Evidence for God from Science

Jac3510 wrote:Biblicist, that's absolutely beautiful. I'd be a little cautious about using the term "appropriate," but that's only because I'm overly sensative to the nuances in the various terms we use when talking about these things. Still, I absolutely love how you phrased it. Nice to have a fellow free-gracer on board. At least, your words strike me as such. You definitely have used several catch-phrases that are common in our camp.

"We are not saved by believing biblical language. We are saved by believing biblical truth." ~ Zane Hodges.

Hi Fellow FGer.

Yes, how one receives everlasting life in Scripture is so plain and simple, and is given so many times in so many ways that it is really hard to understand how anyone can misunderstand it.

But I do not agree with everything GES, et. Al, teach.

I've gotten more from Zane than most anyone else on soteriology, BUT I don't agree even with him on everything. For example, in his book on repentance, he basically comes down on the side of repentance not meaning what the Greek word means, e.g., “change of mind.”

But rather it is used to mean to change ones direction in life, e.g., the prodigal son, to come into harmony with God.

A MAJOR objection, in my opinion, to this is that GOD Himself is said in Scripture to “repent.” Now I am a classical theist, (See Geisler), and realize that God repenting is an anthropomorphism, but it still contradicts Zane's idea. I agree with Ryrie et. Al. that for one to go from not having saving faith to having saving faith one MUST “change his mind,” or as I prefer, “have his mind changed.” God persuades the unregenerate man of the truth of the gospel. That is, believing itself is not a choice, but to be persuaded, one must will to listen to the truth. And this is a choice.

Just look at how many professing Christians reject with great vehemence that salvation is a free gift without cost!

Biblicist "Believe in Christ for Eternal Life"

Biblicist wrote:Yes, how one receives everlasting life in Scripture is so plain and simple, and is given so many times in so many ways that it is really hard to understand how anyone can misunderstand it.

But I do not agree with everything GES, et. Al, teach.

I've gotten more from Zane than most anyone else on soteriology, BUT I don't agree even with him on everything. For example, in his book on repentance, he basically comes down on the side of repentance not meaning what the Greek word means, e.g., “change of mind.”

But rather it is used to mean to change ones direction in life, e.g., the prodigal son, to come into harmony with God.

A MAJOR objection, in my opinion, to this is that GOD Himself is said in Scripture to “repent.” Now I am a classical theist, (See Geisler), and realize that God repenting is an anthropomorphism, but it still contradicts Zane's idea. I agree with Ryrie et. Al. that for one to go from not having saving faith to having saving faith one MUST “change his mind,” or as I prefer, “have his mind changed.” God persuades the unregenerate man of the truth of the gospel. That is, believing itself is not a choice, but to be persuaded, one must will to listen to the truth. And this is a choice.

Just look at how many professing Christians reject with great vehemence that salvation is a free gift without cost!

Biblicist "Believe in Christ for Eternal Life"

Sounds like we are a lot on the same page. GES went off the deep end over the last couple of years. I was at the national conference either two or three years ago when it all sort of going downhill there. I won't list their "offenses" here so as not to take away from the grace-message (which they have come, for better or worse, to embody among people who are aware the debate exists).

O repentance, you and I are in agreement. I do think that Hodges has pointed out some weaknesses in the traditional (Chaferian) view of repentance. We do need to recognize that there is a repentance to fellowship, and this is especially true concerning the Millennial Kingdom, but we can't go all the way with him and say that is all there is to it!

You should check out the Free Grace Alliance, headed by Dave Anderson and GraceLife Ministires, headed by Charlie Bing, if you haven't already. There are also several very solid FG schools that have journals. Chafer Theological Seminary and Tyndale Theological Seminary are both outstanding. Here in GA, we have Free Grace Seminary, but they haven't gotten their journal together yet.

If I may ask, what are you reading beyond some of Zane's material and, of course, your Bible? (It's amazing how differently--how much more clearly--the Bible reads from a FG perspective, isn't it???)

Biblicist wrote:The free gift of eternal life comes only by faith alone in Christ alone.

Faith is defined in Heb. 11. Faith is being convinced of the truth of a proposition.

Saving faith is being convinced of the truth of a saving proposition.

Such a saving proposition is given in for example,

John 6:47

47 "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.”

Now it may seem to be easy to believe this or even easier to say that one
believes this.

The content of faith is critically important.

Understanding what God said is critically important.

It is only when a person actually believes what God
said that appropriation is made.

If you believe what God has not actually said, then
you have not believed what He said.

One can believe in or on Christ for many things, such
as healing, riches, a car, etc. But even if you get what
you ask for, this doesn't mean that you are saved.

To obtain everlasting life one must believe in Jesus Christ
for everlasting life.

One must believe that Jesus does actually give everlasting life
to the one believing in Him for it. One must further believe
that the life HE gives is eternal.

If either of these truths are missing, then one has not believed
what Christ said, and he has not received everlasting life.

Biblicist "Believe in Christ for Eternal Life"

Hi Biblicist.

Out of curiosity, who is the "one" who believes:

1) The "one" at the end of their life's completion who once believed but no longer believes and even outright attacks Christ?
OR
2) The "one" at a time in life when they believed regardless of whether or not they believe at life's end?

Jac should know where this is coming from as we have had previous discussions, but just wondering your take on anthropology and particularly the identity of our self.

Daniel wrote:YLTYLT, your exegesis of 1 Corinthians 3:15 seems to be more accurate than I often see, in that it does seem to pertain specifically to works on behalf of the church and not as an express support of unconditional eternal security. Thank you for your post.

Daniel, Thank you for your encouraging words.
Although I was not focusing on eternal security, And this verse alone does not prove it, I do believe that the inference is there, that we cannot lose salvation if our works are not good enough, or even if we show no fruit. But I also believe that: a person that is saved, that does not grow or is not growing in grace, will suffer greater discipline by God than an unsaved person.

Hebrews 12:6
For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.

2 Timothy 1:12
For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.

If you are convinced, as Paul was, that Christ will keep your salvation, then you are saved, and nothing can take that away.

I used to think that maybe, through our will, we could reject it. But once we have understood the gospel and trusted Christ as our Savior, then the Holy Spirit resides in us and keeps us from rejecting our salvation. We might reject our sanctification(think of Lot), or some portion thereof, but we are eternally justified.

But growing in grace is very important. And our growth in grace is not a direct decision or act of our own will. But it is and indirect act of our own will. The only way we can increase in grace is to allow God to change us. We need to learn to think the things that God would have us to think - To keep an eternal perspective.

But me telling someone to keep an eternal perspective won't help this person at all. They may think its a great idea and want to do it, but that information wont change them to do that.

If you want to change the way you think about something you need to hang out with (spend time with) someone that thinks that way. If you want to be a millionaire, you need first learn to think like a millionaire. If were to give a person a million dollars (I wish ), that did not already think like a millionaire, then it is very likely that the money would be gone in a short time, because their perspective about money is flawed.

In the same way many Christians go to church, go to Bible studies, serve, etc... But they stuill do not have an eternal perspective , because they go to church and someone tells them how to think and then they go home and don't continue to spend time in the Word. It is their personal time with God that changes the way they think(growing in grace). So our change is indirectly by our will - We must choose to place ourselves under the pressure of the Word so that God can change us. But it is directly by the will of God.

It is like when I go to a barber to get a hair cut. I am not cutting my own hair but I am allowing the Barber to change my hair. It is my choice to want the change but it is the barber (or God in the analogy) that does the changing.

Romans 5:2
By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

Romans 10:17
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Hearing (which is understanding) the Word brings faith which gives us access to grow in grace(change how we think).

I kind of digressed off the subject here, but these thing all fit together. And if you mention one without addressing the others I think there is potential for confusion.

God Bless