had drawn unnecessary conclusions. Further, I suggested my own conclusions. How is that explaining away or saying God's word has no effect?

A person hears and understands or he does not as Matthew 13 explains.

I agree with that. Where did I disagree with it?

Those that hear and understand God will by no means be cast away — to say they can gives human beings the ability to make God completely unable to keep his word and therefore Isaiah 55:3-13 has no truth in it at all. We have more power than God as we can subvert his word regarding the matter of His salvation by His Grace.

When did I say we could be cast away, B.W.?

As I see it — that is your position on this matter: nullification of God's ability to keep his word and keep his own people he loves safe and cause them to return if they stray.

Then you see my position wrong. How did you come to this conclusion from my words?

Never forget we who are Christians are God's what? Little one-Children. What was it I read — “He will never leave you or forsake you?” Hebrews 13:5-6.

Where did I say we were not children or that He would forsake us? B.W., I don't know where you are getting this stuff from.

Hmmm — If God does not seek those that stray and therefore just leave you alone when you stray to honor your free will, then what type of god do you serve? So much for the love of God then...

He won't seek us? I said that? Where? I don't believe that . . .

It is shame that the bible has be reduced to proof text and historicalism so much so that the word of God is so easily explained away now days.

Wait--where did I offer a single proof text? Have I not been commenting on my understanding of John 10? How is that a proof text, and how is explaining my interpretation of John 10, which is different from yours, "explaining away" the text?

Let us follow your line of reason.

Forgive me, but apparently I have done a terrible job presenting my reasoning, because you haven't said one thing that I supposedly believe that I agree with!

The bible is an old book written and closed 2000 years ago.

WHAT????? This is MY reasoning? That the Bible is an "old book written and closed 2000 years ago"?!?!?!? Where did I say that? If you are going to start accusing me of not believing in the inspiration of God's Word, you had better have some SERIOUS evidence to back that up.

Therefore, none of it can apply to the modern world.

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??? Where did I say that? Where did I imply it?

Book of Ephesians were only for the Ephesians back than and can't apply to any of us — likewise all the bible does not apply to our superior modern scholarship. If we do not like it — explain it away.

B.W., you are way over the line here. This isn't my "line of reasoning." I don't agree with ANY of this. What the heck makes you think I do?!?

So I take it that your position is that human beings are more wise and powerful than God and is able to stop God from using his word to still speak to the modern Pharisees, Scribes, and Sadducees of our own time and age.

You take my position wrong. What would make you think that is my position?

I guess God's word is not timeless? Nor can God use any of it to call anyone to repentance?

I have spoken EXTENSIVELY on repentance and why we must do it and how it comes only by hearing the Word of God. What are you talking about B.W.? Where are you getting these off the wall ideas that I believe this stuff? Where have I said ANY of this?

You ask - "How can God elect me and yet I still have a choice?"

Yes I ask that . . . I ask that as have thousands of others. You reply that it is a paradox. I don't agree. I have a different understanding of election than you do, but how, pray tell, does that mean I am explaining away a text or that I am making the Bible invalid or not God's Word or what have you? How are you jumping to these conclusions, B.W.?

Jesus used these and to claim they are simply masking contradiction is not a slight toward me at all but rather toward someone else who used parables- riddles- to refine complex truths to simplicity of understanding to cause the reader-hearer to seek more information on the matter from the Lord himself at his / her own pace. I take it that you are stating that God's word has absolutely no effect?

Again, you take it wrong. So wait, let me try to understand this. You are saying that because I understand the doctrine of election differently than you do, then I don't believe the Bible is God's Word? B.W., can you see how arrogant that is?

I have no problem with the fact Jesus used parables to hide the true meaning from unbelievers. But that is not what we are talking about here. In all the parables, we can get at THE TRUE MEANING. Your view of election is a "riddle" that can't be solved. God chose me, but somehow I am free to choose Him! WHAT!?!?!?

How is this for a simple doctrine of election. God chose everyone who is in Christ for salvation, as per Ephesians 1? I believe in Christ, God chose me. Hey . . . look . . . easy answer, God is sovereign, I don't save myself, we all have free choice, AND NO RIDDLE. Election is not a parable, B.W.

With all do respect Jac, What is in your Heart. What is being exposed about it? For that matter, my heart also?

Yes, with all due respect, what is in your heart that would cause you to accuse me of not believing the Bible, of considering His word just "an old book," of believing His word has no effect, of explaining away Scripture, and of reading into my arguments ideas that I simply don't hold to? What is in your heart that would cause you to launch such an attack? Shouldn't you instead try to understand what I am saying if you don't (which you clearly don't, and that may well be my fault) before jumping to such drastic conclusions?

[B. W.]

Jac, forgive me of my harsh tone. I am not trying to tear you down. My intent was to cause you and the readers to think a little clearer on this matter and get away from the Calvinist — Armenian mindset concerning the possibly losing his/her salvation by willful walking way. Sometimes open rebuke is better than love carefully concealed.

What do you do with verses that do not agree with the position that states that a person can lose his / her salvation after becoming a born again Christian?

Philippians 1:6, “Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ.” KJV

What confidence do we have if God lets a Christian willfully walk way? Does this mean that God cannot complete a work he begun in you and I or any Christian for that matter? Are we, humans, more powerful than God or is God so weak that he honors the tantrums of human free will so much that he lets one willfully walk away? Is this good work that the Lord works so fickle that it cannot last?

You see, God violates and rudely challenges human free will by his word — God's word provides the avenue for choice. He is not a slave to humanity's free will. He loves and cared so much for you and I that He bled and died for us all and for any to say that a Child of God can willfully walk away from such love knows not God.

If God permitted someone, after becoming born again of his Eternal Holy Spirit becoming his Child of adoption, to willfully walk away and then not go after that stray, doesn't understand the deepness of God's love nor the power of the blood of Christ.

Why do people interpret Philippians 1:6 in such a manner that explains it away to just support a contorted interpretation of Hebrews 6:4-6, Hebrews 10:25-39, and Mark 3:28-29 used in a slanted analysis on what the Blaspheme of the Holy Spirit is? Should not these verses be supported by the bible in plain language and parable in a manner that one does not have to disprove and contradict what Hebrews 7:25 says?

Hebrews 7:25, “Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.” KJV

For that matter, why such great effort is spent by well meaning Christian people to disprove what Jesus states in John 10:25-29 and Matthew 18:12? Always stating that Jesus did not mean anything at all in these verses because he was only referring to Pharisees or little kids; therefore, it can't be implied at all that the Lord who began a good work in a person is capable of completing his own work in a believer as well as to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him.

Is the manner of reasoning, that a Christian can lose his/her Salvation, used just to conform to an imprecise human interpretation of Hebrews 6:4-6, Hebrews 10:25-39, and Mark 3:28-29?

Should the bible passages that clearly state that no one coming to God will be cast out be downplayed and marginalized so much so just to justify particular privet interpretation that states one can lose his /her Salvation for this and that reason? Thus all scriptures must conform to a few verses in the book of Hebrews to nullify the rest of what the bible says on the matter just because a few PhD's say so?

A person cannot explain away Jesus' own words on the matter in the method of the Scribes, stating 'this does mean what it says hear because of this — that reason.' Or one cannot explain away other parts of the bible such as Hebrews 7:25, Hebrews 13:5-9, Philippians 1:6, in the manner of the Pharisaic tradition — which states — 'only we can rightly divide the word of truth as no one else can because they are just ignoramuses when it comes to truthfully reading God's word the correct way which is ours.'

Actually, Hebrews 6:4-6, Hebrews 10:25-39, and Mark 3:28-29 lines up with all the other scriptures that line up with what Romans 8:35-39 boldly declares:

Romans 8:35-39, “ Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? 36 As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. 37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. 38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, 39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” KJV

In Hebrews 6:4-6, the Greek double negative is used to show why it is impossible for one to be able to lose the Grace that God gave to save them to become his Child. It is impossible why? It would mean that Christ would have die every single day to cover every willful sin his children make because his blood is not able to cleanse once for all to the uttermost.

Hebrews 10:25-39 also confirms that one cannot lose his/her salvation by adding a new twist. There are people who come into our assemblies who draw back from saving faith. They never had saving faith — they were not part of the assembly but hung out there for a bit then went back to their old ways and customs. Are we who belong to Christ called to follow the ways of those that insult the spirit of grace or someone else? Were these people who draw back ever really saved? Or were these people never saved?

Hebrews 10:38-39, “ Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. 39 But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.”

How does Faith come? And when does this 'drawing back' occur? Who are these people that draw back? Hebrews 10:38, “Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draws back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.”

Romans 10:13 answers 'when' plainly enough: “ For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah saith, 'Lord, who hath believed our report?' 17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. 18 But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.” KJV

Maybe Hebrews chapter 6 and 10 is not referring to a Child of God but to those who hear - were enlightened, then rejected the Grace of God, in other words - the unsaved person. Only a person that rejects Christ can insult the Spirit of Grace by counting the precious blood of Christ as common as anyone's blood. How can this happen? When does it? It happens when one rejects the word of God and turns away: they draw back and the Lord has no pleasure in them.

Again, question, were all those of ancient Israel of Israel — no! Wheat and tares grow together till the time of the end. The tares were sown not by God but by whom? If by the devil [Matthew 13:37-43] then they are not Christians. The word of God reveals what is inside ones heart and exposes it. His word goes out to all-the world and to everyone in the entire world — not just Israel anymore but to all, Hebrews 4:12-16. What happened in ancient Israel is there for our learning and admonishment. Those in ancient Israel who were not of Israel led Israel astray — let us not follow that same form of disobedience by following the true Shepard instead as the book of Hebrews alludes too.

Salvation is by Grace through Faith — a gift of God — God does not renege on his gifts, Hebrews 6:18. Once you are in his hands — you are his. If you stray — he will cause you to return. He will never and leave you nor will God forsake you. He saves to the uttermost. He who began a good work in you will complete it when Christ returns on his day. Philippians 1:6, Hebrews 7:25, John 10: , Matthew 18:12, Romans 8:35-39, Hebrews 6:18-19, Hebrews 13:5-9 remains very true!

To teach otherwise is wrong. Those that walk away never belonged to God. If they did, then, God is no god that loves that keeps and woos his beloved, and seeks those children of his that stray. God's word separates those that are his and those that are not, fairly and in all the boundaries of perfect justice.

Mark 3:28-29, them that Blaspheme the Holy Spirit are those that were never be saved and those that reject becoming born again. Why? Because they reject Christ and his work upon the human heart — the Grace of God.

Hebrews 6:17, “ Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath:18 That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:20 Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil;20 Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. ” KJV

What anchor do you have for your soul? Lose your salvation? Or realize that God will never let you go? Which is the true gospel? Which produces faith? Which says, return to Christ you who have strayed? Or damns you because you thought you willfully walked away? That is why I challenge all who read this — which God do you want to serve? One who can't save you to the uttermost? Or one who will never let you go? Your call…
-
-
-
P. S -- You are a good man Jac! Christ will never let you go!
-

[Kurieuo]

I am going to respond to your last post to me in parts and so will simply respond to your first section here.

1. Ontological Faith

So we have a genuine disagreement between us here. You see faith as somoething of a substance. It has a definite nature, and included in that nature is the idea of longevity. However else you define it, we can say one thing it is not: it is NOT a simple matter of agreement with a fact.

So in discussing the ontology of faith, you see its nature of existence as being that of a property rather than a substance?

To provide an example of what I mean by "property" and "substance" (in case this is not clear) consider a dog. A dog is an individual thing we can call a substance, and this "dog substance" can have the "properties" of being brown, having a wet nose, much drool, and so on. With this understanding of "substance" and "property" I would agree that faith is not a substance. To make clear, I do not believe faith is a substance, but rather that faith is a property.

But what is "faith" a property of? Well it is a property of sentient beings. It makes no sense to say for example that a rock, which is presumably non-sentient as far as we can tell, has faith. On the other hand "faith" in the context of our belief in Christ is "a property" of "human substances". Therefore whenever faith is mentioned it should never be divorced from its substance - us. This is one reason why I spent a great deal of time examining the nature of our self, and why this matters to understanding whether faith is a continuum, or rather a once of thing we can just accept or have at one time.

I do not see faith as a substance of any kind, which is why I am forced to reject the Calvinist claim (not that you are making it) that faith is a gift. Faith is not a "thing." As such, it can have no properties. It can have no nature. Faith, for me, is persuasion. It is mental assent. It is being in agreement that an idea is true. It is, absolutely, "belief."

I think we could agree. My only comment would be that you say faith is "mental assent", but where do you place our heart in the role of faith?

So what I am going to to here is offer one text (of many I believe I could choose from) to show why my position is correct. I'd like your comments on this, and I'd like to see you do the do the same.

• Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised. This is why "it was credited to him as righteousness." (Rom 4:20-22, NIV))

Notice that Abraham's belief was in the promise (which was that he would have a son). That belief, Paul says, was being fully persuaded. He was convinced the fact was true. God was able to do what He promised, and therefore, He considered God faithful. If we look at this a bit more technically, we see

1) The contrast of unbelief and belief:
a) He did not WAVER through unbelief regarding the PROMISE of God, BUT (alla, strong disjuction)
b) He was STRENGTHED through belief and gave GLORY to God.

Wavering vs. Strengthening are on one side, while God's promise and God's glory are on the other side. This all all centered on faith, and so:

2) The definition of faith:
a) Abraham was FULLY CONVINCED that
b) God ws ABLE to do what He PROMISED.

This phrase recalls all the elements of the first and drives them home. Being persuaded something is true is having faith. In believing God was able tod o what He promised, he does not waver but is strenghted, and therefore, believing this promise, God is glorified.

Sounds good to me. I have no issues here. I think you clearly demonstrate that "faith" is not a substance, and you also show that faith cannot be divorced from the person.

Allow me to add to your words that I believe Abraham was persuaded in his heart. To be fully convinced, I see one must be persuaded at this level - in their very being. And as Abraham was fully persuaded, believing and trusting God in his heart and with mental assent, and thus God credited Abraham's faith to him as righteousness.

3) The result of faith: justification.

So we see very simply that Abraham was justified because He believed God told the truth.. This is exactly the same thing a person must to today to be saved. John 3:16 says, "For God loved the world in this way: He gave His unique Son, that everyone who believes in Him will by not perish, but will instead have everlasting life" (my translation). So, the question is, do you believe God told the truth here, that EVERYONE who believes (considers God is telling the truth about the promise of everlasting life) has, in fact, everlasting life?

Yes I do.

I see nothing in any of these texts about the ontology of the person, but only about their agreement with the factual statements of God. Do you?

To use some jest, I do not see in Scripture "God is a Trinity" either.

Yet, I do see "faith" as being a property of Abraham's substance in the text you mentioned. What is the substance of Abraham? Man. Abraham is a human person. Thus, any talk of faith ought not be separated from its substance - us. To do so is to talk of faith as something that can exist on its own, as a substance, which you pointed out Calvinists do. And to do this, I think you would agree with me, is to loose a true understanding of faith.

[Kurieuo]

2. Assurance

I moved this up a notch

I agree that there are definite theological distinction betewen your view of faith and the Calvinist/Arminian view of faith, just as I believe there are theological distinctions in those two systems. But I want to gloss over that because it is the common conclusion of all of those that I disagree with. Regardless of your methods to get to your location, if the location is wrong, it necessarily follows that the methods are as well.

I understand you see it is the wrong conclusion, however positions ought to be judged on their own consistency and merit and not on whether or not they lead to a more desirable conclusion. Furthermore, and I would not use this as a strong argument if it is an argument at all, but I am inclined to think that if a correlation does exist in all these views (especially considering how different they in their theological details), that such could in fact point to the reality of the correlation as being true.

Yet, you believe the location (this correlation) is wrong. Whether or not intended, I am here understanding you as saying that no matter how consistent and what merits there are for my position, that you will see it as wrong because you see it as having a conclusion you disagree with.

You agreed that you cannot be 100% sure of your own salvation.

Quite the opposite. You might be misunderstanding when I state it is a logical possibility that I in fact want nothing to do with Christ (once I develop more fully into who I am), as me saying that I am unsure about whether I will. As I previously stated:

• 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." I believe the distinction here might be more an exploration of epistemology and how one can be justified in belief, rather than anything regarding assurance. I have full assurance I am saved based on Christ's promise in the same way you do, yet it is logically possible I am wrong in having this assurance, just as it is logically possible you are wrong in having your assurance.

You can be as certain as possible, to the extent that you know yourself now, but you acknowledge the unlikely POSSIBILITY that you could develop into the type of person who does not believe, thus proving your "faith" now is not the type of saving faith we are interested in.

I do not understand.

Firstly, I want to again clarify that faith is not some "thing" (substance) you have or don't have, which you yourself have said. Rather, as I described in my last post, "faith" is best understood as a property of who we are. So if my faith today is found lacking at the end of my life, it is because the me today was not the genuine me, and so "my" rejection of Christ only became apparent as I developed into who I really am.

Secondly, why does the logical possibility I might be wrong about who I am (and as such whether God saved me) mean it is not "the type of saving faith we are interested in"? And by "faith now" do you mean my current faith as it stands, or the "apparent faith" I appear to have if I actually end up lacking faith in Christ later in life as I develop into who I am? I do not want to reply to this until I know what you mean.

In that sense, I see that you can have no objective assurance of your salvation. Or, let me put it another way: the objective assurance you have is only this: All GENUINE believers can be 100% sure they will spend eternity with Christ, but no one can be 100% sure he is a GENUINE believer.

Of course I can have assurance. If I can not know who I am, then I can not have assurance, but if I can know who I am, and see I have good reasons for knowing who I am, then I can have complete assurance.

If on the other hand by "objective assurance" you mean "justified assurance" where one is justified if they have no possibility of being wrong, then I would challenge your epistemology because I think your criteria for judging what is justified is too stringent. Do you really mean to take such a strong approach? Do you think we can only be justified if there is no logical possibility to the contrary, and if so how do you believe anything?

It is logically possible Christ was not raised from the dead as Paul wrote (1 Cor 15:17-19). If you accept this as a logical possibility then your own assurance can be cancelled out. The end result according to such a stringent standard is that assurance will always be "non-objective" (in the sense you use this term) since no one can be 100% sure they are really saved.

Thus, for you, assurance is subjective. You can be progressively more and more sure that you are a genuine believer, but like any science, you can never know. Your logic is inductive.

My view of assurance is deductive.

Assurance as far as I see it is always subjective, for it is the subject who becomes convinced of and therefore assured of something. If by objective you mean my assurance is not logically justifiable according to my beliefs then I disagree. I think I am justified in having complete assurance given Christ was raised from the dead and His promise is firm. Certainly my view of assurance can be seen as inductive, but does this mean we can not be assured that God exists since we induce from the evidence around us that He exists? No. Whether inductive or deductive, assurance is assurance.

Finally, assurance for me is not the crucial question to ask. It is more coherent for my position not to ask whether one is assured of their faith in Christ and as such their salvation, but rather the question to ask of my position is whether who I am now resembles who I will become. In other words, is who I am now the "real me"? If one can answer this affirmatively and they have their reasons for doing so, then I believe they are justified in having complete assurance of their being saved.

a) Everyone who has believed God told the truth regarding acquisition of everlasting life has everlasting life,
b) I have believed God told the truth regarding the acquisition of everlasting life,
c) Therefore, I have everlasting life.

Some of your beliefs become more apparent to me in your argument here.

I disagree with moving focus away from belief in Christ to simply belief in "a proposition", and even see that this move could be quite dangerous to the Gospel if further information is not given about Christ. Everything should be centred around Christ. It is now apparent to me that you believe one must explicitly affirm a proposition, but why do you not see this as making a work out of being saved? I will quote what I wrote to FFC for it is appropriate here:

• I see a response begins with the heart. When a person comes to faith in Christ, for this they need not explicitly affirm belief in Him (which is a head thing), but rather they implicitly accept Him (in their very heart). An explicit affirmation (the head) is surely bound to follow, but I think that God judges our heart in response to Christ.
  
  ... I would add that if an explicit affirmation is required to be saved, that such makes being saved a work (however small an explicit affirmation might seem). Instead I believe just like water baptism symbolises our belief in Christ and spiritual rebirth, that an explicit affirmation just makes obvious the change that has happened in us, our hearts, in response to Christ.

Furthermore, I would like to comment about what follows from your premises above. Let us assume (b) is correct, that having believed God (past tense) you will have everlasting life. Yet, what if who you are when you die wants no part in this promise?! God has locked in your decision, and now forces you against your will to be with Him for eternity. I do not believe God will hold someone hostage to Himself due to a decision by a person they use to be. This just makes no sense to me, especially considering the freedom of choice God respects us to have, as is evident to me in His allowing evil people to go unchecked in this world, and not forcing everyone to come to Him even though He desires all to do so (2 Peter 3:9)

But for now, what I want you to see is that our views of assurance are mutually exclusive. I may be wrong, but I am 100% convinced on a deductive, objective basis that I am going to heaveen. You cannot say that.

I would question your use of "objective" but understand your sense. Yet, it could even be argued that my grounds for assurance are also deductive, albeit they require an extra premise. Take the following argument:

• a) Every completely developed person who believes in Christ, has everlasting life.
  b) I currently believe in Christ.
  c) My belief in Christ is a real property of who I am.
  d) Therefore I have everlasting life.

Now as long as I have sufficient grounds for believing (c), then I have an assurance that is deductive, and so according to your terminology, this would mean I have an "objective" assurance.

Further, you speak highly of assurance, and I have accepted so far that one having assurance of their salvation is right and proper. Yet, it has just been accepted that the doctrine of assurance matters or is a crucial aspect in proving or disproving positions like ours. To use the doctrine of assurance as a criteria to judge the validity of a position, the doctrine of assurance needs to be itself justified rather than assumed. And I am sure you have your reasons.

This is especially important to argue, since the doctrine of assurance arose due to a need to make the Reformed position of justification through faith alone more stable and coherent. Whereas Catholicism based justification in a divine regeneration of our will to be righteous which is then the basis of renewed fellowship with God, the Reformers saw justification as a once-off event pronounced on the unrighteous by faith alone. The Catholic charge was made that the Reformers doctrine of justification amounted to the tolerance of sin in the Christian life. And so a distinction was introduced between justification and sanctification where one was justified by faith but then the Christian life followed a sanctification process where we became more like Christ. But what if one was not becoming more and more Christ-like as they lived their life?! The implication was that such "Christians" were not being sanctified, and if they were not being sanctified, then they must not be justified. Is this an indirect concession that the RCC was right after all about justification? Of course not. So what happens next? A doctrine of "assurance" is plucked out from somewhere and thrown into the mix. (I am sure this is quite amusing to Byblos if he is reading )

Now while I see the doctrine of assurance as being important, I do not see it as a crucial linchpin to the validity of any position which holds that we are saved by grace through faith in Christ. To increase the doctrine of assurance to the importance of being a necessary requirement I see needs very strong arguments that such a doctrine is true and required. Yet, I still believe and have reasoned that I can have assurance of being saved on Christ's promise anyhow.

A final comment on this before we move on. You made a statement regarding hope. "Hope" in the biblical sense (gk. elpis) does NOT mean "hope" in the English sense, as in, "I really want this to happen, but I'm not sure it will." Just the opposite, the word refers to a full and confident expectation based on the knowledge that something will occur. If you do not KNOW something is true, you cannot elpis for its fulfillment. A good 21st century analogy is this:

I worked about 60 hours over the past two weeks. I elpis that I am goig to have a check deposited in my account Monday morning. I "hope" I will receive it because I BELIEVE (have faith, am fully persuaded of the fact) that my company is able to make the deposit they promised me.

Definitely a valid qualification.

Let me say the hope I have in Christ I am entirely convinced will be fulfilled. Which makes it all the sadder if we are wrong as Paul 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."

The logical possibility we are wrong does not equate to being uncertain or unsure. Paul understood this, as otherwise his comments would make no sense. For example:

• 1.1) Paul has a full hope in Christ's resurrection and thereby His promise of everlasting life
  1.2) Christ has not been raised
  1.3) Paul is to be pitied more than because he has a full hope in Christ's resurrection

Yet, a contradiction is caused in Paul having a full hope if a logical possibility means we must be unsure for:

• 2.1) If one accepts the logical possibility they are wrong, then they can not be certain of their belief
  2.2) Paul accepts the logical possibility he is wrong in considering Christ being raised
  2.3) Therefore Paul is unsure He has everlasting life through Christ

Thus, it seems Paul does not see that conceding a logical possibility means we must be unsure, otherwise a contradiction is caused in his stated argument.

[Kurieuo]

Jac, I just read the last of your last post to me and want to add I can understand why you place the importance you do on assurance.

I do disagree with the assertions made about my position and knowing in what remained of your post, however I believe the issue of knowing and being sure of salvation was effectively responded to in my last post. So I will leave it in your court to respond as time allows.

[Byblos]

(I am sure this is quite amusing to Byblos if he is reading

Right on both counts (yes, I'm reading, and yes, it's amusing). Actually, I'm rather enjoying the discussion immensely. I find myself volleying between the two points. Kurieuo, I think you're as close to bridging both sides together as I've ever seen. This is just fantastic stuff, please keep it up.

[Jac3510]

K - I see your replies there, but I haven't had a chance to read through them yet, but I am anxious to get to them. Right now, I have about three hours worth of lectures to listen to and three quizzes to take on them tonight! FUN! So I'll probably get to things tomorrow.

And B.W. - I briefly skimmed over your reply to me. Have you gotten the impression that I think a person can lose their salvation? Maybe I just read your wrong, which is very possible, but that seems to be what you are getting at . . .

[Kurieuo]

K - I see your replies there, but I haven't had a chance to read through them yet, but I am anxious to get to them. Right now, I have about three hours worth of lectures to listen to and three quizzes to take on them tonight! FUN! So I'll probably get to things tomorrow.

That is fine. I will be buried in work this week so will not have a chance to really respond until the weekend (unless I read and get drawn in and put off my work that needs doing ). So I am happy, and would even appreciate, if you took your time.

[Jac3510]

Haha, I just read your replies, K, and I am looking forward to replying. But I'll be merciful to both of us and give it a little bit of time. I didn't finish those lectures last night, and I have appointments pretty much every day this week with people all over Georgia. I'm two hours away in Hamiton tonight, two hours away in Elberton tomorrow, two hours away in Lagrange Wednesday . . . thank God I live in central GA, since my business is all at the edges :p

[B. W.]

K - I see your replies there, but I haven't had a chance to read through them yet, but I am anxious to get to them. Right now, I have about three hours worth of lectures to listen to and three quizzes to take on them tonight! FUN! So I'll probably get to things tomorrow.

And B.W. - I briefly skimmed over your reply to me. Have you gotten the impression that I think a person can lose their salvation? Maybe I just read your wrong, which is very possible, but that seems to be what you are getting at . . .

Hi Jac,

That is the impression I got so please clarify a bit for me. I am working on a sermon lesson for this Sunday so a may be a bit slow to respond

God Bless!
-
-
-