Saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

[Kurieuo]

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.

Before I respond, I just want to deal with your idea of "foundationalism." As explained here, and its various modes, this is not at all Foundationalism as understood in epistemic justification. One can certainly believe in and hold to various sources God reveals himself to us through whether it be through Scripture, nature, reason and/or experience, and such sources may be foundational to ones epistemology for what they see as being true and correct, but this has no bearing on whether one is epistemically justified in accepting such sources, and certainly not whether they are epistemically justified in their beliefs based upon such sources.

Now, that is MY foundational idea. To use your idea, it's the answer to the series of why's asked by a child.

Hmm. My "idea" of Foundationalism is not my idea but is what I learnt in philosophy. An introduction to philosophy on epistemic justification will describe Foundationalism not along the lines of what someone's foundational grounds are for believing something is true, but rather as properly basic beliefs which no further reason can be put to for believing in. Such basic beliefs for example consist of beliefs that are self-evident, produced in a reliable way, or grounded in sensory experience (that is, your direct awareness of experiencing the phenominal qualia of colour, not your perception of colour). This has no bearing on whether one accepts Scripture, reason, nature, or whatever as being authorities on what they believe to be true.

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.

My anthropology was carefully born out of my reflecting upon reason and Scripture, and so I am sure it is very supported.

Saying, "You thought you believes, but you really didn't" I feel again misses the crux of the issue in what I am saying. I believe the simpler that one either believes, or does not believe. And even in your position one can think they believe (e.g., those who practiced works based on a belief in Christ) when they really do not.

Now it might seem to you that on my position one believes at one point, and then does not believe, but my position is simply that one either believes or does not believe. To see it as belief and then not belief, or belief or faith that needs to be maintained or persevered in, is to see who a person is as being a unitary and static person. That is, who they are "in the past" is who they are in the future. I have covered this in many different ways, but to be clear, I see who a person is as being unitary and dynamic (at least in our current world). Who we will be at death, is very different who we were when we begun life and at different stages in between.

A more profitable question would be what does Scripture say about who we are? What can we draw from Scripture to explain who we are? These are the crucial questions. You just assume who we are is a unitary static person, but I do not see Scripture saying such a thing. There is nothing in Scripture which says we remain who we are throughout life. In fact, such a thing is the very opposite of Scripture which values the Gospel as being able to change the hearts and minds of man towards God:

• WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED."
  
  How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him (T)whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without (U)a preacher?
  
  How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, "(V)HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE WHO (W)BRING GOOD NEWS OF GOOD THINGS!" (Romans 10:13-15)

If Scripture supports us being unitary and dynamic, then when Scripture says: "Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved" what should we say of the dynamic aspect in the "who" of "Whoever"? We ought to take the whole person. Furthermore, in any passage of Scripture which has bearing on who we are, the dynamic part of a person ought to be understood just as much as the unitary person. When one reads verses in Scripture relating to who we are, and hen interprets our self as being unitary static persons, persons who do not change throughout life, then that I see is what has no support in Scripture.

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 have not actually kept tabs on Graham so can not really say anything beyond what you have presented. However, if Graham does not believe the Gospel any more, then it was still Graham who preached the Gospel. To explain, let me quote where I first raised the question of who we are as persons:

This gets into exploring an ontology of our "self" which I see as continually developing throughout life. For example, what makes you who you are right now? It is all your previous life experiences and continual development throughout life up until the present time right? Some might answer that we are our physical (and spiritual) body, but this would be to answer "what" we are rather than "who". I see that who we are right now is due to the whole of our life experiences in the temporal world we live in, and not simply one state of it. As such, the person we are at death may be very different to the person we were as a child, or different to who we are as an adolescent, or different to who we are as an adult, or different to who we are at various other times in our life. Yet the resulting person we are at the end of our life, is a coalesce of this continual flow of the persons we once were.

I see the "what" we are as being unitary in nature (perhaps with some flexibility of change, but in general the substance of our being is always the same). The "who" we are however I see as dynamic and changing. Now given a unitary dynamic understanding of the person (rather than a unitary static understanding), I still believe the Graham today is the same Graham at birth and at various stages in his life. On the other hand, who Graham is today is different to who Graham was in the past.

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.

Well I see it is "faith in Christ" which is the reason for salvation I see taught in Scripture. So if at the end of your dynamic growing as who you are you do not have "faith in Christ" then what can I say? I do not see an issue with saying you do not have faith in Christ. And again, I do not see that this negatively affects my own assurance.

To be clear I think we can made a distinction in the focus of assurance in our positions. "Assurance of faith" is more the focus of my own position, whereas "assurance of salvation" is more the focus of yours. Yet, I see in Scripture that salvation is conditional upon faith. So I can only say that one can only be assured of being saved if they are assured of their faith in Christ. On the other hand, for you, faith is not conditional upon salvation. You break any connection which may exist between the two (if any connection existed at all) after some sort of personal faith is demonstrated in Christ.

Now I will say this, either our being saved is dependant upon our response by faith in Christ, or our being saved is not dependant upon our response. You have previously written that it is all God's doing (which I am yet to respond to). That is, that Calvinists are right to believe we can not respond to God, and that we actually want nothing to do with God (total depravity). And so it is not sure to any response from us to Christ that we are saved, but due to God's complete choosing. Yet, I see runs contrary to Scripture which also supports our freedom to choose, if not from the very beginning where Adam and Eve chose to turn against God. Now either salvation is conditional upon a faith response to Christ, or it is not. If it is not, then I see the need for preaching the Gospel is pointless, for God will save who He wants to be saved rather than whoever desires to be saved. Although I am sure you may need to clarify a few points, this is perhaps another extremely important distinction in our positions that has just now been unravelled.

"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.

I believe I know who I am in the strongest sense I see we can ever be justified in having a belief. Any uncertainty is due to limitations on our ability to be certain we are right in knowing something.

How can you be so sure that Christ's promise stands firm? Because God says so. But there is the real possibility God did not really say so right? Yes, of course. Especially if you are Fideist simply accepting it on faith without reason. As a Fideist Christan one would just accept Christ died and rise again and they are saved regardless of any reasoning. Being a Fideist may protect you from any challenges which might take away your "assurance", but I can not see how this could possibly provide assurance to anyone else that your beliefs surrounding Christ and the Gospel are true let alone any assurance of salvation. Unless they are willing to simply believe what you say of Christ is true, but then why not equally choose to become a Jehovah Witness, Mormon, Buddhist, Muslim? If a Christian is a Fideist, then there is no reason they can provide to someone else who does not already believe the same as them for why they ought to believe in Christ.

Now lets say you are in some sense Fideistic (although my experience with you on these boards suggests to me that you do have reasons for your beliefs, and often well-considered reasons). The moment you pop out from being a Fideist to consider reasons for your position over others, is the moment it becomes a real possibility that you are wrong! Does this real possibility take away your assurance of being saved? I would be surprised if it did. Yet, your being puzzled over how I can be assured of my faith in Christ could be compared to that of many non-Christians who do not comprehend how we can be so assured of our beliefs in Christ, an afterlife, salvation and so forth when much uncertainty appears to exist. Just as there is a real possibility you are wrong in your beliefs regarding Christ yet you are assured nonetheless, so too there is a real possibility I am wrong regarding who I am but this does not mean I am not assured of knowing who I really am in relation to Christ.

[Kurieuo]

Let me make an important statement about my own position: I AM A MONERGIST. I am in NO WAY "cooperating" with God for my salvation. God does not save me in exchange for my faith. The moment I believe, He is NOT obligated to save me. Thus, it is bad theology to say that I "choose" to be saved. Remember, belief is NOT a matter of choice. I cannot choose to believe anything. I am either persuaded that something is true or I am not.

Now, it is God, by His good will and pleasure, who decided to save me, and that totally apart from anything I did or did not want. Unlike the Calvinist, though, I don't see His salvation as arbitrary. I see it simply as Him deciding to save those who believed He was telling the truth. HE decided to save me. I did not decide to save myself. It does not matter how much I want to be saved. If I never believe He told the truth, then He won't save me. Equally, it does not matter how much I do not want to be saved. If I believe He told the truth, then He saves me. That is HIS choice, not mine.

If we are created in God's image, then I see we can not be totally depraved. To say otherwise is to say God's image is no longer in us, and if this is so, then there is no problem killing each other any more than there is with animals (since the prohibition for killing each other was because we are made in God's image). No, I do not agree with total depravity at all. I agree we are imperfect, but not totally depraved. I attended a Reformed Church some time ago, and I really loved their push on grace rather than works. However, the moment came when they pushed for those attending to become a member, and I would not for I could not agree with all the doctrine they required me to believe. Total Depravity was one.

That said, I would agree that by nature we would prefer to be selfish and disregard God. Paul says as much in Romans (3:10-12): "There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away..." Yet, I would maintain we still can seek God. How is it we can seek God? Well, God desires all of us to come to Him, so I see He would be trying to draw all of us to Himself. God attempts to get our attention, whether it be through life experiences, other people, tragedies, or some other way. God attempt to kindle a spark within us. With His influence and depending on our response such kindling, I see a spark can result in a flame bringing a full change in us in our response to Him. On the other hand, a person can simply keep denying God and becoming more hardened and hardened against Him. So I see it is HIS choice is for ALL to come to Him, but it remains OUR choice to respond to Him in a positive manner.

To clarify one thing. I do not see we choose to be saved. I see we either respond positively or negatively to being in fellowship with God. This comes with the benefit of what I see salvation entails which is being apart of God's kingdom.

[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.

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.

Thank you Fortigurn for being an objective lessen for my post. You clearly demonstrated disdain for God's word and absolute ignorance about the bible when in runs contrary to your particular belief system. The passage in question 1 Corinthians 2:12-16 is in clear reference to the Holy Spirit. Let's follow your logic: the bible was written only to the first century believers and therefore none of it applies for us in today's modern world. And only the Bereans are allowed to search the scriptures, comparing spiritual things with spiritual things and they no-longer exist therefore none can search the scriptures. The bible must spell out pure logic and state factual specific terms to understand it.

Proverbs1:5-7, “Let the wise hear and increase in learning, and the one who understands obtain guidance, 6 to understand a proverb and a saying, the words of the wise and their riddles. 7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.” ESV

Proverbs 26:9, “Like a thorn that goes up into the hand of a drunkard is a proverb in the mouth of fools.” ESV

The Lord explains things as a mystery [parable — riddle — proverb] in his word and these things need to be spiritually discerned. Mark 4:33, “With many such parables he spoke the word to them, as they were able to hear it.” ESV

I see that you simply do not understand 1 Corinthians 2:6-16, at all and thus try to logically explain it away which proves the point of the passages very well:

Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. 7 But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 But, as it is written, "What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him"-- 10 these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. 11 For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 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

Compare:
1 Corinthians 2:12, “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”

With

Matthew 28:19 from NA 26 - "poreuqenteV oun maqhteusate panta ta eqnh, baptizonteV autouV eiV to onoma tou patroV kai tou uiou kai tou agiou pneumatoV" Note: Sorry - G-and-S site did not take the font of NA26 I have so it is phonetically placed instead.

English - “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” ESV

Yes the WORDS Holy Spirit are in the Bible and YES, the reference to the Spirit can be used metaphorically, proverbially, mysteriously in riddle format, elsewhere in the Scripture too to describe the same Holy Spirit.
-
-
-

[B. W.]

Let me make an important statement about my own position: I AM A MONERGIST. I am in NO WAY "cooperating" with God for my salvation. God does not save me in exchange for my faith. The moment I believe, He is NOT obligated to save me. Thus, it is bad theology to say that I "choose" to be saved. Remember, belief is NOT a matter of choice. I cannot choose to believe anything. I am either persuaded that something is true or I am not.

Now, it is God, by His good will and pleasure, who decided to save me, and that totally apart from anything I did or did not want. Unlike the Calvinist, though, I don't see His salvation as arbitrary. I see it simply as Him deciding to save those who believed He was telling the truth. HE decided to save me. I did not decide to save myself. It does not matter how much I want to be saved. If I never believe He told the truth, then He won't save me. Equally, it does not matter how much I do not want to be saved. If I believe He told the truth, then He saves me. That is HIS choice, not mine.

If we are created in God's image, then I see we can not be totally depraved. To say otherwise is to say God's image is no longer in us, and if this is so, then there is no problem killing each other any more than there is with animals (since the prohibition for killing each other was because we are made in God's image). No, I do not agree with total depravity at all. I agree we are imperfect, but not totally depraved. I attended a Reformed Church some time ago, and I really loved their push on grace rather than works. However, the moment came when they pushed for those attending to become a member, and I would not for I could not agree with all the doctrine they required me to believe. Total Depravity was one.

That said, I would agree that by nature we would prefer to be selfish and disregard God. Paul says as much in Romans (3:10-12): "There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away..." Yet, I would maintain we still can seek God. How is it we can seek God? Well, God desires all of us to come to Him, so I see He would be trying to draw all of us to Himself. God attempts to get our attention, whether it be through life experiences, other people, tragedies, or some other way. God attempt to kindle a spark within us. With His influence and depending on our response such kindling, I see a spark can result in a flame bringing a full change in us in our response to Him. On the other hand, a person can simply keep denying God and becoming more hardened and hardened against Him. So I see it is HIS choice is for ALL to come to Him, but it remains OUR choice to respond to Him in a positive manner.

To clarify one thing. I do not see we chooses to be saved. I see we either respond positively or negatively to being in fellowship with God. This comes with the benefit of what I see salvation entails which is being apart of God's kingdom.

Kurieuo — Very Eastern Orthodox position!

See quote from this link

http://www.religionfacts.com/christiani ... hodoxy.htm

This emphasis on personal experience of truth flows into Orthodox theology, which has a rich heritage. Especially in the first millenium of Christian history, the Eastern Church has produced significant theological and philosophical thought.

In the Western churches, both Catholic and Protestant, sin, grace, and salvation are seen primarily in legal terms. God gave humans freedom, they misused it and broke God's commandments, and now deserve punishment. God's grace results in forgiveness of the transgression and freedom from bondage and punishment.

The Eastern churches see the matter in a different way. For Orthodox theologians, humans were created in the image of God and made to participate fully in the divine life. The full communion with God that Adam and Eve enjoyed meant complete freedom and true humanity, for humans are most human when they are completely united with God.

The result of sin, then, was a blurring of the image of God and a barrier between God and man. The situation in which mankind has been ever since is an unnatural, less human state, which ends in the most unnatural aspect: death. Salvation, then, is a process not of justification or legal pardon, but of reestablishing man's communion with God. This process of repairing the unity of human and divine is sometimes called "deification." This term does not mean that humans become gods but that humans join fully with God's divine life.

The Eastern Orthodox view of the Trinity also differs somewhat from that of the Christian West. In its Christology, Orthodoxy tends to emphasize the divine, preexistent nature of Christ, whereas the West focuses more on his human nature. However, both East and West affirm Christ's full humanity and full divinity as defined by the ecumenical councils. In fact, Christ's humanity is also central to Orthodox faith, in that the divine became human so that humanity might be raised up to the divine life.

The process of being reunited to God, made possible by Christ, is accomplished by the Holy Spirit. The Spirit plays a central role in Orthodox worship: the liturgy usually begins with a prayer to the Spirit and invocations made prior to sacraments are addressed to the Spirit...

Below from this link - http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/artic ... le7063.asp

Faith which worketh through love"

In the Scriptures and Sacred Tradition the main purpose of the covenants of God, as stated in the Old and New Testaments and including the humiliation and sacrifice of Christ, was the salvation of man. The Orthodox Church has kept this teaching of salvation, in its highest annals, completely recognizing in it the main mission of the Scriptures. The salvation of sinners is wrought by Christ Himself as God-Man "Who for us men and for our salvation came down from Heaven" (Nicene Creed). The Church believes that Christ enlightens the minds of the people, purifies their hearts and frees their wills from the bondage of the devil. Christ became flesh "to make reconciliation for the sins of the people" (Heb. 2:17). In that respect, the Church fought against two extremes:

1-that in the innate sinfulness of mankind human nature is able to practice virtue by itself, making Christ's sacrifice only a moral example (Pelagianism);
2-the theory that the human soul is totally corrupted, and man's salvation is God's work alone, predestining man to salvation or to perdition (Augustine).

The Church teaches that Christ the Son of God "was made in the likeness of man ... humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross" (Phil. 2:7-8).

The Orthodox Church holds the truths of morality closely with those of faith. The fact is, this Church maintains and practices the theme of the Scripture, "faith which worketh through love" (Gal. 5:6), and this is evident when applied to the intentions and conduct of its members. The Ten Commandments of the Old Testament (cf. Exodus 20:1-17) are considered the minimum of rules for right living, enabling reason and free will to discern right from wrong. For the Orthodox Christian who desires to devote himself to the principles of right living along with right faith, the instructions of the Lord to His disciples are to be studied and practiced, as is recorded in Matthew (chs. 5, 6 and 7), where is found a higher level of life in the Christian society.

In the Orthodox Church, the truths of faith and morals are correlated to such a degree that one cannot exist without the other. The practice of these truths of conduct and morality cannot be achieved without the help, mercy and Grace of Almighty God. This is the reason that faith in and prayer to God are correlated with morality. The Orthodox Christian is assigned by his own faith to be the steward of God's love for God's people who are in need, "the least" not only materially but also spiritually.

The phrase quoted above "the truths of faith and morals are correlated to such a degree that one cannot exist without the other. The practice of these truths of conduct and morality cannot be achieved without the help, mercy and Grace of Almighty God."

Kind of sums up what Living Faith is about verses Static Faith. Living Faith lives out belief in a Living God by reaching out to learn of Him and grow closer to Him and how to act more Like Him. Living Faith seeks after a living God — Hebrews 11:6. Thus living faith persuades you that 'He Is.' Living faith takes you on a living journey with real life lessons instructing you on the loving-kindness of God, Psalms 107:1-43, which transforms your very soul from sin to newness of life transformed by God Right Hand which is a gift from God - Grace.

Static Faith, on the other hand, has to figure out all the details to become fully persuaded in order to justify ones actions, deeds, reasons, belief system. Static faith is stuck on humanness and human reason. The journey it takes leads to depend on formulas, methods, deeds, to justify human belief in any position human reason leads or chooses to take or create. It transforms your very soul to become a deal maker, tit for tat enthusiast, a workaholic, a person wizard of sorts, sin in the soul remains camouflaged and slavishly justified by religiousness, and therefore the new life in Christ never found: which is mans' gift to God.

Only by God's Grace [gifts] can Faith live. Only by Mans' grace [gifts]God is denied.
-
-
-

[Jac3510]

Before I respond, I just want to deal with your idea of "foundationalism." As explained here, and its various modes, this is not at all Foundationalism as understood in epistemic justification. One can certainly believe in and hold to various sources God reveals himself to us through whether it be through Scripture, nature, reason and/or experience, and such sources may be foundational to ones epistemology for what they see as being true and correct, but this has no bearing on whether one is epistemically justified in accepting such sources, and certainly not whether they are epistemically justified in their beliefs based upon such sources.

Again, I am aware of the various nuances in foundationalism. I brought the idea up originally because our discussion on assurance is an epistemological question. We both know that there are a plethora of epistemologies that have been suggested through the years. I have no interest--not would you or anyone else on these boards, I assume--in discussing the fine details that differentiate the various branches of a specific family of those epistemologies. Foundationalism, as I have used the term, stands in contrast to the very large body of epistemologies that could be classified as non-foundational or even moderately foundational (i.e., relativism, coherentism, positivism, etc.). Western society has broadly rejected foundationalism as a whole. As such, most Christians have rejected any and all kinds of foundationalism.

So, for instance you have Wheaton Professor of Philosophy Jay Wood saying, “modest foundationalists make no claims about the invincible certainty of one's basic beliefs." You have Carl Raske, Ph.D. in religion from Harvard and author of The Next Reformation: Why Evangelicals Must Embrace Postmodernity asserts that evagelicalism is, at its core, not rational but instead it is existential. Or again, James A. Smith of Calvin College says, "The postmodern theologian says, 'We can't know that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. The best we can do is believe' . . . Why? Because to know would mean being certain. We know that such certainty is an impossible dream." Or how about John Frank's following comment at a meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society: "“Everybody [at ETS] agrees that classical foundationalism is not a helpful project. I'm glad the theory has been rejected. I think it needs to be. So I think it sounds like we can stop debating that. We agree. That's what I'm hearing at ETS." (All quotes taken from here)

I could go on and on and on. I bring up this issue because what is at stake is 1) absolute certainty and therefore 2) how we can be absolutely certain of anything. So, AGAIN, I understand the various shades of foundationalism. Our discussion, however, is not about that. It is about the simple question of how I can know something for sure. Now, I assert that I can know something for sure because I am a foundationalist (of the Augustinian, fideistic persuasion!). I am not an existentialist. As a fideist, my basic presupposition is "The words of Scripture are Absolute Truth." Please note what I am saying: that is by basic presupposition. There is nothing that comes before it. I don't arrive at that conclusion after a long series of arguments. I begin with it. So, the Bible says that God exists, then because the Bible is Absolute Truth, then God must exist.

Now, I don't know this, but I suspect that you place observation and general revelation at the level of basic presupposition. You use general observation to confirm special revelation, and from that idea, you trust special revelation. I don't do it that way. I trust general revelation because special revelation says I can.

So, this issue should hopefully be able to be laid to rest. We don't need to discuss the nuances of foundationalism. We have to answer the simple question: how can you know what you know? My answer is simple: the words of Scripture are Absolute Truth. That's how I know. And how do you know what you know?

Hmm. My "idea" of Foundationalism is not my idea but is what I learnt in philosophy. An introduction to philosophy on epistemic justification will describe Foundationalism not along the lines of what someone's foundational grounds are for believing something is true, but rather as properly basic beliefs which no further reason can be put to for believing in. Such basic beliefs for example consist of beliefs that are self-evident, produced in a reliable way, or grounded in sensory experience (that is, your direct awareness of experiencing the phenominal qualia of colour, not your perception of colour). This has no bearing on whether one accepts Scripture, reason, nature, or whatever as being authorities on what they believe to be true.

The above comments should make my position clear, and I hope this doesn't need any further response.

My anthropology was carefully born out of my reflecting upon reason and Scripture, and so I am sure it is very supported.

Saying, "You thought you believes, but you really didn't" I feel again misses the crux of the issue in what I am saying. I believe the simpler that one either believes, or does not believe. And even in your position one can think they believe (e.g., those who practiced works based on a belief in Christ) when they really do not.

Now it might seem to you that on my position one believes at one point, and then does not believe, but my position is simply that one either believes or does not believe. To see it as belief and then not belief, or belief or faith that needs to be maintained or persevered in, is to see who a person is as being a unitary and static person. That is, who they are "in the past" is who they are in the future. I have covered this in many different ways, but to be clear, I see who a person is as being unitary and dynamic (at least in our current world). Who we will be at death, is very different who we were when we begun life and at different stages in between.

I understand your position. I know that believe that you believe. You are absolutely convinced of that. I know you have your reasons for believing that you believe, and I know you have your reasons for believing that you are justified in believing that you believe. With that said, we both have to face the reality that your position gives us: there are people who currently profess faith in Christ who will die in a state of unbelief. Your ontology of faith--your seeing it as a continuum that is intimately connected with who a person is--forces you to conclude that their "belief" was, in fact, no belief at all because they, ultimately, were not the type of person to believe. Again, we can simply mention Barker, Ehrman, Flew, Templeton, Graham, and a host of others. That is, in fact, what this entire discussion is about: is saving faith continuing or "once off" as you put it?

Given that reality, and given that the issue at stake for me is that of assurance, I have to know how it is that you are justified in believing that you are in fact are the type of person who will believe at death, given that " Who we will be at death, is very different who we were when we begun life and at different stages in between." You say you know you have believed. More importantly, you say you know yourself. But how can you know that you will be a believer when you take your last breath? If Billy Graham was mistaken, how can you be so sure that you are not mistaken?

A more profitable question would be what does Scripture say about who we are? What can we draw from Scripture to explain who we are? These are the crucial questions. You just assume who we are is a unitary static person, but I do not see Scripture saying such a thing. There is nothing in Scripture which says we remain who we are throughout life. In fact, such a thing is the very opposite of Scripture which values the Gospel as being able to change the hearts and minds of man towards God:

And Scripture clearly says that our heart is evil and deceitful (Jer 17:9). Paul says "I do not understand what I do" (Rom 7:15). John gives us objective tests for determining our fellowship with God when "our hearts condemn us" (1 John 3:20). We are repeatedly told that we cannot trust ourselves, because we are fallen and evil. Further, you are right that Scripture teaches that we change who we are throughout life. Jesus says in Luke 8:13 that there are some people who believe the Gospel for a little while, but in times of trouble they fall away. Paul warns Christians not to return back to their former ways, as some were doing at the Corinthian church, and Peter warns of the danger of falling away in 2 Pet 2:20 saying, "If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning." Again, I could go on and on and on. That is why I believe it is possible to fall away from faith, and it is exactly why I do not tie our faith to our identity. What we say and do and believe changes through time, but that does not change the fact that the moment I believe I have everlasting life.

If Scripture supports us being unitary and dynamic, then when Scripture says: "Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved" what should we say of the dynamic aspect in the "who" of "Whoever"? We ought to take the whole person. Furthermore, in any passage of Scripture which has bearing on who we are, the dynamic part of a person ought to be understood just as much as the unitary person. When one reads verses in Scripture relating to who we are, and hen interprets our self as being unitary static persons, persons who do not change throughout life, then that I see is what has no support in Scripture.

Concerning Rom 10, I believe you are putting way too much emphasis on the word "who." You are begging the question here. Paul says that whoever calls upon the name of the LORD will be saved. Ok. Fine. Belief is something only sentient beings are capable of. You assume "who" implies our total person, but there is just no reason to see that in this text.

Even further, I don't see Rom 10:13 as having anything to do with being justified by grace through faith, anyway. The word "saved" (gk. sozo and cognates) in Romans does not refer to "going to heaven," contrary to popular belief, but simply a deliverance from a danger. In its broadest sense, in my include deliverance from the danger of Hell, but that's far from the only thing Paul has in mind. The word he used for that idea is "justified" (gk. dikaiosune and cognates). Rom 10:13 is not talking about how to go to heaven. It is talking about how to be delivered from the danger of God's wrath.

Besides, if you take "calling" as a condition for being saved, then you clearly can't believe that salvation is through faith alone, because Paul distinguishes calling from believing in verse 14!

Anyway, that's just a side note, because John 3:16 does say whoever believes. Again, though, I see no reason to look at that as any theological statement about biblical anthropology. It's just a relative pronoun . . .

I have not actually kept tabs on Graham so can not really say anything beyond what you have presented. However, if Graham does not believe the Gospel any more, then it was still Graham who preached the Gospel.

You don't have to have kept up with Graham's career to be able to assess whether or not he still believes the Gospel. Hopefully we are both still in this to understand one another's, as well as our own, positions more clearly. There should be nothing preventing you from acknowledging that if someone says that there is salvation outside of Jesus Christ, as Graham stated as per my direct quotation of him, then that person does NOT believe the Gospel however you define it!

Now, you have said that continuous faith is necessary (considering that you tie faith to the identity of a person) to be saved. Graham no longer believes. Here's the point, K: regardless the theological rationale, your theology implies that Graham is not saved.. Arminians will say he has lost his salvation. Calvinists will say he simply proved he never believed. You may say he has simply developed into the type of person who does not believe the exclusive claim of the Gospel. It doesn't matter what the reasoning is. My point in bringing him up was simple. If I asked you whether or not Graham was sure of his salvation (or of his faith, or of who he is, however you want to put it), you would have agreed he was. And yet, he has demonstrated by his own words that he no longer believes what he used to believe.

So, I ask again, as I can only do, how is it that Graham could be so sure he was saved and in fact be wrong? And if Graham could be wrong, then how is it not possible that you are wrong? And if it is a very genuine possibility you are wrong, then how do you know you are saved?

I see the "what" we are as being unitary in nature (perhaps with some flexibility of change, but in general the substance of our being is always the same). The "who" we are however I see as dynamic and changing. Now given a unitary dynamic understanding of the person (rather than a unitary static understanding), I still believe the Graham today is the same Graham at birth and at various stages in his life. On the other hand, who Graham is today is different to who Graham was in the past.

Yes, and the Graham of today is not one who believes in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Therefore, he has developed into someone else entirely. What that says or doesn't say about his former "self" I don't know. My point is that you have consistently argued that salvation is tied to identity, that faith must be a part of who we are. Graham is no longer a person who believes, which is part of his identity, according to your theology.

Well I see it is "faith in Christ" which is the reason for salvation I see taught in Scripture. So if at the end of your dynamic growing as who you are you do not have "faith in Christ" then what can I say? I do not see an issue with saying you do not have faith in Christ. And again, I do not see that this negatively affects my own assurance.

If I lose my faith, then what you can and must say is that I don't have faith in Christ. Therefore, I am not saved. Personally, I don't care if in your view I lost my salvation or if I never had it in the first place. The point is that, by your theology, if I don't have faith in Christ at death, then I don't have salvation at death.

That has a very direct bearing on your own assurance. I don't know how to make it any clearer: how can you be sure you will have faith in Christ when you die?

To be clear I think we can made a distinction in the focus of assurance in our positions. "Assurance of faith" is more the focus of my own position, whereas "assurance of salvation" is more the focus of yours. Yet, I see in Scripture that salvation is conditional upon faith. So I can only say that one can only be assured of being saved if they are assured of their faith in Christ. On the other hand, for you, faith is not conditional upon salvation. You break any connection which may exist between the two (if any connection existed at all) after some sort of personal faith is demonstrated in Christ.

Which is why I asked above, how can you be sure that you will have faith in Christ when you die? The best you can say, it seems to me, is that as of right now, you are pretty sure you will because you believe that you have faith. Of course, you MAY develop into a person who does not believe, like Graham did, and therefore, you don't really believe anyway. You've deceived yourself, perhaps.

Now, this is a HUGE deal because Paul and the writer of Hebrews (if they are not one and the same) define faith as assurance. We've already covered those passages. If I am not assured of something, then I do not have faith, and if I have faith, then I am assured of something. If, then, you are not assured of your faith (or salvation or however you want to phrase it), then I don't see how you can say biblically that you have faith.

Now I will say this, either our being saved is dependant upon our response by faith in Christ, or our being saved is not dependant upon our response. You have previously written that it is all God's doing (which I am yet to respond to). That is, that Calvinists are right to believe we can not respond to God, and that we actually want nothing to do with God (total depravity). And so it is not sure to any response from us to Christ that we are saved, but due to God's complete choosing. Yet, I see runs contrary to Scripture which also supports our freedom to choose, if not from the very beginning where Adam and Eve chose to turn against God. Now either salvation is conditional upon a faith response to Christ, or it is not. If it is not, then I see the need for preaching the Gospel is pointless, for God will save who He wants to be saved rather than whoever desires to be saved. Although I am sure you may need to clarify a few points, this is perhaps another extremely important distinction in our positions that has just now been unravelled.

I never said that we cannot respond to God. I said that our response has absolutely no bearing on our salvation. I do NOT agree with the Calvinist doctrine of Total Inability. I reject all five points of Calvinism. What I did say was that our salvation is not conditioned on our response. It is totally the work of God. God saves those whom He elects. He elects those who are in Christ. He does not elect people TO BE in Christ. We are in Christ if we are born again. We are born again if we believe that by believing that Jesus is Christ the Son of God we have everlasting life.

Now . . . I understand that my view of election has an impact on my view of faith, but I'm sure you understand that, regardless of agreement or disagreement on that point, it makes the original complaint, that relating to free will, unnecessary.

I believe I know who I am in the strongest sense I see we can ever be justified in having a belief. Any uncertainty is due to limitations on our ability to be certain we are right in knowing something.

That's the entire reason I brought up foundationalism. You may say along with Bock and the rest that absolute certainty is impossible, but I don't agree with that at all. I believe there are certain things that we can know with absolute certainty, and those are things which are revealed in Scripture. I see absolutely NO possibility of their being wrong. I know we talked about the logical possibility of being wrong, but I wonder if I wasn't clear when I was talking about that now. Is it a "logical possibility" that I don't exist at all? Sure. I suppose, but I don't see how that has any bearing on whether or not I know for certain I exist. All knowledge assumes existence, so the idea is so incredibly ridiculous that Occam's Razor gets rid of it . . . remember Gozer's giant invisible unicorn?

So, call me naive, but I do believe that absolute certainty is possibility. I concede the "logical possibility" of being wrong only for the sake of semantics and argument. In reality, so far as I am concerned, there is no greater chance that I am wrong than there is that I don't exist.

How can you be so sure that Christ's promise stands firm? Because God says so. But there is the real possibility God did not really say so right? Yes, of course. Especially if you are Fideist simply accepting it on faith without reason.

What?!? No, there is no possibility God did not really say so. It is right there in black and white. John 3:16; 6:47; 5:24; 20:31; Acts 16:32; Rom 3-5 . . . Second, since when did I ever say that I believe something without reason? Isn't "because God said so" a good enough reason? Do I need to confirm what God said? That IS my reason for believing.

Again, what is "faith without reason"??? Faith is simply convinced something is true. Have you ever been convinced of something without a reason? Have you ever believed anything without reason? No, of course not. It is possible, of course, to believe something without good reason (i.e., you were raised to believe it), but there is no such thing as faith without reason.

As a Fideist Christan one would just accept Christ died and rise again and they are saved regardless of any reasoning.

No, the reasoning is this:

1. Everything the Bible says is true
2. The Bible says Jesus died and rose again,
3. Therefore Jesus died and rose again.

How is that not reasoning? Just because I don't feel it is necessary to appeal to observational evidence from the secular world doesn't mean I'm not reasoning, nor reasonable. ALL evidence is ultimately based on testimony. I happen to believe that the testimony of God is worth believing regardless what what any other testimony says. In other words, God's testimony is sufficient reason to believe something.

Being a Fideist may protect you from any challenges which might take away your "assurance", but I can not see how this could possibly provide assurance to anyone else that your beliefs surrounding Christ and the Gospel are true let alone any assurance of salvation. Unless they are willing to simply believe what you say of Christ is true, but then why not equally choose to become a Jehovah Witness, Mormon, Buddhist, Muslim? If a Christian is a Fideist, then there is no reason they can provide to someone else who does not already believe the same as them for why they ought to believe in Christ.

You are talking about two separate issues here. First of all, my personal assurance has absolutely NO BEARING on any one else's personal assurance. Why should it? Why should my personal beliefs have any bearing on what you believe? You have to come to your personal conclusions based on what you consider evidence. In my case, I consider Scriptural revelation to be the absolute basis of all knowledge, and therefore, what it says is sufficient to me.

If, though, I meet someone who does not believe that, which is more common than not, I'll find out what is important to them, and I'll present my case and use the evidence that they find important. I don't believe I ever suggested that we should not use external evidence when discussing the testimony of God. He has been so gracious as to condescend Himself to provide such evidence for those who need it (Thomas, anyone?), but there are those who believe simply because God said it is true. That's why I study apologetics. They no longer do anything to strengthen my own faith. I don't need them for that. In reality, I don't guess I ever did. But I know that there are people who do need such things, be they believers or not, and so I try to be ready with just such evidence, the type that they will accept. That's the same thing any lawyer would do. He sizes up his jury, figures out the best way to convince them he is right based on their makeup, and lays his case out accordingly.

Now lets say you are in some sense Fideistic (although my experience with you on these boards suggests to me that you do have reasons for your beliefs, and often well-considered reasons). The moment you pop out from being a Fideist to consider reasons for your position over others, is the moment it becomes a real possibility that you are wrong! Does this real possibility take away your assurance of being saved?

No, the moment I make an argument is the moment my reasoning concerning that argument could be wrong. But that doesn't mean the conclusion is wrong. Take the following argument:

1. I've never loved something that doesn't exist,
2. I love God,
3. Therefore, God exists.

Now . . . that argument is obviously fallacious. Does that mean, though, that my conclusion is wrong? No. And does it have any bearing on my assurance? It only does if my basis for belief is that particular argument. But if I am making an argument for someone so that they can come to belief, and if to do so I use an argument that appeals to their sense of appropriate evidence, and if that argument turns out to be wrong, then my own assurance is in no way affected. Why? Because that isn't why I believe. If you want to destroy my personal assurance that God exists or that I am saved, show me in Scripture where it says that God does not exist, or show me where it says that I am not saved.

I would be surprised if it did. Yet, your being puzzled over how I can be assured of my faith in Christ could be compared to that of many non-Christians who do not comprehend how we can be so assured of our beliefs in Christ, an afterlife, salvation and so forth when much uncertainty appears to exist. Just as there is a real possibility you are wrong in your beliefs regarding Christ yet you are assured nonetheless, so too there is a real possibility I am wrong regarding who I am but this does not mean I am not assured of knowing who I really am in relation to Christ.

Again, my assurance is not based on my arguments. If you use my foundation for belief--the Bible--and by THAT show me that God does not exist, then, yes, my assurance is lost. But if I use someone else's foundation of belief--say, external evidence--and that turns out to be wrong, then my personal basis for assurance remains unchanged.

However, that doesn't hold true for our discussion with you, so I am still puzzled as to how you can say you are saved. By your own admission, it is a logical possibility that you could turn out to be the type of person who does not believe. How can you KNOW you are saved?

See, I don't have any of those problems. I know I am saved because my basis for knowledge is Scripture. Yet again, the best you can say is that Scripture teaches that people who have faith are the ones who are saved, but you don't know that you will have faith when you die. How, then, can you know whether or not you really have faith?

Does the above make sense, or is there anything else in my understanding of knowledge and faith and assurance that you find self-contradictory? If not, I really do want to know how it is that you claim that you know you are saved in light of the fact that you may develop into the type of person who doesn't believe . . . I just cannot figure that one out.

[B. W.]

...See, I don't have any of those problems. I know I am saved because my basis for knowledge is Scripture. Yet again, the best you can say is that Scripture teaches that people who have faith are the ones who are saved, but you don't know that you will have faith when you die. How, then, can you know whether or not you really have faith?

Does the above make sense, or is there anything else in my understanding of knowledge and faith and assurance that you find self-contradictory? If not, I really do want to know how it is that you claim that you know you are saved in light of the fact that you may develop into the type of person who doesn't believe . . . I just cannot figure that one out.

Jac, you said a mouth full, thanks - what you wrote helps me understand your position better and again my apologies for jumping all over you earlier.

You stated that a born again Christian person doesn't know that he/she will have faith when 'they' die. In this I would disagree. Such person may go through terrible times and have his or her faith shaken and feel they lost all faith but that is not the case. Why, first God would be forced to deny his word and secondly, at the point of entry into the hereafter faith is restored! Think on this a bit.

Salvation is not so much about escaping Hell to attain Heaven but rather learning to know God again and being transformed into the image of his dear son — Jesus Christ. Being transformed and changed to newness of life — life with God, for God, by God, and knowing God.

If my faith is solely based upon escaping Hell to attain Heaven and meeting God's legal requirements alone, then I would agree, a person could lose such faith. Ah, but then through the fiery trial of faith, such a person will mysteriously gain a living faith in a living Creator who will never let you go, who will see you through to the end and beyond!

Call me a simpleton if you like, when one dies to self, it does feel like you lost all faith but then after some fiery time passes, a new faith mysteriously reborn within you, changed and refocused upon someone really alive that truly loves you and will never let you go. The dross of the soul removed.

What increases faith more — telling all the tyros they'll lose faith or that God will never let them go? Yes, we'll lose faith in ourselves but in God never — faith like this is like the smallest of seeds that grows into the largest of trees enduring the all heat, all the storms, and soaking up the gentle life giving rain.

Faith in self is static — that you'll lose if indeed a person is a Christian. If Christian, after losing static faith then you'll learn the loving-kindness of the Lord — He will never let you go. He who began a good work in you will complete until the day of Christ when it is then completed in full. In the hereafter — faith is perfected and completed.

Next

2 Corinthians 13:5, “Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove [try, test, refine] your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates [disproved who you are through this trial —trying time]?” KJV

When the bible informs us to examine ourselves to see if we are in the faith it is not telling us we will lose our faith totally. The ancient Hebrew idea of faith is discovered in Psalms 107 in its entirety.

Through adversity — faith is strengthened. God's loving-kindness will never let us go and will see us through all life's adversities as well as all our contentment's. Believers need to know this. Knowing comes by hearing this from God's word. Understanding comes through experience. Such living faith cements you to the Lord.

Adversity puts what we have Faith in on trial and refines the dross out of faith. Such trials to human faith remove the dross so the pure remains. Paul in 2 Corinthians 13:5 is stating this same contextual theme. Those flaky people in the assembly in ancient Corinth needed to have the dross removed and Paul asks them to test, refine themselves least through this refining process all is just dross.

Please note context of 2 Corinthians 13 with 2 Corinthians 12:1-21 and follow through. Next ask yourself, if Christ is in me, then, am I living it or is my religion false, a sham? Then you might understand what Paul is saying to that flaky 1st century Corinthian assembly.

Again, God's grace is what saves and 'living' faith is the journey that uncovers this great gift.

A Poem:

Faith grows, ebbs, and flows
Removing the dross
Of doubt

In God who will never forsake
Nor ever leave you
What Gift!

Let it be strengthened
This His bequest
Deep within

For thy soul such
An Anchor
Can rest
-
-
-

[Jac3510]

You stated that a born again Christian person doesn't know that he/she will have faith when 'they' die. In this I would disagree. Such person may go through terrible times and have his or her faith shaken and feel they lost all faith but that is not the case. Why, first God would be forced to deny his word and secondly, at the point of entry into the hereafter faith is restored! Think on this a bit.

No, if you read my words again, you'll see that I never once stated that a "born again Christian" doesn't know that he or she will have faith when they die (in the context that continuous faith is necessary). What I did say was that no person--born again or not, that's up to your theology to decide--knows whether or not they will have faith when they die.

In fact, if you want to be technical, I've said just the opposite. On the K's assumption, we KNOW that all genuinely born again believers will persevere until the end. The problem is that we don't know whether or not we are born again, because we don't know whether or not we will persevere!.

Finally, you say here that if a person loses their faith then God is forced to deny His Word. What Word must He deny? I'll have to see Scripture to back up that claim, my friend.

[quote"B.W."]Salvation is not so much about escaping Hell to attain Heaven but rather learning to know God again and being transformed into the image of his dear son — Jesus Christ. Being transformed and changed to newness of life — life with God, for God, by God, and knowing God. [/quote]
First, salvation is about a lot more than escaping Hell. It is about deliverence from the presence, penalty, and power of sin. It includes justification, sanctification, and glorification. Myriads of things happen when we are born again, including our election, sealing, forgiveness, redemption, guarantee of adoption, indwelling, etc. All things things make it possible to know God intimately, so salvation is unto good works. Our new status in Christ makes us able to be in fellowship with God.

With that said, does any of that change the fact that we are saved through faith alone? Of course not. Our POSITION--being in Christ--has nothing to do with us or our works. God does it, and nothing we can do will change that. My behavior, no matter how good or bad, no matter what promises I make or don't make, will never get me "in Christ" nor will it get me "out of Christ." God begets me in His Son when I consider Him faithful. Everything after that is a matter of abiding, of fellowship.

If my faith is solely based upon escaping Hell to attain Heaven and meeting God's legal requirements alone, then I would agree, a person could lose such faith. Ah, but then through the fiery trial of faith, such a person will mysteriously gain a living faith in a living Creator who will never let you go, who will see you through to the end and beyond!

Scripture? And further, who said it is only trial that will cause a person to lose faith. I can think of a much more likely cause: apathy.

Call me a simpleton if you like, when one dies to self, it does feel like you lost all faith but then after some fiery time passes, a new faith mysteriously reborn within you, changed and refocused upon someone really alive that truly loves you and will never let you go. The dross of the soul removed.

I don't know of any Scripture where faith is said to be born in me. And what does it mean to "feel like [I've] lost all faith"? Faith is believing something, in my view. It is knowing something is true. It isn't a feeling. I either believe the Gospel or I don't. I either believe Jesus told the truth in John 3:16 or I don't. Finally, what is this talk about faith never letting me go? Is faith a substance with its own mind? How can faith hold me? Perhaps you are simply being somewhat poetic in the same sense as someone might say, "Love has gotten hold of me!" But, of course, what that actually means is that we are the ones who are in love. But that idea hardly make sense here. You would be arguing that I can "feel like" I lose my faith, but after trial, I will come out believing so much more than I ever did before (whatever that means) that I'll always hold on to it. But that begs the very question we are discussing, which is what is the nature of faith? Is it continuous? How do I know I will maintain it? You can't just assume these things.

What increases faith more — telling all the tyros they'll lose faith or that God will never let them go? Yes, we'll lose faith in ourselves but in God never — faith like this is like the smallest of seeds that grows into the largest of trees enduring the all heat, all the storms, and soaking up the gentle life giving rain.

You speak of God's never letting me go. I fail to see the connection to whether or not I will let go of my faith. I believe that God will never let me go, but does that change the fact that someday I may stop believing that? And if I stop believing that, does that mean that God will, at that time, let me go? Of course not! Further, I don't see faith like a seed at all. Perhaps our relationship with God is like a seed that grows and bears fruit, but since our relationship with God is established THROUGH our faith, it is impossible that faith and the relationship be the same thing. Again, I simply see no Scriptural reason to believe that my faith is guaranteed to grow greater and greater until I die with no possibility of me losing it.

Faith in self is static — that you'll lose if indeed a person is a Christian. If Christian, after losing static faith then you'll learn the loving-kindness of the Lord — He will never let you go. He who began a good work in you will complete until the day of Christ when it is then completed in full. In the hereafter — faith is perfected and completed.

And here is the problem: if I am indeed not a Christian, then I will lose my faith. That brings me to the same question I have asked repeatedly in this thread: how can I know if I am a Christian? The test cannot be belief, because I may lose that. So am I look to my works? But many will say "Lord, Lord!" and they themselves will point to their works.

Again, I agree that God will never let me go. I believe in once saved, always saved. I believe that I can lose my faith and still be saved. That is how I KNOW I am saved, because I have believed, and therefore, God says that I HAVE everlasting life (John 3:16). And as for your passing reference to Phil 1:6, that verse has absolutely nothing to do with our personal faith. Paul is talking about the missionary work (the good work) that God began (through Paul) BY (not in) the Philippians' consistent fellowship with Paul in the Gospel. The application to modern believers is that God will bring to fruitition the work God begins by us and through us, and we will therefore be rewarded for it in the Day of Christ Jesus.

When the bible informs us to examine ourselves to see if we are in the faith it is not telling us we will lose our faith totally. The ancient Hebrew idea of faith is discovered in Psalms 107 in its entirety.

Through adversity — faith is strengthened. God's loving-kindness will never let us go and will see us through all life's adversities as well as all our contentment's. Believers need to know this. Knowing comes by hearing this from God's word. Understanding comes through experience. Such living faith cements you to the Lord.

Adversity puts what we have Faith in on trial and refines the dross out of faith. Such trials to human faith remove the dross so the pure remains. Paul in 2 Corinthians 13:5 is stating this same contextual theme. Those flaky people in the assembly in ancient Corinth needed to have the dross removed and Paul asks them to test, refine themselves least through this refining process all is just dross.

The self-test is not to see if we HAVE faith, but to see if we are IN the faith. In other words, are we holding to proper doctrine? Are we believing orthodox teaching, or have we fallen victim to subtle heresies? This has nothing to do with seeing if I have "really believed" the Gospel.

Now, can adversity strengthen faith? Of course it can. I gives me experienced evidence that God will fulfill His promises. But that has no bearing on our discussion whatsoever. We are discussing whether or not a person must be faithful until the end of their lives to be saved, be that by their own power, by God's sustaining power, or simply by the development of their person. I say no. K says yes. I say that if you say yes, then you don't know you are saved, because you don't know you will be faithful until you die.

Please note context of 2 Corinthians 13 with 2 Corinthians 12:1-21 and follow through. Next ask yourself, if Christ is in me, then, am I living it or is my religion false, a sham? Then you might understand what Paul is saying to that flaky 1st century Corinthian assembly.

And this is exactly my point. I don't have to ask if Christ is in me. I know He is, because I have believed, and no matter what I do, even if I stop believing, then Christ is still in me. Others here want to say that if I stop believing, then either Christ leaves me or Christ was never in me in the first place. I disagree strongly with both of those ideas.

So, in conclusion, are we commanded to persevere in faith and good works until the end? Absolutely. Are we expected to? Yes. Are we guaranteed to? No. Does that mean that we lose our salvation or that we prove we never had it? Absolutely NOT.

Jesus said WHOEVER BELIEVES HAS EVERLASTING LIFE. He did NOT say "whoever CONTINUALLY believes." I have believed. Therefore, I have everlasting life. I can't lose that life, no matter what, because as you repeatedly pointed out, God will not let me go, even though I may let Him go.

BUT - here's why this is so important - if you believe that you must continue in faith, then you cannot know that you are saved. Everyone has their own justification for why continued faith is necessary. Arminians believe you can lose your salvation, so continued faith is necessary. You can't know you are saved because you can't know you won't lose your salvation. Calvinists believe that you can prove you were never saved.You can't know you are saved because you can't know you won't fall away, proving you were never elect to begin with. K believes that faith is tied to who we are, and therefore, we develop into the person we really are--a believer or not. Therefore, I can't know I'm really saved because I can't know what type of person I will develop into.

So, Jesus says to me, "Chris, do you know you have everlasting life?" I reply, "No, Lord, I don't." He says, "So you don't believe Me, then. I said 'Whoever believes HAS everlasting life.' If you don't know you have life, then you don't have it."

That is why this is so important. Salvation has always been about taking God at His Word, and what He asks us to believe is that by believing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God we have everlasting life.

Hope this helps.

God bless

[Kurieuo]

You stated that a born again Christian person doesn't know that he/she will have faith when 'they' die. In this I would disagree. Such person may go through terrible times and have his or her faith shaken and feel they lost all faith but that is not the case. Why, first God would be forced to deny his word and secondly, at the point of entry into the hereafter faith is restored! Think on this a bit.

No, if you read my words again, you'll see that I never once stated that a "born again Christian" doesn't know that he or she will have faith when they die (in the context that continuous faith is necessary). What I did say was that no person--born again or not, that's up to your theology to decide--knows whether or not they will have faith when they die.

In fact, if you want to be technical, I've said just the opposite. On the K's assumption, we KNOW that all genuinely born again believers will persevere until the end. The problem is that we don't know whether or not we are born again, because we don't know whether or not we will persevere!.

Just to interject on my part for clarity. Persevering is a word I would not use. My position does not allow for such language since it sees a person as their total sum not one part. So again, a person simply either believes or does not believe. "Once saved, always saved" is also terminology foreign to my position. Yes, I can understand it in the way it is employed, that is, we as being constantly changing temporal beings. Yet one temporal snapshot of who we are does not represent our complete self. Thus it makes no sense to say we, that is, "our self is once saved and always saved" if the self is the complete picture of who we are.

As Jac clarified, it is true that for my position Jac sees we can not know we have faith. I on the other hand do not believe this for my position. I claim to know I will still have faith in Christ when I die. Jac challenges that claims for he finds it odd. The funny thing about knowledge, and this is where Jac and I appear to differ, is that any knowledge we have can be wrong. Jac on the other hand believes Scripture can in no way be wrong - it is in no way feasible or conceivable that Scripture could be wrong to Jac (note to readers: please do not misunderstand what I am saying - I believe Scripture to be true, but if I am honest and fair I admit there is the possibility I could be wrong in my knowledge even though I strongly believe I am not!). So given Jac's interpretation of Scripture, he is completely certain he is saved based on what he reads of Christ's promise.

I frankly believe this risks setting up a "false security" for it does not take epistemological concerns seriously. For example, a Mormon may believe the Book of Mormon (BoM) is true when it talks of us becoming our own gods like Jesus and setting up our own worlds (disclaimer: I have not read the BoM, but this is a doctrine I have been lead to believe they hold so lets presume even this is in the BoM even if it is not). Now they may fully believe the BoM as Jac believes the Bible, and believe that this somehow gives them complete objective knoweldge as Jac believes he has complete objective knowledge. There is no possibility a Mormon is wrong if they accept the BoM as truth. Yet, Jac knows they are wrong for Jac has objective knowledge, and the Mormon knows they are right for they have objective knowledge. One is obviously wrong. And so one has a false security in their "objective knowledge" from sources they are taking to be foundational to their beliefs.

Now to work from Jac's way of seeing things, I see a quite simple solution. As Jac accepts Scripture as foundational, I accept what I know of myself as foundational. Thus, I have complete certainty (and not simply assurance!) that I know who I am, and that I am saved. So if Jac can not possibly be wrong about his being saved based on sources he sees as foundational, then I also can not be possibly wrong about my being saved based on sources I see as foundational. This then also answers Jac's last question to me which is repeated for nth time:

Does the above make sense, or is there anything else in my understanding of knowledge and faith and assurance that you find self-contradictory? If not, I really do want to know how it is that you claim that you know you are saved in light of the fact that you may develop into the type of person who doesn't believe . . . I just cannot figure that one out.

If what I just wrote in the above is not a satisfactory response, then that may be because I have a source of "objective knowledge" I accept as foundational which you do not - namely a direct and intimate knowledge of myself. If still puzzled, I am happy to leave it to you to figure out for I do not see I need to satisfy your concerns where I see no concern, nor do you need to satisfy my epistemological concerns with your own position if you see no concerns.

[Kurieuo]

BUT - here's why this is so important - if you believe that you must continue in faith, then you cannot know that you are saved. Everyone has their own justification for why continued faith is necessary. Arminians believe you can lose your salvation, so continued faith is necessary. You can't know you are saved because you can't know you won't lose your salvation. Calvinists believe that you can prove you were never saved.You can't know you are saved because you can't know you won't fall away, proving you were never elect to begin with. K believes that faith is tied to who we are, and therefore, we develop into the person we really are--a believer or not. Therefore, I can't know I'm really saved because I can't know what type of person I will develop into.

To correct the last line, "Therefore, [Jac believes] I can't know I'm really saved because I can't know what type of person I will develop into." Hopefully my last response sheds additional light on this matter, and in particular, that I can know I'm really saved by knowing the person I am (which is a part of the person I will develop into).

In order to argue I really do not know, Jac needs to prove that we can not know who we really are at all. I disagree and see no reason for this. Even if who we eventually develop is not set in stone until say the end of our lives, I think we can certainly in the very least know aspects of who we are a lot more strongly than other more uncertain aspects.

[B. W.]

Jack — you are causing me a smile and a friendly admiring laugh! I think we are not agreeing on what faith is, does, or its purpose so we are misreading each other completely! I hope this rambling helps clear up a few things as I am not arguing or even debating - just exploring...

…Finally, you say here that if a person loses their faith then God is forced to deny His Word. What Word must He deny? I'll have to see Scripture to back up that claim, my friend.

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

John 10 for another and 1 John 1:1-10 — 1 John 2:1-6 — I ask — do you have faith in these statements from God's word?

There are two kinds of faith — faith in faith which is centered upon the human condition and Faith in the Lord as revealed by the word of God.

I am hearing you say 'that people cannot have faith in anything even in what Jesus says because it is not faith that saves us. Only God's Grace does [which is factually true]. Yet you need faith to become saved because you hear the words of Christ. Yet, even that faith is suspect because faith in anything cannot be trusted — even what you heard from the gospel message. Therefore, no one can ever be sure they are saved. If you are saying this — then the Lord would end up denying his word.

Yes, God's Grace saves us and that alone. Faith does not keep you saved — it helps you learn who God is and what our duty is during this life God assigns us. It builds hope and Faith energizes — activates Love as Galatians 5: 6 states. What is it that God requires? - To Love him and our fellow members of His Church. How does this come about?

You hear of his great love on the cross, you hear and faith begins to grow — grow what? Where will such faith take a person? Notice that Faith involves activities involving the mind and heart — being persuaded, becoming fully assured, being loyal, fidelity, trusting, dependable — all are actives of the human mind and heart.

Salvation — God's love shown upon the cross is a gift. Do you believe in that gift when thou first heard? Faith begins when you first heard and carries you to the finish line and beyond.

Faith does not keep you or I saved — it is the means by which we learn about God and learn to love God and others. It grows. That is the difference I think we have concerning what faith is and does. If am reading you correctly, faith to you is unimportantly important.

Gal 3:26 -(ALT), “For you* are all sons [and daughters] of God by means of faith in Christ Jesus.”

God's Grace saves us, not our faith, yet our faith is energized by such grace! Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God Paul wrote in Romans 10. To say that faith is not necessary would indeed cause God to deny his word. How? - well should God remain silent and never speak? What then? How could anyone be saved? Arbitrary selection would be the only answer then. Thus God's justice denied, his love disproved, his power limited by being not able to work all things together for his purposes. In fact, God's own grace would be denied. God would deny Himself to His creation. Ponder this longer.

Romans 10:16, “But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?” KJV

God's word has an effect. If you look closely — that effect confronts a person with a choice. If a person repents the Lord will do this and that and if not…is a common theme in scripture. If you believe in Christ thou will be saved and if not… again this theme is offered in the New Testament denoting the confrontation of choice God's word has upon people. God's word test a person to see if they will have a living faith in a living God or a static faith that trust only in human ability, reason, etc.

Heb 10:36-39, "For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise. 37 For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry. 38 Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. 39 But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul." KJV

Those that draw back to perdition are the ones God's word tested that their faith is in themselves — they love themselves more than God and will never love God. They were never saved. Next, Faith — believe to the saving of the soul means what?

Note: Luke 5:20-25, “And seeing their faith, He said to him, Man, your sins have been forgiven you.”

How does an all seeing most powerful being see — perceive others thoughts before they were thought? The Lord perceives that his word will have an effect and still offers it to all. Some will hear others will not. His word sorts out the wheat from the chaff. It pierces the inner most recesses of the human heart discerning, judging, its thoughts and intents.

Without His word none could learn of his gift of grace. Faith would remain static damning all to perdition. By his word — Faith is made alive and new! How? By trusting, believing in the Lord which leads to what? - seeking after Him, His kingdom, His love!

Hebrews 11:6, “But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.”

Before I even attempt to answer anymore, I need to ask you Jac if you have ever been through the wringer? Lost all through a storm? Had a person betray you? Suffered tragically for the gospel? Did you ever have a life event of momentous trial and suffering, deprivation of either soul or body or both, loss? If not, then of course you would not understand what I am talking about how faith is made alive and new in the heart, mind, and soul of a person who has.

Faith is made new alive — Faith in the Lord grows and awakens, activates, a deepening love for God who helped you endure/overcome. If you never had been through trials, my language will be foreign and faith will just remain a definition on a page in the dictionary and something never lived

Let me add one more thing so readers will not get the wrong idea. Faith also grows through the happy moments of life, the joys, seeing a sunrise, a dawn of a new day, good food, friends, helping and aiding others, caring, sharing, loving, laughing, enjoying good, these things and more also makes one's faith alive and new too. In all things give thanks to the Lord for his mercy endureth forever!
.
-
-
-

[Kurieuo]

An interesting question I thought of in reading B.W.'s post:

Is faith in Christ something that can grow or decrease with a person, or merely something someone either has or does not have.

As far as I can see B.W. and I would believe the former, whereas Jac can only believe the latter since having faith is in no way related to who we are. To comment further on my own belief, while someone's faith in Christ can be stronger or weaker than someone else's, what matters to salvation is that someone has faith in Christ.

[Jac3510]

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

I already talked about this verse and how it offers absolutely no support to the idea that God will guarantee our faith until the end of our lives. Rather that restate my case, I'll just quote myself:

• And as for your passing reference to Phil 1:6, that verse has absolutely nothing to do with our personal faith. Paul is talking about the missionary work (the good work) that God began (through Paul) BY (not in) the Philippians' consistent fellowship with Paul in the Gospel. The application to modern believers is that God will bring to fruitition the work God begins by us and through us, and we will therefore be rewarded for it in the Day of Christ Jesus.

If you insist, I can offer a detailed analysis of the verse and context. You'll find the view well supported by commentators as well. Hawthorne in the Word Biblical commentary, for instance, is a good advocate, though not the only one by any means.

John 10 for another and 1 John 1:1-10 — 1 John 2:1-6 — I ask — do you have faith in these statements from God's word?

I believe we have also talked extensively about John 10 as well--the Shepherd and His Flock. The passage has nothing to do with our own perseverance, but everything to do with God's preservation of our salvation, aka, eternal security. Again, I need to see a passage that says we are guaranteed to maintain our faith until we die, not one that says we are guaranteed salvation. I believe the latter.

Neither is 1 John 2:1-6 talking about any guarantee that we will continue in faith and good works. I shudder to think that anyone would take it that way. Does anyone consistently walk the way Jesus walked? Of course not, which is why John says that even when we sin, Jesus is our Advocate. Anyway, John is talking about how we know we are in proper fellowship with God, how we know that we are abiding in Him. It is possible to be saved and not to abide. That is, we can stray from our relationship with God. So if someone says that they have a close walk with God, but they do not keep His commandments, we know that they are wrong. They have no such walk. They are either lying to us or are simply deceived!

There are two kinds of faith — faith in faith which is centered upon the human condition and Faith in the Lord as revealed by the word of God.

That isn't two kinds of faith, BW. That would be two different OBJECTS of faith, of which there is only one kind. I've already shown in this thread that faith is believing something, being persuaded something is true, or being assured of something. If we believe human statements, the object of our faith is human. If we believe God's testimony, the object of our faith is God.

I am hearing you say 'that people cannot have faith in anything even in what Jesus says because it is not faith that saves us. Only God's Grace does [which is factually true]. Yet you need faith to become saved because you hear the words of Christ. Yet, even that faith is suspect because faith in anything cannot be trusted — even what you heard from the gospel message. Therefore, no one can ever be sure they are saved. If you are saying this — then the Lord would end up denying his word.

I'm not sure how you heard me say that. I've repeatedly said that we are called to believe Jesus' promise (John 3:16; 6:47; etc.). Again, though, it is not that faith that saves. It is God's grace that saves. As it stands, God applies His saving grace THROUGH faith, but that is by His sovereign choice. It certainly isn't by mine!

Now, the second half of this absolutely boggles my mind. You hear me saying that I cannot be absolutely certain of my faith? BW, that is exactly the OPPOSITE of what I am saying. I am arguing that not only can I be absolutely certain, but I MUST be absolutely certain, because that is what faith is. It is certainty. How are you getting out of my posts that I don't believe we can be certain about our faith??? The entire discussion with K about my fideism is rooted in the fact that I believe certainty is possible.

Now, I do argue that in K's system of thought, certainty is impossible. But that is his line of thought, not mine. Perhaps you've gotten my arguments FOR my position mixed up with my arguments AGAINST K's position?

Yes, God's Grace saves us and that alone. Faith does not keep you saved — it helps you learn who God is and what our duty is during this life God assigns us. It builds hope and Faith energizes — activates Love as Galatians 5: 6 states. What is it that God requires? - To Love him and our fellow members of His Church. How does this come about?

Are you actually saying that we are required to love God and to love the Church in order to be saved?

Faith does not keep you or I saved — it is the means by which we learn about God and learn to love God and others. It grows. That is the difference I think we have concerning what faith is and does. If am reading you correctly, faith to you is unimportantly important.

I am interested in your statement "faith grows." If you mean that in the sense of "my belief becomes more and more sure" then I strongly disagree. Belief is belief. I believe I exist. I don't believe that more today than I did yesterday. If, though, you mean that I can come to believe more and deeper truths concerning God, I of course agree.

And as far as reading me correctly, I have no idea what "unimportantly important" means. What I can tell you is that faith is VERY important in my scheme of things. We are saved by believing biblical truth, not biblical language. Many people claim that they believe salvation is by "faith alone," and yet they define "faith" so that it includes such concepts as confession, repentance, commitment of life, etc. Such a notion is simply absurd. It creates a false gospel.

Gal 3:26 -(ALT), “For you* are all sons [and daughters] of God by means of faith in Christ Jesus.”

God's Grace saves us, not our faith, yet our faith is energized by such grace! Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God Paul wrote in Romans 10. To say that faith is not necessary would indeed cause God to deny his word. How? - well should God remain silent and never speak? What then? How could anyone be saved? Arbitrary selection would be the only answer then. Thus God's justice denied, his love disproved, his power limited by being not able to work all things together for his purposes. In fact, God's own grace would be denied. God would deny Himself to His creation. Ponder this longer.

I'm not sure how you get the idea that our faith is energized by God's grace from this verse. It just says that through faith in Christ we are children of God. And what is this about faith not being necessary. Where did I say that? This is several posts in a row where you have seriously misread me. Am I just not being clear?

Romans 10:16, “But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?” KJV

God's word has an effect. If you look closely — that effect confronts a person with a choice. If a person repents the Lord will do this and that and if not…is a common theme in scripture. If you believe in Christ thou will be saved and if not… again this theme is offered in the New Testament denoting the confrontation of choice God's word has upon people. God's word test a person to see if they will have a living faith in a living God or a static faith that trust only in human ability, reason, etc.

Again, not to be trite, but where did I say that God's word did not have an effect? As far as God's Word is concerned, He tells us a fact: whoever believes has everlasting life (John 6:47). Now, we simply believe that or we don't believe that. If you believe that, you believe that God is telling the truth and you therefore have everlasting life. If you don't believe that--if you believe that something other than faith is necessary--then you call God a liar. You do not believe He is telling the truth, and therefore, you do not have everlasting life.

The sad truth is that MOST people do not believe God is telling the truth. I'm reminded about the gate being narrow that leads to life . . .

Heb 10:36-39, "For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise. 37 For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry. 38 Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. 39 But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul." KJV

Those that draw back to perdition are the ones God's word tested that their faith is in themselves — they love themselves more than God and will never love God. They were never saved. Next, Faith — believe to the saving of the soul means what?

You have SERIOUSLY misunderstood this passage. Let me quote the whole thing in context:

• 32Remember those earlier days after you had received the light, when you stood your ground in a great contest in the face of suffering. 33Sometimes you were publicly exposed to insult and persecution; at other times you stood side by side with those who were so treated. 34You sympathized with those in prison and joyfully accepted the confiscation of your property, because you knew that you yourselves had better and lasting possessions. 35So do not throw away your confidence; it will be richly rewarded. 36You need to persevere so that when you have done the will of God, you will receive what he has promised. 37For in just a very little while, "He who is coming will come and will not delay.38But my righteous one will live by faith. And if he shrinks back, I will not be pleased with him." 39But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who believe and are saved.

Notice the bolded parts. He is talking to Christians who are under attack. Many of them are falling away from the faith, and Paul is warning them that they will be severely judged if they do. Against this, he encourages them to live by faith. Why? So that they may be richly rewarded! If they fall back, however, they will not be rewarded. They will be chastised. Rewards are in view in this passage, not salvation.

Note: Luke 5:20-25, “And seeing their faith, He said to him, Man, your sins have been forgiven you.”

How does an all seeing most powerful being see — perceive others thoughts before they were thought? The Lord perceives that his word will have an effect and still offers it to all. Some will hear others will not. His word sorts out the wheat from the chaff. It pierces the inner most recesses of the human heart discerning, judging, its thoughts and intents.

Without His word none could learn of his gift of grace. Faith would remain static damning all to perdition. By his word — Faith is made alive and new! How? By trusting, believing in the Lord which leads to what? - seeking after Him, His kingdom, His love!

You aren't really using this verse to support any doctrine of salvation, are you? Let's not gloss over the fact that the faith seen in this passage is NOT the faith of the paralytic, but the faith of his FRIENDS. You surely don't believe that your friends will be saved from Hell because YOU believe, do you? Forgiveness of sin is not the same thing as being saved from Hell. Why? Because sin isn't what keeps us out of Heaven. Jesus took care of sin--ALL sin--on the Cross (1 John 2:2). What keeps us out of Heaven is not believing God's testimony concerning His Son. If we don't believe Him, we are never born again, which means we die in Adam. Since only those in Christ are saved, if we die in Adam, we spend eternity in Hell.

Hebrews 11:6, “But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.”

Before I even attempt to answer anymore, I need to ask you Jac if you have ever been through the wringer? Lost all through a storm? Had a person betray you? Suffered tragically for the gospel? Did you ever have a life event of momentous trial and suffering, deprivation of either soul or body or both, loss? If not, then of course you would not understand what I am talking about how faith is made alive and new in the heart, mind, and soul of a person who has.

Faith is made new alive — Faith in the Lord grows and awakens, activates, a deepening love for God who helped you endure/overcome. If you never had been through trials, my language will be foreign and faith will just remain a definition on a page in the dictionary and something never lived

Let me add one more thing so readers will not get the wrong idea. Faith also grows through the happy moments of life, the joys, seeing a sunrise, a dawn of a new day, good food, friends, helping and aiding others, caring, sharing, loving, laughing, enjoying good, these things and more also makes one's faith alive and new too. In all things give thanks to the Lord for his mercy endureth forever!

First off, before I answer your question, I don't see what Heb 11:6 has to do with trials or tribulation? I can think of much better passages than that. Regardless, of course I have been through difficult times. I have had my fair share of mountain peeks and my fair share of valleys. I have been so elated that I could barely think straight, and I have been so broken that all I could do was lay in front of the porcelain god with a freshly emptied stomach trying to stop the shaking.

We are to live a life of faith, BW. That is, we are to live by resting in the absolute knowledge that God Himself will and has provided for our needs. We are to rest in Him. Without such confidence, it is impossible to please God. But that confidence is not guaranteed to any believer, nor is it required for salvation.

Now . . . I am still waiting on a single verse that guarantees that my faith will be preserved until I die. In the meantime, I am still waiting on an answer to the same question I have been asking from the very beginning of this entire thread: If true faith endures until the end, then how can I know that MY faith is true faith? I look around me and see hundreds of people who were just as convinced as K that they believed, and yet today, they don't believe anymore. K seems to think he is right where they were wrong, although he feels no need to justify that claim. He refuses to recognizes that the very real possibility (that he has acknowledged even concerning himself) that a person's faith may turn out to be non-existent, in whatever terms you wish to say that, means that his own faith may turn out to be non-existent. So I am asking you: if faith must endure until the end, how do YOU know that YOUR faith will endure until the end. Billy Graham's didn't. Charles Templeton's didn't. Dan Barker's didn't. Anthony Flew's didn't. Bart Ehrman's didn't. So many early Christians lost their faith that Paul wrote an entire epistle dealing with the subject. In light of their apostasy, even though they would have all said they were SURE they were saved, how can YOU be sure that you yourself will never apostatize? What makes you so different from them?

[Jac3510]

Alright K - let's look at your side of the discussion again.

As Jac clarified, it is true that for my position Jac sees we can not know we have faith. I on the other hand do not believe this for my position. I claim to know I will still have faith in Christ when I die. Jac challenges that claims for he finds it odd. The funny thing about knowledge, and this is where Jac and I appear to differ, is that any knowledge we have can be wrong.

Right now, this is all I need to deal with. Look at the part I bolded. Are you REALLY saying that you believe absolute certainty is impossible? Do you really believe that we can't know ANYTHING for sure?

But let's just run this out a step further: even IF I concede your point (and I most definitely don't), I still don't see by your own logic how you can know that you have faith. It sounds as if you are saying, "Well, I personally believe that I believe based on my intuitive knowledge of myself. Now, it is true that intuitive knowledge of the self has proven to be absolutely worthless so far as a justification of self-knowledge goes, but because I am not in the shoes of those whose intuition was wrong, that rule doesn't apply to me. So I'm still sure I believe just because I'm still sure I believe."

I repeatedly get back to the same point: What makes you different from Graham, Ehrman, Templeton, Barker, or any of the other hundreds of people who believed at one point and then stopped believing? Semantics aside (I think I've shown I understand your position), how do you know you will not stop believing? How do you know who you are when we have demonstrated that self-intuition is unreliable? And what do you do with all the verses I previously sited in which God says that we cannot know ourselves?

Again, I provided to problem I see with your view, neither of which you have really addressed. If you feel my responses to your objections to my position were not adequate, please let me know, but for now, as they have gone without response, I have to assume that you recognize my position to be self-consistent. I want to be able to say the same for your position. So my two arguments were this:

1. In light of the fact that individuals have "stopped believing," on what grounds can you say that you know you believe that is different from their own grounds?
2. How is a fallen man--complete in his ontologically fallen self--supposed to establish an ongoing relationship with Christ?

And as an aside, when, in your view, is a person born again? Or do you even believe that people are born again?

[Jac3510]

I keep noticing things I missed.

Ok, first, HAT-TRICK!!!!!!!!!!

To correct the last line, "Therefore, [Jac believes] I can't know I'm really saved because I can't know what type of person I will develop into." Hopefully my last response sheds additional light on this matter, and in particular, that I can know I'm really saved by knowing the person I am (which is a part of the person I will develop into).

But this is my whole point, K. How do you know what kind of person you will develop into? Both the Bible and history teach that there are people who professed belief, just as you and I do now, but who developed into people of no faith. So how do YOU know that YOU won't develop into such a person?

In order to argue I really do not know, Jac needs to prove that we can not know who we really are at all. I disagree and see no reason for this. Even if who we eventually develop is not set in stone until say the end of our lives, I think we can certainly in the very least know aspects of who we are a lot more strongly than other more uncertain aspects.

That's pretty easy to prove:

1. Who I will be is dependent, in part, on who I am now.
2. I cannot be certain who I will be when I die.
3. Therefore, I cannot be certain of who I am now.

You see, there are no certain aspects. Forget faith in Christ for a minute. Let's say your favorite color is blue. That is part of who you are. But how do you know that when you die that your favorite color will still be blue? Or that you will still loved mashed potatoes. Or that your favorite band will still be The Who? You don't know any of those things will still be true. Therefore, by your logic, you don't know if they are true now.

You don't "know" yourself at all. The best you have is a big bag of uncertainties in which you can point to vague shadows of what looks like might be reality. And again, all this without even considering what the Fall has done to our nature . . .

[B. W.]

Jac, as I understand your position. It seems like it places an 'unimportant importance' upon the role of faith. It seems to me that you are saying that a person can lose faith easily to apathy, ignorance, or even fiery trials. Yet at the same time you state faith is important but however not necessary. Does faith then have no more importance than cow dung? Cow dung is good for fertilizer and making methane gas. Other than that, it can produce nothing else. Such faith has an 'unimportant importance' to it and basically is not needed so why bother?

Is that what you are trying to get at? Just believe but beware that this belief in Christ may most likely fail in due course of time, but however, you'll remain saved just because you assented to Christological facts about Jesus' work upon the cross and resurrection? Such trivialization of faith in God leads to an apathetic attitude — after all why bother with faith at all?

What good is such simple believism? You miss what salvation is all about and what eternal life is, John 17:3. Is having such unimportant important faith in his word mere gas and wind? Where does such faith lead you too — most likely apathy, ignorance, falling away when the season gets rough hmmm - the same state that much of modern Christendom is finding itself in?

A tree is known by its fruit. God has another way — a plan, a purpose, for you and I and that is to learn from and of him and become transformed into a new man in Christ, to arrive, takes faith. God's Grace is what saves us, not our faith, yet our faith is energized by such grace! Faith is needed and extremely important, not as the means to stay saved, but rather how one becomes transformed by the power of God!

Note what the word of God says in 1 Peter 1:3-9, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 to an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that does not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, 5 who are kept by the power of God through faith for salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. 6 In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while, if need be, you have been grieved by various trials, 7 that the genuineness of your faith, being much more precious than gold that perishes, though it is tested by fire, may be found to praise, honor, and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ, 8 whom having not seen you love. Though now you do not see Him, yet believing, you rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory, 9 receiving the end of your faith—the salvation of your souls.” NKJV

Faith in God develops within us loyalty, dependability, complete assurance/trust in and fidelity too the Lord. Without such faith how do you learn of the Lord and to know him? This development of our faith through the various means God uses is more value to him than all the gold and silver in the universe — such tested — purified faith is priceless to God! Why? That such faith praises, brings honor, and shines glory that revels who Jesus Christ is and all he does cementing one to the salvation Christ Jesus paid for on that old rugged cross.

What do I mean by 'cementing us to the Lord' is this: You will not rebel in heaven because faith refined and purified love toward the Lord through various living lesson learned during this mortal life that draw you near and dear to God. The Lord paid a priceless gift and this gift begins the journey of living priceless faith that the Lord will develop in all his children. This living faith is priceless and not manure.

You cannot lose faith through apathy because God will use ones very apathy in such a manner that his child is shaken out of it to return to God. Such is the love of God! He spares no rest to seek that which strayed!

You cannot lose faith through fiery trials because God will shine through somethow and restore your soul. Ask Corrie ten Boom as well as a host of others who thought they lost faith but instead discovered it anew! Such is the love of God! He spares no expense to seek and restore a wayward soul trapped in desperate despair!

You cannot lose faith through ignorance because God will use that ignorance in such a way that drives his child to seek his wisdom! Such is the love of God! He spares no expense to educate his child!

You cannot just lose such priceless faith by just walking away as God will turn such child around in due course of time. He will address the reason for such turning away in a manner that brings them back to the fold. You doubt God? You know not God — the Lord with such love that makes the angry, restless soul finally find rest.

Yet there are those that claim they are or were Christians but who never were as word of God proved their faith to be in themselves, other things, ideas, they had no roots to endure the storms, statically stuck upon the worries and cares of this life, and such is snatched away by the evil one.

Do not confuse these with God's real children. Whose faith is being refined by various means! You may not even be able to distinguish between the two so judge-not, pray, and seek the Lord on you role that he would have you play regarding them. You might be the instrument that the Lord uses to restore living faith to the wayward or the axe that divides the sheep from the goats, note 2 John 1:9.

In conclusion, 1 Peter 1:3-9 states, “receiving the end of your faith—the salvation of your souls.” NKJV

That is why it is priceless for God to refine and purify your faith in him through it all, He will lead you home, he will never leave you nor forsake you. Such is the great love of God and the price he paid to make sure you arrive, intact, purified, sanctified, justified, new, and whole again!Romans 8:29

1 Peter1: 9, “κομιζόμενοι τὸ τ݁λος τῆς π߁στεως [ὑμῶν], σωτηρ߁αν ψυχῶν.” NA26

Translation from N26 —“Receiving back [at the] end, conclusion [of —your-] faith - salvations life — or salvations breath of life” Note — context of verses directly prior indicate this verse is speaking to the 'you' hence 'your' can and should be added in.

Jac, are you stating that a person can lose something that God pricelessly spends time to develop in order to transform us from the kingdom of darkness into his kingdom of light? Then if so, God would have to deny himself here in these very passages as well as all throughout his word — all his words that increase and restore ones faith in him would be denied as impossible for God to perform!

God's grace saves us and activates either 'living faith' or 'static faith' and if living faith, it is refined through various living processes to complete our faith in him. He who began a good work in you will complete in until the day of Christ! Philippians 1:6.

But if 'static faith' is found, these tares will be allowed to grow together with the wheat as even they may have a role to play to strengthen the wheat, Matthew 13:37-43.

You know a tree by its fruit Jesus said. What doctrine increases and builds faith in God? A doctrine that explains that the Lord will never let you go, will see you through to the end, will never leave you nor will ever forsake you because of his great Grace? That He will help you and provide help and aid in time of need and see you through all life's storms? Try to walk away and He will go after you and bring you home from where you have strayed? God Loves and he will never let you go.

Or a doctrine that says, oh yes you are saved by God's Grace however you can expect to lose your faith as faith is a fickle human thing. After all, Faith is not all that necessary for salvation. You are really saved by just accepting it as simple fact and then just forget about it, no hassle, no worry, no offense whatsoever. So why not sin, since such great grace that saved us abounds! What is to stop you? - you are saved!"

Which doctrine and profession of God's word will build faith in God and overcome the world? 1 John 5:4. Leading you closer to the Lord and knowing him more and each day?

1 Peter 1:5, “5 who are kept by the power of God through faith for salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.” NKJV

1 Peter 1:13, 21-25
-
-
-