Saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

[B. W.]

Fortigurn,

Concerning the need for the Holy Spirit to understand the bible and biblical truths you asked for scripture please; therefore, here:

1 Corinthians 2:12-16, “Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God.13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.15 The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. 16 "For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.” ESV

Yes, it is imperative that the Spirit of God who is the Holy Spirit mentioned here in the ESV translation as well as Greek:

ἃ καὶ λαλοῦμεν οὐκ ἐν διδακτοῖς ἀνθρωπ߁νης σοφ߁ας λόγοις, ἀλλ’ ἐν διδακτοῖς Πνεύματος ῾Αγ߁ου, πνευματικοῖς πνευματικὰ συγκρ߁νοντες.

Hope this suffices for you as to try to explain away the clear meaning of the text, proves the point of the text itself.

Next, I am surprised that with all your ability as a translator that you neglected Ephesians 2:8-10 and what the Greek text states:

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

The Question is — what saves us — answer God's Grace. This lead to another question — what is this Grace that saves us — answer — God's gift. Then what is the gift? You can say that it is the gift of salvation — eternal life defined in John 17:3. The gift from God that declares:

Philippians 2:13, “For it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.” ESV

Which in fact the Greek word order of Ephesians 2:10 also declare. I am including a very rough English translation of Ephesians 2:10 Greek word order. You'll have to bear with the use of several English words to translate Prepositions, Conjunctions, and expand the meaning of the text in line with the context of the Book of Ephesians:

Ephesians 2:10,“!!Him!! For I am fashioned-designed habitable-transformed-made new in/by Christ Jesus towards resting upon a vocation of deeds that produces a virtuous constitution/nature that was predestined by God to be -- That in/by Him regulates/guides our life's conduct/course/behavior/actions/demeanor.” Rough Translation by B. W. Melvin

Hmmm as Philippians 2:13 states: “For it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.” ESV

Lines up with what Ephesians 2:8-9 states: “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” ESV

It is not by human works that one stays saved, remains saved or be saved by human works, as you boast as necessary - evidenced in your posting here.

The Gift is God himself, residing in you to be a reflection of Himself — His character — that is the ἔργοις ἀγαθοῖς 'works good' we were predestined to become.

Don't believe me? Read Romans 8:29-30, “For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.” ESV

How do you?

John 17:3, “And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.”

You learn about the Lord and learn to be transform not as another God but a reflection of His good character. He is the one that changes us through the trials, heartaches, discipline, joys of the journey of our mortal lives. In this journey we learn of God's Gift and by it is how we put off the old man and put on the new as well as repent. It is his work — we must be informed of this through the scriptures what is required and what his good character consist of. This the bible does. Yet, we confuse this as our work and neglect the Gift — it is his work in us. This is indeed - Good News!

This strengthens our faith- fidelity, loyalty, trust, commitment, full assurance, in a living God who deals with living people who have fallen then He restores these to the image and likeness God intended from the beginning — Jesus Christ is called the New or second Adam, 1 Corinthians 15:45-50.

This is the measure of Faith God gives to each:

Romans 12:2-3, “And be not conformed to this age, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, in order to prove by you what is the good and pleasing and perfect will of God. 3 For through the grace which is given to me, I say to everyone being among you, not to have high thoughts beyond what is right to think. But set your mind to be right-minded, even as God divided a measure of faith to each.” LITV

The measure of faith in which we need as an anchor for the soul along our earthly sojourn, Hebrews 11, is the work God does to bring us to the end of ourselves and back toward him. The OT Saints learned this. So shall we. Save by His work, vocation to produce goodness, not ours - this is a Gift from God.

What God sets out to do he is able to perform — that is the Gift.

Philippians 1:6, "And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ." ESV

1 Corinthians 2:12-16, “Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God.13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.15 The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. 16 "For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.” ESV

Fortigurn, this may all sound foolish to you but the bible says what it says - It is his work - not ours so that none can boast before the Lord how great and wonderful their works are compared to his.

This is good news! Grasp it — scriptures open up fresh and new like:

Matthew 11:28-30, “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." ESV
-
-
-

[Fortigurn]

Fortigurn,

Concerning the need for the Holy Spirit to understand the bible and biblical truths you asked for scripture please; therefore, here:

1 Corinthians 2:12-16, “Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God.13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.15 The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. 16 "For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.” ESV

Yes, it is imperative that the Spirit of God who is the Holy Spirit mentioned here in the ESV translation as well as Greek:

ἃ καὶ λαλοῦμεν οὐκ ἐν διδακτοῖς ἀνθρωπ߁νης σοφ߁ας λόγοις, ἀλλ’ ἐν διδακτοῖς Πνεύματος ῾Αγ߁ου, πνευματικοῖς πνευματικὰ συγκρ߁νοντες.

Hope this suffices for you as to try to explain away the clear meaning of the text, proves the point of the text itself.

There is nothing there which says either that the spirit of God here is the Holy Spirit, or that we need the Holy Spirit in order to understand the Bible. Nor does it say anything about your or I. It speaks of Paul and the apostles, who were uniquely gifted. By the way, I hope you realise that the Greek text you quoted does not match the English text you quoted. The English text you quoted appears to have been translated from a different text to the Greek you quoted, since it does not translate '῾Αγ߁ου'. I suggest '῾Αγ߁ου' is not actually in the Greek text. You can check using Nestle-Aland 26.

I give you the example of the Bereans. How did they understand the gospel preached to them? By searching the Scriptures, comparing spiritual things with spiritual things.

The rest of your post was aimed at someone who believes that they are saved by their works. I don't believe that. I suggest you save that post for someone else.

Your post also seemed to want to argue that we are not responsible for our actions, and that our works will not be judged by God, but I've already addressed that here.

[YLTYLT]

Your post also seemed to want to argue that we are not responsible for our actions, and that our works will not be judged by God, but I've already addressed that here.

All people will be judged by their work . Christians will be judged on the work that they allowed God to do through them by faith at the Judgment seat of Christ. Non Christians will be judged at the Great White Throne judgement.

But how does one get to be judged at the Judgment seat of Christ? They believe the Gospel message to be true and trust Christ to save them. Any good works that follow are a result of the grace of God that we recieved through faith by taking the word of God over our own and obeying it through the prompting of the Holy Spirit.

I am saying that since their faith is dead, they are dead. You can't live with dead faith.

Non Christians do it every day. Unless of course you are referring to being dead in their sins. But I do not see that this verse says that.

But faith comes from hearing the Word. If you have not heard (or read) the all the scriptures, you can act in faith on those things which you have heard. A new Christian, has heard the Gospel, believes it is true, and only knows that to be saved he must call upon the name of the LORD (Romans 10:13), trusting Christ to save him. This may be all he knows of scripture.

If that is all he knows of Scripture, then he does not know the gospel. Read through Romans 10, and you'll find Paul's point is that unless the person knows who they are supposed to be calling on, they can't call on them. And they won't know who they're supposed to be calling on unless someone preaches the gospel.

This is a strawman arguement. I did NOT state the full gospel in this sentence you quoted me on. I just said that they must believe it (the Gospel) to be true. A "work" that a person could possibly do after understanding and believing the Gospel is to "call on the name of the LORD". Rom 10:13. And of course it is not the call itself that saves them. It is because they believed that God justified them.

Believing it to be true, means They understand:
1. why it is necessary: We are Sinners in need of a saviour to get us out of our sinful situation.
2. That Jesus is that Saviour and did this through His work by His death, burial, and resurrection.

In other words its not our work but His work that is the atonement for our sins.

Finally, Grace is all we need.

Scripture please. If grace is all we need, there would be no need to preach or learn the gospel.

I actually quoted the scripture right before I wote this. Here is is again:

2 Corinthians 12:9
And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

Jesus is speaking to Paul here. He tells him that his grace is sufficient

Galatians 5:
19 Now the works of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity, depravity,
20 idolatry, sorcery, hostilities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish rivalries, dissensions, factions,
21 envying, murder, drunkenness, carousing, and similar things. I am warning you, as I had warned you before: Those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God!

Well we must first assume that the phrase "inherit the kingdom of God" means justified, and that there is no additional meaning to it. Which I beleive is a definite possibility. But for the sake of argument lets take it as you have described it.

A new Christian may have never read this verse, and therefore has not had the opportunity to act in faith by taking the word of God over their own opinion and obeying the Word.

Although there are times when a person is saved that there is an immediate transformation by an act of grace from God, sometimes this change from a life that is influenced by the world is gradual. It is based on their growth in faith by the reading of the word which leads to the transforming of their mind. But if a person reads this verse but disagrees with it and continues living this way, then I would suspect you would be right that they do not have the Holy Spirit within them which would mean that they have never understood and believed the Gospel message. These are people that are "practicing" these works of the flesh. And practicing means "continually acting in this way" and I would add without remorse. But David did several of these things and then after hearing the words of God from the prophet, he had remorse for his sinful actions. This is a perfect example that just because a person is out of fellowship with God does not mean that they are not justified. Are you saying that a person loses salvation when they do these things, or never had to begin with....?

Romans 4:5-8
5But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
6Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
8Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

Oh By the way these verses also happen to be a few of many of the verses you asked about that would contradict your interpretation of James. And the only way to reconcile both is to interpret James as the "perfecting" or "maturing" of our faith as he also clearly states as his purpose at the beginning of his epistle.

Here's one more:
Romans 11:6
And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

It is not Grace plus works or even Grace and then works to keep it. It is Grace and only grace. Jesus say My Grace is sufficient for thee.

[Fortigurn]

All people will be judged by their work . Christians will be judged on the work that they allowed God to do through them by faith at the Judgment seat of Christ. Non Christians will be judged at the Great White Throne judgement.

Scripture please.

Any good works that follow are a result of the grace of God that we recieved through faith by taking the word of God over our own and obeying it through the prompting of the Holy Spirit.

Scripture please.

Non Christians do it every day. Unless of course you are referring to being dead in their sins. But I do not see that this verse says that.

Of course 'dead in their sins'. Unless you are arguing that we can be saved without faith.

This is a strawman arguement. I did NOT state the full gospel in this sentence you quoted me on. I just said that they must believe it (the Gospel) to be true.

I know you didn't state the full gospel in that sentence. That's what I was bringing attention to. You said that this new Christian 'has heard the gospel' and 'believes it is true', but apparently he doesn't even known enough to repent of his sins and change his life. So obviously he doesn't know the first thing about the true gospel, so you can hardly claim he has been saved.

A "work" that a person could possibly do after understanding and believing the Gospel is to "call on the name of the LORD". Rom 10:13. And of course it is not the call itself that saves them. It is because they believed that God justified them.

Believing it to be true, means They understand:
1. why it is necessary: We are Sinners in need of a saviour to get us out of our sinful situation.
2. That Jesus is that Saviour and did this through His work by His death, burial, and resurrection.

In other words its not our work but His work that is the atonement for our sins.

I need to see Scripture.

I actually quoted the scripture right before I wote this. Here is is again:

2 Corinthians 12:9
And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

Jesus is speaking to Paul here. He tells him that his grace is sufficient

That does not say that grace is all we need. It says this:

2 Corinthians 12:
8 I asked the Lord three times about this, that it would depart from me.
9 But he said to me, “My grace is enough for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” So then, I will boast most gladly about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may reside in me.

It's a little different in context, isn't it? Paul prayed three times for the thorn in the flesh to be removed. God said 'No, my grace is enough for you, my power is made perfect in weakness'. Nothing whatever about us being saved by grace alone.

Well we must first assume that the phrase "inherit the kingdom of God" means justified...

No we don't. All we have to do is understand that entry into the Kingdom of God is the reward of those accepted at the judgment seat. Those works will keep you out of the Kingdom of God, unless you repent of them (which doesn't mean saying 'Sorry!', and then deliberately continuing to do them).

A new Christian may have never read this verse, and therefore has not had the opportunity to act in faith by taking the word of God over their own opinion and obeying the Word.

If a 'new Christian' has never read this verse, or been told what it says (or an equivalent), then I fail to see how they could be considered a Christian. Look through the gospels and Acts, and you'll find the number one word used to introduce the gospel is 'Repent!'. How could anyone possibly become a Christian without knowing this?

Although there are times when a person is saved that there is an immediate transformation by an act of grace from God, sometimes this change from a life that is influenced by the world is gradual.

Certainly change is gradual, I doubt that it's ever overnight. But it always starts immediately. People who are true Christians are visibly combating sin. They aren't indulging in it and saying 'Ah, this is great, I love how I get to sin and God gets crucified!'.

These are people that are "practicing" these works of the flesh. And practicing means "continually acting in this way" and I would add without remorse. But David did several of these things and then after hearing the words of God from the prophet, he had remorse for his sinful actions. This is a perfect example that just because a person is out of fellowship with God does not mean that they are not justified. Are you saying that a person loses salvation when they do these things, or never had to begin with....?

When they do them, they are out of fellowship with God until such time as they have remorse and repent. If they never have remorse and repent, then they are certainly damned.

Oh By the way these verses also happen to be a few of many of the verses you asked about that would contradict your interpretation of James.

Why? I don't see any contradiction here. The 'works' spoken of right from the beginning of this chapter are 'works of the law' (Romans 4:2). It's a continuation of Paul's argument that we are declared righteous 'by faith apart from the works of the law' (Romans 3:28).

Here's one more:
Romans 11:6
And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

This says we are not saved by our works. I agree. This doesn't contradict James. It certainly does not say that we can be saved without works. That's the kind of verse you need to contradict James.

It is not Grace plus works or even Grace and then works to keep it. It is Grace and only grace. Jesus say My Grace is sufficient for thee.

Just list all the quotes which say that we are saved by grace without the need for anything else - faith, works, belief, understanding, whatever.

[FFC]

Here's one more:
Romans 11:6
And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.


This says we are not saved by our works. I agree. This doesn't contradict James. It certainly does not say that we can be saved without works. That's the kind of verse you need to contradict James.

No matter how you slice it, Works, or grace + works are still a works based salvation, aren't they? You say you believe what Eph 2:8 and 9 says but then you want to put the works back in it in some manner. How can our salvation be all of God if you think you have to add your works to make it work?

[YLTYLT]

I know you didn't state the full gospel in that sentence. That's what I was bringing attention to. You said that this new Christian 'has heard the gospel' and 'believes it is true', but apparently he doesn't even known enough to repent of his sins and change his life. So obviously he doesn't know the first thing about the true gospel, so you can hardly claim he has been saved.

First off HE CANNOT change his life. Only God can change his life. And you are completely missing my point. Once a person has heard and believe the Gospel, that is the point of justification. (For I am not ashamed of the Gospel for it is the Gospel that is the power of God unto salvation for those that believe.) The gospel is defined in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 (the death, burial, and resurrection). When you believe it and understand why you need it and accept it, you have been made righteous by God. Then you have the Holy spirit and only then can your life start to change. The Holy spirit tells you soul to "move over, I am moving in". And your sinful nature and the Holy Spirit inside will be at battle until the day you die. The one that is winning is the one you are feeding. Ultimately the Holy Spirit will win even if he has to cripple us to get us to submit to the Holy Spirit. (For whosever God loves He chastens) Christians that live by faith and obey the Word will receive temporal ans well as eternal blessings. (Do not confuse what I said here with the prosperity movement. That is not what I mean). And those Christians that do not live by faith by obeying the word will be disciplined and not feel quite so blessed and will lose eternal rewards.

If we feed our sinful nature too much the Holy Spirit may win by taking us off of this earth, because we would no longer be profitable to His purpose. Now you would say that this person was not saved. I would say that this is possible, but not necessarily true, only God knows his heart, it would depend on his attitude to his sin. Was he trying to justify his sin, or was his own sin disgusting to him but because of his lack of getting under good teaching, instruction and accountablilty, he allowed the world to influence his mind instead of allowing scripture to transform his mind.

See here is the catch 22. You say he can't be saved until he repents of his sin and changes his life. Now I agree that he should agree that he is dead in his sins but the changing of his life cannot happen until he is filled with the Holy Spirit which happens at justification. We are sinful by nature. And it is the moment we believe that is the moment of justification.

How can a man be justified by faith but not be justified by faith until he has changed his life by faith. If this is the case we can never know that we are saved because as Jac has described it, we will never know if we have changed enough or if we might back slide.

But to clarify your position further, are you saying that Justification actually does happen at the point we believe? But we cannot really know if we truly believed until we look at the fruit of our lives. Is this true?

If so,then our Christianity is based upon not knowing whether or not we were ever justified. And when you share the Gospel, you tell them I would like to share this with you so you can be unsure about your salvation as well. Right?

You are saying we can tell for sure if we are damned to hell if we are continually practicing sin. But we cannot never really tell for sure if we are saved????

[FFC]

You are saying we can tell for sure if we are damned to hell if we are continually practicing sin. But we cannot never really tell for sure if we are saved????

Well, when you put it that way it just sounds silly.

[Fortigurn]

No matter how you slice it, Works, or grace + works are still a works based salvation, aren't they?

Not in the least. If salvation was by works, there would be no need of grace. Paul makes this quite clear.

[Fortigurn]

First off HE CANNOT change his life. Only God can change his life.

Scripture please. What's the point of telling people to repent, if they can't repent?

And you are completely missing my point. Once a person has heard and believe the Gospel, that is the point of justification. (For I am not ashamed of the Gospel for it is the Gospel that is the power of God unto salvation for those that believe.) The gospel is defined in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 (the death, burial, and resurrection). When you believe it and understand why you need it and accept it, you have been made righteous by God. Then you have the Holy spirit and only then can your life start to change. The Holy spirit tells you soul to "move over, I am moving in". And your sinful nature and the Holy Spirit inside will be at battle until the day you die. The one that is winning is the one you are feeding. Ultimately the Holy Spirit will win even if he has to cripple us to get us to submit to the Holy Spirit. (For whosever God loves He chastens) Christians that live by faith and obey the Word will receive temporal ans well as eternal blessings. (Do not confuse what I said here with the prosperity movement. That is not what I mean). And those Christians that do not live by faith by obeying the word will be disciplined and not feel quite so blessed and will lose eternal rewards.

I see only three passages of Scripture here. I need to see a lot more. I'm especially interested in this idea that 'sinful nature' is more powerful than the Holy Spirit, and that the Holy Spirit needs to be 'fed'. I would really like to see the passages of Scripture which say this.

When you talk of the gospel, it's very difficult to know what you mean. The death, burial and resurrection of whom? Why? When? For what reason?

If we feed our sinful nature too much the Holy Spirit may win by taking us off of this earth, because we would no longer be profitable to His purpose. Now you would say that this person was not saved.

Not at all, they could well have been saved at one point, but they fell from grace.

You say he can't be saved until he repents of his sin and changes his life.

Absolutely.

Now I agree that he should agree that he is dead in his sins but the changing of his life cannot happen until he is filled with the Holy Spirit which happens at justification. We are sinful by nature. And it is the moment we believe that is the moment of justification.

I need to see a lot more Scripture.

How can a man be justified by faith but not be justified by faith until he has changed his life by faith.

Try reading James 2 and Hebrews 11. Faith is demonstrated by works. Without works, faith is dead. The first work of faith is confession, the next is repentance, the next is baptism.

If this is the case we can never know that we are saved because as Jac has described it, we will never know if we have changed enough or if we might back slide.

We can certainly know if we're saved - all we have to do is examine ourselves, whether we be in the faith. We should know full well if we're in fellowship with God. People who wonder if they have 'changed enough' are clearly legalists who haven't understood the character of God or the gospel.

But to clarify your position further, are you saying that Justification actually does happen at the point we believe? But we cannot really know if we truly believed until we look at the fruit of our lives. Is this true?

I am saying we are justified by a living faith, which has works (the first of which I have described). We shouldn't even have to question whether or not we 'truly believed'.

You are saying we can tell for sure if we are damned to hell if we are continually practicing sin. But we cannot never really tell for sure if we are saved????

No I am not saying that. I am saying we can tell for sure if we are damned or if we are saved. We can also tell very often when others are damned (if they are continually practicing sin). What we cannot always tell is whether other people are saved.

[Jac3510]

OK - as for the issue of assurance -- sorry it took me so long to get to this. I actually only have time now because I am waiting for my car to get out of the shop!

Let's look again at the definitions you've provided from the dictionary:

• 1. to be free from doubt or have full confidence in something, or
  2. a positive declaration to be received from someone which is intended to give confidence.

These are perfect, in my opinion. Notice especially "to be free from doubt," which is the same as to "have full confidence" (ttoews!!! ). That is the sense in which I always use the word "assurance." If I say I have assurance of my salvation, I am saying that I am free from doubt--all doubt--as to my salvation. Put differently, I am sure that I will spend eternity with Jesus Christ. There is nothing that can or will change that.

Let's compare this to the way you've said the word has been used in our discussion:

• 1. being persuaded of something as being true;
  2. positively knowing something to be true without any possibility of being wrong; and
  3. receiving assurance of a promise.

1 and 3 are just the definitions above. There is very little, if any practical, difference between them. You seem to agree on that. Your entire argument, as in the section on faith, is based on your understanding of the second idea here. Your argument seems to run something like this:

• Assurance in the second sense is impossible
  Jac requires assurance in the second sense
  Therefore, Jac's position is incorrect

Is that about right? Like it or not, this goes back to epistemology. I hold to what is called foundationalism, defined as "any theory in epistemology (typically, theories of justification, but also of knowledge) that holds that beliefs are justified (known, etc.) based on what are called basic beliefs (also commonly called foundational beliefs)." The important question is, "What is our foundational beliefs?" For a Christian, the foundational belief should be that the Bible is the Word of God, and therefore, everything it reveals is absolutely true.

Now, let's bring this to the idea of assurance of salvation. The Bible clearly says that whoever believes has everlasting life. It clearly teaches once saved always saved. It clearly teaches that if we believe we can lose our salvation, then we don't believe the gospel. It clearly teaches salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Thus, as Calvin said, assurance is of the essence of saving faith. In fact, the writer of Hebrews goes so far as to equate faith and assurance, saying, "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." (Heb 11:1, NASB) If, then, I have doubts regarding something, then I do not have faith in it.

Thus, I come to this extremely important idea: If I doubt my salvation, I do not believe the Gospel. Or, as Lynn Turner once said, "If you are 99% sure you are saved, you are 100% lost."

It should be obvious that if a person believes that they can lose their salvation, then they are not 100% sure of their salvation. Thus, they do not believe the Gospel. Further, it should be obvious that if a person believes in the final perseverance of the saints, then they cannot be sure of their own salvation, either. They can be sure that genuine believers will persevere, but they cannot be assured that they themselves will persevere. Thus, the Calvinist and Arminian fall into exactly the same heresy! I've pointed out that your view, while distinct from those two as to theological foundations, provides exactly the same result, and that is why I cannot accept it.

Here, the only thing you can do is claim that you do know for sure (have assurance) that you are saved. But I would just have to see you justify that claim. By your own logic, it is possible that you might develop into a person who, in fact, does not believe at all. How do you know that is not the case? The truth is that you don't.

This is where you have tried to turn the tables on me by creating the second sense of assurance suggested above, but I don't see it as valid. It is an entirely different thing for you to acknowledge that you could be wrong and for me to acknowledge that I could be wrong. In your case, the thing you could be wrong about is an observed fact. Let me put it this way: within the confines of your interpretation of reality, there are two possibilities. One possibility is that you are a genuine believer. The other possibility is that you are a false believer. You think the first is the case. You may even be right. But that does not change the fact that if you turn out to be wrong, your system of reality still stands. That can NOT be said of my system. In interpretation of reality, there is only one possibility. That possibility is that I am saved because I have believed. There is no such thing as a false believer. You either believe or you don't. Now, I can logically concede that I could wind up in Hell (or nowhere, because perhaps God does not exist). But that does NOT equate to a non-assurance of my salvation in the same way your does, because in my view of reality, such is not possible. In order for me to wind up in Hell (or nowhere), my foundational ideas must be wrong.

Thus, I go back to my view of Scripture. I know I am going to heaven because the Bible says so. You can't say that. What you can say is that you know that true believers go to heaven, but you don't KNOW that you are a true believer. So let me put the difference in our system in two syllogisms:

• Jac's View:
  1. All believers go to Heaven,
  2. Jac is a believer,
  3. Jac is going to Heaven.
  
  K's View:
  1. All genuine believers go to heaven,
  2. K may or may not be a genuine believer,
  3. K may or may not go to heaven

Given all this, I don't see the possibility of being wrong as not having assurance. Assurance is knowing something is true on the basis of your foundational ideas. Now, on MY foundational idea, I have assurance. On YOUR foundational idea, you don't have that. Or, I'd be very interested to see you explain how you do.

So, your final statement:

Now reflecting upon my own position, I see that one can be completely persuaded and justified in the belief that they are saved, even if there is the possibility they are wrong. This type of assurance is the most assurance we can have, and it is furthermore consistent with belief and trust. And I see that my position satisfies this criterion.

I need to see how this can be true. In order to make this work, you had to separate from assurance the possibility that you are wrong. I don't see how you can do that. If I can be wrong and still be consistent with my foundational ideas, then I cannot have assurance because I can't know for sure something is true.

In summary then, I see two problems with your view:

1. You seem to require the fallen, depraved human being to establish a saving relationship with Christ whereby he is infused with righteousness rather than imputed it;
2. There is no way you can have assurance of your salvation, and therefore, the reality of faith itself is undermined.

[Jac3510]

Would it be possible for one of the mod's to snip Fortigurn's argument that salvation is not by grace alone and create a separate thread out of it? It's an interesting and worthwhile discussion, but it is a bit of distraction in the context of a faith alone thread.

Thanks!

[YLTYLT]

Not at all, they could well have been saved at one point, but they fell from grace.

Fortigurn,
Now I understand our disagreement. It is about eternal security. If you want to discuss this further start a new thread and lets leave this discussion to Jac and Kurieuo.

[Fortigurn]

Not at all, they could well have been saved at one point, but they fell from grace.

Fortigurn,
Now I understand our disagreement. It is about eternal security.

No, it's also about whether or not we have to repent in order to be saved, whether we are saved by grace alone, or by faith alone, or by something else alone.

[Kurieuo]

2. Assurance - I was going to handle this now, but I've run out of time. I know the length is more than needed, but I want to be very clear on all of these issues. I'll explain my view of assurance more clearly probably late tonight. In the meantime, can you tell me how it is that you have assurance (in your own context) but that Barker did not? Of if yours and Barker's assurance were the same, how is it that you can say that you are certain you are saved? That's what I keep getting hung up on.

I feel I have covered a lot of epistemological ground on the type of knowledge we can have. As I read your latest posts, and I mean no disrespect in saying this, but I feel the penny has not dropped regarding the issue of epistemic justification. I can only recommend reading up philosophically on epistemology with particular attention to justification. Until then, I do not see I can proceed any further in such a direction. I will however attempt to summarise a response to you here in light of everything else I have written which I feel deals adequately with the issue you raise of assurance.

Let me rhetorically ask how you know what you believe? You know intuitively who you are, and so are foundationally justified as being the best authority on "Jac." You may tell me you believe such and such, and I could say I know you believe such and such because you told me so. But what if what you told me were a lie? I cannot know because I am not you. I only have access to my own self, and not your self. I do not and can not directly know how colours appear to you through your eyes, I can through mine however. So how can I KNOW, not that I am a "genuine believer" (which is by no means terminology I would use), but rather that I know I am who I am? Well... I can know by KNOWING who I am. Such knowledge is self-presenting, and thus it is truly foundational in whole sense of being epistemically justified in Foundationalism. I cannot provide rational criterion for why I know, or even how someone else can know who they are in relation to their faith in Christ. For a person is not justified in knowing themselves based upon reason and rational arguments.

Now regarding the likes of Barker you write above, you also previously wrote:

And what about those who believed at one time (Barker) but later fell away? Did they not know themselves? If you had asked him during his believing life if he had full assurance based on KNOWING he believed, would he not have said the same thing as you have here? If, though, he can fall away, then how is it that his assurance was not justified but yours is?

Now perhaps someone does not know they are saved when they are in fact saved (I am not sure how this would work on your position though), or perhaps someone believes they are saved when they are in fact not saved. Thinking from my position, perhaps the person thought they knew who they were, and so thought they were saved, when in fact as they became who they really are they were wrong! So? What do this have to do with who I am? I am saying I know in the strongest possible sense that I know who I am in relation to God. I do not have the privileged position to be in the shoes of someone else. The same way God has a direct objective knowledge of reality, I believe we can have a direct objective knowledge of our self. We just know. In the truest sense of Foundational justification, this is Foundational!

Pressing the matter again... "But what of someone who believes they have an objective knowledge of their self but does not?" Well it was misplaced. What does this matter to me? Does it cause doubt in my knowledge that I know myself? No. I don't know why they thought they knew who they were when they really didn't. I do not have direct access to “them” in the same way I have direct access to “me”. Yet, you also face a similar issue. How do you know you are saved? You say, “Well, because God told me so.” Well, what if you misheard God, misunderstood God, or what you think was God really was not? In the end, it comes down to faith, and by faith I do not necessarily a blind faith, but a faith where we fill in the blanks to absolutely believe what we cannot objectively know.

Now I cannot know objectively that I am saved any more than you can. But we can absolutely believe we are saved without any doubt because we are convinced and invoke faith to leap the small gap in our knowledge to the most plausible conclusion! I see an understanding of epistemology will naturally lead one to an understanding that such is in general the most assurance we can ever having in knowing something. But... you see that your position is right because you are a "Foundationalist."

To begin this issue, let me first quote your most recent post:

Is that about right? Like it or not, this goes back to epistemology. I hold to what is called foundationalism, defined as "any theory in epistemology (typically, theories of justification, but also of knowledge) that holds that beliefs are justified (known, etc.) based on what are called basic beliefs (also commonly called foundational beliefs)." The important question is, "What is our foundational beliefs?" For a Christian, the foundational belief should be that the Bible is the Word of God, and therefore, everything it reveals is absolutely true.

I think you misunderstand the role a Foundationalism in epistemic justification. Just because you start at the Word of God as being foundational (and I believe it ought to be foundational for any Christian!), this is to misunderstand what Foundationalism truly is when used as a theory of epistemic justification in philosophical discussions. Foundationalism is not what you, I, or someone else accepts as a "foundational" authority for their beliefs. Rather a "basic belief" is simply one that is self-evident which is not built upon any other belief.

Foundationalism is, generally speaking, justification of knowledge based upon a foundational belief, for example, a belief which is self-evident, produced in a reliable way, or grounded in sensory experience (not perceptual belief). Ever played the "why" game? Kids love this game. They ask you "why" something is so. You respond. They go "why"? You respond further. "Why... why... why?" Well this "why" game can go on and on forever. Eventually we reach a point where we can not go any further. We make a stand in what we know. It just reaches a point where the belief is just so basic that it should be obvious to anyone with a brain, albeit we may not provide any reasoning for why it is so. This is a foundational belief! A properly basic belief. This is Foundationalism as understood in philosophical discussions of epistemology. It is a position of epistemic justification which attempts to explain how and to what extent a person can be rationally justified in their knowledge of something.

Now in an earlier post you wrote:

Do you really believe God exists based on inductive reasoning? I don't. Again, I am a foundationalist. I believe that God exists because He says He does. So I strongly disagree here that assurance is assurance whether deductive or inductive. It is a simple fact that inductive truths are NEVER held with absolute certainty because they can ALWAYS be overturned with ONE future finding. Only deductive truths are held with absolute certainity. They are based on the validity of their foundational premises, not on collected data extrapolated into a generalization.

Your position of “God said it so I believe it” is not one of Foundationalism but rather Fideism. Foundationalism is much different, for example, we all know some things are good while other things are bad. If our child asks why us it is bad that they hit another person on the head with their toy, we might respond because you hurt them. With this response we just expect our child to intuitively know that hurting another person in such a way is wrong. While such moral knowledge may be discarded or "unlearnt", everyone is in general agreement that violating someone else is wrong. But why? Well, certainly not because of any justification offered by way of a rational argument. Rather such knowledge appears to be foundational, meaning we can just point out that it is so without offering any logical reasoning and expect the average person to realise such is true. Could we be wrong? Well yes, perhaps we are. That said, I believe we can reduce our risk of being wrong in our knowledge through examining the coherency of positions, the practicality of positions given our experiences, intuitions others share, cultural and traditional grounding.

[Jac3510]

I knew I shouldn't have made that last edit, but I did for space concerns. I had three full paragraphs on the difference in traditional foundationalism and fideistic foundationalism, of which I am the latter. There is further a difference in foundationalism andn non-foundationalism and even moderate foundationalism. For instance, Darrell Bock of Dallas Theological Seminary has adopted moderate foundationalism and he states publically that he believes we cannot objectively know whether or not God exists. He personally believs it, but he does not see that anything more than a matter of personal faith.

Now, in my epistemology (and yes, I understand importance of a justified idea), I do NOT hold observed reality (reason) to be the foundational belief. I hold revealed truth (revelation) to be the foundational belief. I interpret reality in light of Scripture. As I said in my now deleted edit from the previous post, I spend an inordinate amount of time in my Bible study on exegesis for that very reason. I do not want my preconceived ideas about reality--of which I have many--to influence my understanding of revelation. We should work in just the opposite direction.

So yes, I am a fideist, and very proud of it. If you asks me which has more evidential weight in my eyes, Gen 1:1 or Ross' entire teleological argument, I'd say Gen 1:1 in a heartbeat and not give it a second thought. I do not look to observed evidence to confirm biblical revelation. Where there is a contradiction, then my interpretation of observational reality must be wrong, becuase Scripture is the basis for all knowledge.

Now, that is MY foundational idea. To use your idea, it's the answer to the series of why's asked by a child. It is also why I can know I am saved absolutely. I, myself, have absolutely nothing to do with my assurance. I don't believe the Bible teaches that there are false believers. I find nowhere in Scripture a statement that said, "You thought you believed, but you really didn't." I find statements about believing the wrong thing all over the place, but nothing about not knowing whether or not I believe.

It is therefore a non-item to ask me how I can know I believe. To talk about a person who believes they believe something but don't really believe it would be like talking about a square circle or a four sided triangle. The ideas are fundamentally self contradictory. My problem is that in your system, that isn't true. You CAN talk about people who believe they believe somehting but don't really believe it. You confess that you don't know what would cause that, but you still assert it is possible. Your reasoning is that belief is tied to who we are, and that who we are can ultimately develop in the future into something very different than we are now. And you are right about that! That is why I don't tie belief to who we are.

The fact that you disagree with my system and conclusions are your own thing. As I've repeatedly said, clarity, not consensus. However, I would appreciate an acknowledgement that you understand that my view of faith, complete with my epistemology, does allow for 100%, absolute objective assurance. I KNOW I am saved. I may become an atheist tomorrow and I still know that I am saved right now. I may lose all assurance tomorrow when I stop believing, but I still know, even now, in light of that fact, that I am still saved. And as an atheist, I will be able to say, "Well, if I was right back then, then I am going to heaven, even though I don't believe that now."

The only way for me to not be saved is if my entire interpretation of reality is wrong. But there is nothing within the confines of my view of salvation that allows for anything other than the fact that I am saved. My problem with your view is that you do not offer that. Within the confines of your view of salvation, it is possible that you are not saved. You repeatedly say that you KNOW you are saved because you KNOW yourself. Well that sounds very nice and pleasant, but on the basis of your own logic, I simply cannot understand how that can be so.

You state that it is possible for a person to believe that they believe something but in fact be wrong, because, unbekownst to them, the don't actually believe it. That would be undoubtedly tied to themselves. So how do you know that really do believe?

Let me use an example this decade that doesn't include Barker, Ehrman, or Templeton. Consider the followig exchange:

• Interviewer: "What I hear you saying is that it's possible for Jesus Christ to come into a human heart and soul and life even if they've been born in darkness and have never had exposure to the Bible. Is that a correct interpretation of what you're saying?"
  
  Response: "Yes it is because I believe that. I've met people in various parts of the world in tribal situations that they have never seen a Bible or heard about a Bible, have never heard of Jesus but they've believed in their hearts that there is a God and they tried to live a life that was quite apart from the surrounding community in which they lived."

This same man made said the following in the same interview:

• Well, Christianity and being a true believer, you know, I think there's the body of Christ which comes from all the Christian groups around the world, or outside the Christian groups. I think that everybody that loves Christ or knows Christ, whether they're conscious of it or not, they're members of the body of Christ.

And even further:

• What God is doing today is calling people out of the world for His name. Whether they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist world, or the Christian world, or the non-believing world, they are members of the body of Christ because they've been called by God. They may not even know the name of Jesus, but they know in their hearts they need something that they don't have and they turn to the only light they have and I think they're saved and they're going to be with us in heaven

Now, would you say this person does or does not believe the Gospel? That we are saved by grace alonet through faith alone in Christ alone? This man believes that you can be saved apart from the name of Jesus Christ!

Ok, so who said it? Billy Graham.

K, Billy Graham doesn't believe the Gospel anymore. He said those things back in 1988. And I'm sure you've read his most recent interview in Newsweek (March 20, 2006). But, K, your position is that a continuum of faith is necessary because a person will develop into the type of person who believes or doesn't believe. Are you saying that Billy Graham was wrong in thinking he was a believer? You can say all day long that these questions don't apply to you because you aren't in their shoes, but it does apply very much to you. Logically, if it is possible for anyone (including you) to absolutely believe they know themselves and yet still be wrong, then how can YOU be in such a different boat? How are you justified in claiming absolute knowlege of yourself in light of the fact that both logic and history shows us that people cannot be absolutely certain about themselves?

I know 100% for sure that I am saved. I know what I believe. But, I'll make a public confession right here on discussions.godandscience.org: I do not know that I will persevere in faith until the end. I think I will. I hope I will. I bet I will. I'd be shocked if God told me right now that I won't last. But I don't KNOW that. That is exactly why I have to spend my life in the Word. That is why I have to keep myself in church. That is why I have to be cautious about who I open up to and who I allow myself to lean on. My faith is not invincible becuase I am not invincible. My heart is still human and fallen. It is deceitful above all things.

"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; Who can know it?" (Jer 17:9, NKJV). I don't pretend that I can know my own heart. I simply don't understand how you can say that you do. God says in the very next verse "I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind, Even to give every man according to his ways, According to the fruit of his doings." Only God knows my heart. I don't know it.

It's not that I don't understand your position K . . . what boggles my mind is how you could be so sure of your own self, especially in light of what you believe.