Evidence for God from Science

I am certainly glad that the young woman was saved and commited her life to following Christ. I'm sure we could multiply those types of stories endlessly. And, of course, we are saved by grace (which costs us nothing) for a purpose, and that purpose is to good works (Eph 2:10, as you quoted).

Does that mean if we don't do the good works then we lose, or never had, the grace? No. It just means we haven't fulfilled our purpose.

I still say that grace costs nothing. It wasn't grace that cost her her job or her pride. As you said before, following Christ cost her that. A life of discipleship cost her that. Now, if you want to be a theologian and start separating grace as in "the grace of justication" and "the grace of progessive sanctification," then fine. But my understanding is that when we say "by grace you are saved through faith" that we are referring primarily to salvation from Hell. And, AGAIN, that grace costs us NOTHING.

Grace is free. There is no reason to add to that message. We should, of course, continue in discipleship. We should follow God's laws and submit ourselves to Christ. There are benefits if we do and consequences if we don't. But I cannot emphasize enough that grace is free.

The only other verse you mentioned from Matthew that deals with the Kingdom, and I'll suggest we not pick up that topic of conversation. I don't believe "the kingdom of heaven" is the Church. We are not living in the Kingdom now. What you and I are doing every day is not "kingdom work" nor is there any "kingdom growth" going on. There is a lot to be learned from that parable, and others, but the Kingdom is the Kingdom. It is an OT concept, and as such, it is NOT a reference to the Church.

Anyway, I think we've reached more agreement than not. We both agree salvation is through belief alone and that once a person is justified that they should continue in good works. We agree that those good works do not save, nor do they keep a person saved. Everything beyond that is for the theologians to hash out, and so I don't really think it's so much of a concern for our presentation of the Gospel to the general public.

God bless

Yes we agree...

I do write things and do sermons based on 'attention getting' and 'shock' techniques.

Where the sermon winds up in closing is that — “Grace is free but following Christ cost us everything”

In the meantime, I explore "the grace of justification" and "the grace of progressive sanctification," at the same time…

Now I think you get the point about the 'attention getter' — Grace Cost us our sins…

So there are things that follow Salvation after all
-
-
-

Jac - Now that you understand - here is a copy of a rough draft article of mine that has the elements of 'attention getting', "the grace of justification" and "the grace of progressive sanctification" all entwined and note the kicker at the end…

Grace - Glorious Amazing Grace...

Psalms 107:43, “Whoso is wise, and will observe these things, even they shall understand the lovingkindness of the LORD.” KJV

Grace, how sweet the sound that saved a wretch like me the song goes. God's grace saves alone is a fact. It did not cost us anything but cost God much. Yet, the Lord's grace teaches us to stop sinning and in this grace cost us much.

How does it? Well it leads us on a journey which leads to the end of ourselves. Where we finally give up our struggles, self effort, our selfishness and say, only you Lord can rid this sin from my life.

God works in omni-personal ways with his children. His grace let's each learn in many diverse ways that all our self work, self effort, and self righteous ways cannot erase sin and these instead keep us walking according to the flesh. We need to walk according to the Spirit.

Like the person who prays for patience, and then is thrust into impatient circumstances, how long till patience is learned? What is brought out about the person as they learn patience? What needs changed? Only by God's grace can they and we be change.

To walk according to the Spirit is by God's grace. Only Jesus can give you and me the power over our temptations and sins. We need to be brought to the end of ourselves before we can let go of ourselves. Grace instructs us in this letting go. Through this journey we learn to know God a little bit better each time and trust him more and more.

We struggle, agonize, pray for some secret sin to be removed. It does not leave. We fast and pray, make deals and promises all to no avail. During this course if we but stop and look, we are getting to know God through the trial we suffer. Our Faith, instead of faltering, grows closer to God and thus our faith is strengthened. This is grace. It cost us. 2 Peter 1:3-9

We finally come to the end and cry out, “God oh Lord I can't stop this sin, help me please! I tried everything!” Ah, now will you accept God's gracious power, freely given, and find rest for your soul? You say, “Yes Lord only you can remove this, I can't — I am at my wits end.”

Grace teaches you how to be free from sin. During the journey, you learn of the Lord and discover more about him and draw closer to him than before. That's grace. You learn to talk to the Lord as you would with your closet friend. More grace. Most importantly, you cease from your labor and find rest for your soul. Heavenly grace. Next day, the sin tempts again and suddenly you have no desire for it ever again. Amazing Grace!

Grace cost us our sin, during our struggle with sin, grace leads us home. Without God's grace we cannot overcome. Without grace, we can never know God. It cost us our slavery to self rule in exchange for God's perfecting liberty. By his grace we are cleansed and learn about the loving-kindness of the Lord, Psalms 107:1-43, 1 John 1:7-10 and 1 John 2:1-6

There is more to God's grace than we realize — it is salvation, yours and mine freely given. Grace is free yet following Christ cost us everything. Let the journey begin…
-
-
-

I don't necessarily disagree with your article, BW. It is certainly well written, and it has some very positive and uplifting throughts as well. But I do have some problems with it. I know that I can be very critical on issues relating to salvation and sanctification, so I ran this by my theology professor. He is also Free Grace, but far more gracious than I, so I wanted to know his thoughts. He mentioned the same problems I had without prompting, so please try to take this not as a personal attack but as an objective critique based on a different viewpoint.

Broadly, the problem is a lack of distinction between the grace of justification and the grace of sanctification. I'm afraid that you have blurred the distinction between the event of salvation and the journey of sanctification, as, say, Paul makes clear in Col 2:6: "Therefore, as you [1] received Christ Jesus the Lord, [2] so walk in him."

Now, it is a problem of audience. It seems this article/talk is directed to unbelievers. They hear "grace" and are expected to think about the free grace of salvation. However, you then move on to start talking about the grace of progressive santification without making the distiction. The uninformed hearer won't make it, either, so he is likely to place the "cost" aspect in the grace of justification. Of course, that is simply not true! It muddles the Gospel. This is compounded by your usage of the word "journey" at the end. The entire idea seems to be (whether intentional or not) that we are saved when, through faith (whatever that is), we receive the Grace of God to live our lives for Him.

My suggestion would be to make a very strong and clear distinction between justifying grace and sanctifying grace. You don't have to use that terminology, of course. In fact, if you use the word grace (as you should) to refer to the free gift of everlasting life that comes by believing Jesus' promise, then you should NOT use the word to discuss the grace of God to allow us to live for Him. That is a totally separate issue, and in no way should your reader be allowed to conflate the two.

A smaller issue in this is that I am afraid you are setting up as a norm what is actually a very, very difficult place to reach in the Christian walk. even Paul was not capable of living what you rightly describe in these verses. He confesses in Rom 7:14ff that he is incapable of living for Christ consistently, for he is still sold under flesh, even though his spirit is redeemed. I'm afraid this message, in this form, will place an unbearable load on its recipients. Though not stated, the background idea of this article seems to be, "if you just rely on God's grace, then you'll conquer sin in your life!" Sadly, that just isn't true. Yes, any victory have over sin IS due to God's grace. But we do not COMMAND His grace simply by relying on it.

Again, I appreciate the thrust of what you are saying. I am in full agreement that any growth we have as believers is through God's grace, and that we must receive the His grace to submit our lives to Christ, and that submission will cost us everything. I just think you need to reconsider your presentation, because in the form it is in now, it may produce more confusion than light.

God bless

Jac3510 wrote:I don't necessarily disagree with your article, BW. It is certainly well written, and it has some very positive and uplifting throughts as well. But I do have some problems with it. I know that I can be very critical on issues relating to salvation and sanctification, so I ran this by my theology professor. He is also Free Grace, but far more gracious than I, so I wanted to know his thoughts. He mentioned the same problems I had without prompting, so please try to take this not as a personal attack but as an objective critique based on a different viewpoint.

Broadly, the problem is a lack of distinction between the grace of justification and the grace of sanctification. I'm afraid that you have blurred the distinction between the event of salvation and the journey of sanctification, as, say, Paul makes clear in Col 2:6: "Therefore, as you [1] received Christ Jesus the Lord, [2] so walk in him."

Now, it is a problem of audience. It seems this article/talk is directed to unbelievers. They hear "grace" and are expected to think about the free grace of salvation. However, you then move on to start talking about the grace of progressive santification without making the distiction. The uninformed hearer won't make it, either, so he is likely to place the "cost" aspect in the grace of justification. Of course, that is simply not true! It muddles the Gospel. This is compounded by your usage of the word "journey" at the end. The entire idea seems to be (whether intentional or not) that we are saved when, through faith (whatever that is), we receive the Grace of God to live our lives for Him.

My suggestion would be to make a very strong and clear distinction between justifying grace and sanctifying grace. You don't have to use that terminology, of course. In fact, if you use the word grace (as you should) to refer to the free gift of everlasting life that comes by believing Jesus' promise, then you should NOT use the word to discuss the grace of God to allow us to live for Him. That is a totally separate issue, and in no way should your reader be allowed to conflate the two.

A smaller issue in this is that I am afraid you are setting up as a norm what is actually a very, very difficult place to reach in the Christian walk. even Paul was not capable of living what you rightly describe in these verses. He confesses in Rom 7:14ff that he is incapable of living for Christ consistently, for he is still sold under flesh, even though his spirit is redeemed. I'm afraid this message, in this form, will place an unbearable load on its recipients. Though not stated, the background idea of this article seems to be, "if you just rely on God's grace, then you'll conquer sin in your life!" Sadly, that just isn't true. Yes, any victory have over sin IS due to God's grace. But we do not COMMAND His grace simply by relying on it.

Again, I appreciate the thrust of what you are saying. I am in full agreement that any growth we have as believers is through God's grace, and that we must receive the His grace to submit our lives to Christ, and that submission will cost us everything. I just think you need to reconsider your presentation, because in the form it is in now, it may produce more confusion than light.

God bless

Thanks for the tips and points! It is a rough draft - it may never come about to be published anywhere due the max words requirements for short article. I may ax it. If you have any ideas to lop off a paragraph or two - which ones should be lopped out and the suggested subjects added in that would make it more theologically flow better? Any suggestions would be helpful as I hate to ax the work but may need too and start anew.
-
-
-

I am now back home after a short vacation from Southern Colorado. During this time I was reflecting on how we break Grace into several different parts to explain it as the grace of justification and the grace of sanctification. Is there really a distinction between the two? Or are the distinctions our manner to define grace so we can more easily understand the concept of grace? Does this distinction cause people to misappropriate grace, Romans 6:1-2, if so could it be because we make these distinctions separate?

Jac — what is your opinion on Titus 2:11-15?

Also Note Context of Romans Chapter Six

Again note how the Amplified Bible translatesJohn 3:15-21?

The Amplified Bible gives a good reading of John 17
-
-
-

B.W.
My Pastor this weekend was speaking on this very subject in our Sunday school class. He just started this series so I have not heard all he has to say on this.

He first clarified at the very beginning that salvation was completely and only by grace. Not Grace plus work and not even Grace and then works. And that, regardless of how much or how little they serve after salvation, they are still saved.

But then he got on the subject of serving. He said that serving God is by Grace. He identified that most of the service to God that many Christians do was in fact not done by the Spirit but by the will of the flesh. He went on to say the only when we are lead by the Spirit is this serving by His Grace.

It sounds very interesting and exciting and I am looking forward to here the rest of his series on this.

And Jac I agree with you that many churches do not teach discipleship. But many of the ones that do teach discipleship blur the distinction between salvation and discipleship such that there is danger in corruption of the understanding of the gospel.

If you are ever in the Dallas, Texas area I think you would both would enjoy his services as well as any other Christians on this board.
http://www.harvestbc.org/
He has a very great skill in communicating biblical truth. His spiritual gift is most definitely teaching.

YLTYLT wrote:But then he got on the subject of serving. He said that serving God is by Grace. He identified that most of the service to God that many Christians do was in fact not done by the Spirit but by the will of the flesh. He went on to say the only when we are lead by the Spirit is this serving by His Grace.

Amen. Paul pretty much said the same thing.

1Cor 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which [was bestowed] upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.

BW

I don't have any suggestions on paragraphs or actual text or whatever. I just think that you should clearly distinguish between the EVENT of justification and the PROCESS of sanctification. Both are by grace, in their own way; both have different ideas, and you cannot let your hearers think that the aspects of sanctification are involved in justification. If you do, they will have the wrong idea about justification, and then you will never get anything other than moralistic disciples who are as lost as Hitler ever was.

So, yes, there is a difference in the grace of justification and the grace of sanctification. Don't mix the two. I would suggest deciding WHO the article is directed at. If to believers, then assure them of their justification based on their belief in Jesus' promise (i.e., John 6:47), and then go on to talk about the need to press on to maturity. If, though, you are writing to unbelievers, let the sanctification issue rest until they have come to believe the justifying proposition. If you just feel you HAVE to have more (although I wonder why the Gospel wouldn't be enough???), use Eph 2:10 to mention what we are saved FOR. Naturally, just because a person doesn't do what they are supposed to do as a Christian doesn't make them any less saved, nor are good works guaranteed in the life of any believer. But if you want them to know this salvation is for a purpose, then that may be a good way to break down the article.

As for Titus, I obviously have no problem with the passage. My gf was just telling me yesterday how that now that she KNOWS she is saved on the basis of Christ's promise, she finds herself WANTING to serve--get this--not to BE saved, but BECAUSE she is saved. Those are her words to me, and unprompted at that! Understanding unconditional love does something to someone . . . your hearers have to understand that that are UNCONDITIONALLY loved and accepted by God JUST AS THEY ARE with NO strings attached. God will, of course, work in the believers life to conform him or her into Jesus' image, but that's a two way street, and it has nothing to do with whether or not we are "really saved."

Much the same can be said for Romans 6. We should live sanctified lives. I may do a verse by verse exegesis of that passage, because I think it has some great truths in it about the conditionality of sancitification. Do note, BW, that the chapter is full of exhortations to do things. We have a choice in that matter. We don't in salvation. We either believe Jesus' promise or we don't! Also, please note that not one chapter later, Paul is confessing that his flesh is still sold under sin, and because of that he finds himself habitually in the same sins. His conclusion: thank God for the future resurrection, and because of THAT, there is NO CONDEMNATION to those in Jesus.

As for the AB's rendering of John, I don't like it, but I've already said that I believe that is the wrong understanding of pistis. It simply means to believe. In some contexts, it can mean "entrust," but the base idea hasn't changed. You believe someone is capable of doing something, so you entrust that do them to do it. Besides that, I lost a WHOLE lot of respect of the AB on their rendering of John 3:16. It makes me wonder if they even bother with the Greek text at all. They have, "For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world . . ." That's just retarded. The Greek word there is houtos, and it DOES NOT mean "so much." It means, "thus," or "in this manner." Check out this MUCH better translation by the CSB:

"For God loved the world in this way: He gave His One and Only Son,"

And YLT, good summary of the issue. I am in 100% agreement with you there.

God bless

Jac3510 wrote:BW

I don't have any suggestions on paragraphs or actual text or whatever. I just think that you should clearly distinguish between the EVENT of justification and the PROCESS of sanctification. Both are by grace, in their own way; both have different ideas, and you cannot let your hearers think that the aspects of sanctification are involved in justification. If you do, they will have the wrong idea about justification, and then you will never get anything other than moralistic disciples who are as lost as Hitler ever was.

So, yes, there is a difference in the grace of justification and the grace of sanctification. Don't mix the two. I would suggest deciding WHO the article is directed at. If to believers, then assure them of their justification based on their belief in Jesus' promise (i.e., John 6:47), and then go on to talk about the need to press on to maturity. If, though, you are writing to unbelievers, let the sanctification issue rest until they have come to believe the justifying proposition. If you just feel you HAVE to have more (although I wonder why the Gospel wouldn't be enough???), use Eph 2:10 to mention what we are saved FOR. Naturally, just because a person doesn't do what they are supposed to do as a Christian doesn't make them any less saved, nor are good works guaranteed in the life of any believer. But if you want them to know this salvation is for a purpose, then that may be a good way to break down the article.

As for Titus, I obviously have no problem with the passage. My gf was just telling me yesterday how that now that she KNOWS she is saved on the basis of Christ's promise, she finds herself WANTING to serve--get this--not to BE saved, but BECAUSE she is saved. Those are her words to me, and unprompted at that! Understanding unconditional love does something to someone . . . your hearers have to understand that that are UNCONDITIONALLY loved and accepted by God JUST AS THEY ARE with NO strings attached. God will, of course, work in the believers life to conform him or her into Jesus' image, but that's a two way street, and it has nothing to do with whether or not we are "really saved."

Much the same can be said for Romans 6. We should live sanctified lives. I may do a verse by verse exegesis of that passage, because I think it has some great truths in it about the conditionality of sancitification. Do note, BW, that the chapter is full of exhortations to do things. We have a choice in that matter. We don't in salvation. We either believe Jesus' promise or we don't! Also, please note that not one chapter later, Paul is confessing that his flesh is still sold under sin, and because of that he finds himself habitually in the same sins. His conclusion: thank God for the future resurrection, and because of THAT, there is NO CONDEMNATION to those in Jesus.

As for the AB's rendering of John, I don't like it, but I've already said that I believe that is the wrong understanding of pistis. It simply means to believe. In some contexts, it can mean "entrust," but the base idea hasn't changed. You believe someone is capable of doing something, so you entrust that do them to do it. Besides that, I lost a WHOLE lot of respect of the AB on their rendering of John 3:16. It makes me wonder if they even bother with the Greek text at all. They have, "For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world . . ." That's just retarded. The Greek word there is houtos, and it DOES NOT mean "so much." It means, "thus," or "in this manner." Check out this MUCH better translation by the CSB:"For God loved the world in this way: He gave His One and Only Son,"And YLT, good summary of the issue. I am in 100% agreement with you there. God bless

Thanks Jac - the word requirements of publication just does not permit a lengthy discourse. Another problem in the church media world — everything is to be short and specific without regard to distinctions. I'll axe the article and try again.

Yes your GF has it correct — that is what I was trying to explain. The love of God changes us and we joyfully do his will and want to reflect Christ-likeness. This is not achieved by intellectual accent alone that prompts this change. The Holy Spirit has his hands in this. We are vessels and have a purpose.

Sitting in the intellectual library alone doesn't cut it as the Holy Spirit has a way of kicking us out of the library into the reality of life. It seems to me that one can become so afraid of works as evil self effort that they enjoy staying in the library. Not much life in there. There is a balance between the real work of the Spirit upon a person and what God instructs from the scriptures. Let us not blur this distinction as defining it all as self works as we may end up teaching that it is okay to avoid doing anything at all.

All I can say is that there is more to following Christ than intellectual accent alone as there will come a time to put our faith in action. There comes times when our faith is put under trials and tested and the result is what? - More library time or life lived? Life lived under whose management — self or God? Life lived walking by intellectual faith alone or living faith learned through the trial?

I am not saying you need works to be saved or remain saved but rather what comes after salvation. It seems to me, we cannot get past this at this time as a distinction cannot be made.

Yes, you need a measure of intellectual faith to become born again. That is where we all start — but from there as you stated your GF puts it, “…how that now that she KNOWS she is saved on the basis of Christ's promise, she finds herself WANTING to serve--get this--not to BE saved, but BECAUSE she is saved. Those are her words to me, and unprompted at that! Understanding unconditional love does something to someone…”

That statement from your GF also sums up the thrust of my position very well. Things that pertain to salvation…as the gist that this thread line is discussing…God's love does something to a person is true indeed as WANTS are trained into action by the power of the Holy Spirit upon the lives of those that believe.
-
-
-

“What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?” (Romans 6:1-2)

Pretty clear to me. Cheap Grace/No-Lordship heretics think that they can live in the light of God's grace and still walk in darkness. Biblical Grace trains “…us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age” (Titus 2:11-12). Biblical Grace comes from God and makes us “worthy of his calling and may fulfill every resolve for good and every work of faith by his power” (2 Thessalonians 1:11-12). Biblical Grace delivers us from the dominion of sin (Romans 6:14). Biblical Grace assures us that “he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ” (Philippians 1:6-7). Biblical Grace is “with all who love our Lord Jesus Christ with love incorruptible” (Ephesians 6:24). Those who claim to have this love and do not keep God's Commandments are liars and the truth is not in them (1 John 2:3-4). Biblical Grace saves those who are “his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” (Ephesians 2:8-10). Biblical Grace is given to those whom “he chose…in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him” (Ephesians 1:2-4). Biblical Grace has “…all sufficiency in all things at all times, you may abound in every good work” (2 Corinthians 9:8). “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.” (2 Corinthians 5:17) Otherwise, we have “receive[d] the grace of God in vain” (2 Corinthians 6:1). If the grace that you have received isn't sanctifying you, then it is not biblical grace.

Biblical Grace is not moral perfection, for such would have no need of Grace. Bibical Grace does result in sancification, regardless of how slow that sanctification may take place. Biblical Grace is effectual, accomplishing all of these things in those who are God's. If one is not being sanctified, being trained by grace to renounce the devil and his works, he has not experienced the grace of God, but rather a grace that he has invented in his own vain imagination. The “grace” of No-Lordship proponents is not the biblical grace that comes from God, but a different sort that comes from there own human neurons. It is a cheap grace that winks at sin, does not lead to repentance or holiness, does not change the heart, and tries to mix the holy with the profane. Those who teach a lawless gospel know nothing of biblical grace, nor have they any knowledge of the new birth, without which no one can see the kingdom of God (John 3:3). Woe be to any minister who would pervert God's grace into a license to sin. “It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were cast into the sea.” (Luke 17:2)

I do love Rom. 6:1, "Are we able to continue in sin that grace may abound?"

Oh, wait . . . that isn't what it says?

PL, I appeciate your concern for holiness, but as long as you keep making progressive sanctification a requirement for salvation, you are denying people the ability to know they are saved. So when Jesus says, "Whoever believes has everlasting life," and they can't know they have life because they might not persevere, or they have too much sin (how much is too much?), then you deny the gospel. Call God's grace a heresy all you want. It's the only way to be saved.

God saves by grace or He doesn't save at all.

And, for the record, I've seen more lives dramatically saved with a genuine offer of grace than I did in my entire ten years as a hardline Lordship proponent. I've been on both sides. I know who the heretics are. I know who is sending people to Hell by the truckloads.

Jac3510 wrote:I do love Rom. 6:1, "Are we able to continue in sin that grace may abound?"

Oh, wait . . . that isn't what it says?

PL, I appeciate your concern for holiness, but as long as you keep making progressive sanctification a requirement for salvation, you are denying people the ability to know they are saved. So when Jesus says, "Whoever believes has everlasting life," and they can't know they have life because they might not persevere, or they have too much sin (how much is too much?), then you deny the gospel. Call God's grace a heresy all you want. It's the only way to be saved.

God saves by grace or He doesn't save at all.

And, for the record, I've seen more lives dramatically saved with a genuine offer of grace than I did in my entire ten years as a hardline Lordship proponent. I've been on both sides. I know who the heretics are. I know who is sending people to Hell by the truckloads.

Jac,

I'm sure PL will have his own response but I just wanted to say that I did not get from PL's posts (here or elsewhere) he is making progressive sanctification a requirement for salvation but as a result of. Both of you claim to have diametrically opposed points of view yet I see truth in both. On the one hand God saves by grace and grace alone (no other requirements necessary) and on the other, this free saving grace does result in a genuine change in the believer. It doesn't mean a non-believer cannot exhibit the same characteristics of change (even though he's not saved). It doesn't mean that a believer does not sin either but that the believer's sanctification process is a continuous one and not a one time event. Or did I misunderstand either position or both?

Byblos, let me just respond with this quote from Bob Wilkin's book Confident in Christ (p. 3-4) that I think makes the issue very clear:

Wilkin wrote:There is no real difference between saying that to be saved you must turn from your sins, commit your life to Christ, and believe in Him, and saying that believing in Christ necessarily results in turning from your sins and committing your life to Him. Both insist that turning from sins and commitment of life are necessary to obtain final salvation.

To take this one step further, PL's view is also heresy because it denies a person assurance of salvation. As Calvin said, assurance is of the essense of saving faith. If a person does not know they have everlasting life (that is, have assurance of salvation), then they either do not understand or do not believe the promise of Jesus. Either way, they do not believe the Gospel. At the end of the day, either PL is a heretic or I am. There is absolutely no reconciliation between our positions. One of us is proclaiming a false gospel. Unfortunately for PL, the Gospel I preach is the very words of Jesus: "Whoever believes has everlasting life."

Jac3510 wrote:Byblos, let me just respond with this quote from Bob Wilkin's book Confident in Christ (p. 3-4) that I think makes the issue very clear:

Wilkin wrote:There is no real difference between saying that to be saved you must turn from your sins, commit your life to Christ, and believe in Him, and saying that believing in Christ necessarily results in turning from your sins and committing your life to Him. Both insist that turning from sins and commitment of life are necessary to obtain final salvation.

To take this one step further, PL's view is also heresy because it denies a person assurance of salvation. As Calvin said, assurance is of the essense of saving faith. If a person does not know they have everlasting life (that is, have assurance of salvation), then they either do not understand or do not believe the promise of Jesus. Either way, they do not believe the Gospel. At the end of the day, either PL is a heretic or I am. There is absolutely no reconciliation between our positions. One of us is proclaiming a false gospel. Unfortunately for PL, the Gospel I preach is the very words of Jesus: "Whoever believes has everlasting life."

I must confess I am with Byblos...don't see the problem with PL's statement...don't see how reformed faith denies a person assurance of faith. Effectual Grace is from Christ...it is His work in us that provides our assurance. My belief in Christ at the moment of my belief then allows Him to work in me. My committment to Christ is a product of sactifying grace (please feel free, PL, to polish my reformed theology), not a requirement of being saved. He is "the author and perfector of our faith"