Event vrs Process Justification

Hey Bob

The Modern Day Sadducee typically believes in God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. Dan Corner unashamedly writes: The true plan of salvation is repentance towards God and faith in Christ Jesus (Acts 20:21). However, his bottom line is that his trust in God is not enough. For Corner, believers must actively and faithfully work to maintain their tentative position in God’s favor or find themselves in hell.

Modern Day Sadducees are experts at saying both “Yes” and “No” in the same sentence. Because they do not honor God’s complete and final provision through Jesus Christ, the fear of hell becomes the dominating force of their lives instead of love for Christ. The Acid Test to determine whether or not you are speaking with a Sadducee is to ask: Can I remove myself from God’s grip on my life? If the answer is “Yes,” then be assured that you are talking with a Modern Day Sadducee. Avoid talking theology with that person and focus instead on the plan of salvation.

It is my deepest hope that this section will unveil God’s mighty provisions of salvation for all those that believe (Rom 1:16). The word salvation is purposely used sparingly in this book. The purpose is not to merely talk justification and avoid sanctification. The goal is to understand that the believer’s security resides wholly and only in justification. Although sanctification has nothing to do with justification, it is an important aspect in the total plan of God’s saving plan of redemption. Sanctification is the process by which believers grow into the image of Jesus Christ.

Sanctification is downplayed here only to emphasize the NSNS error of combining it with justification. Justification and sanctification are the twin truths that together describe a saving relationship with God – but they must be kept distinct.

The true harmonization key is presented in the the analogy of inseparable, parallel, yet distinct.

One cannot properly understand the totality of scripture unless one can understand this parallelism. Please note that this is not the most general overarching framework for understanding the issue before us. Section 1 merely showed how the NSNS view wrongly twisted the various passages out of context according to their view as presented in the above figure. The OSAS view rightly shows the parallel but distinct concepts of justification and sanctification.

However, these right concepts must be understood against the backdrop of the Hebraic understanding of covenants. The chapter on covenants is an important generalization of Scripture. But even this is not the final stop. The outworking of God’s covenants in justification and sanctification is based on the inter-relationships existing within the Trinity.
Theology at every turn begins, ends and is centered on God – not fickle human rights, abilities or faithful endurance.

Lloyd

 

Hey Bob

Eternal Security is victory over the penalty, power, and presence of sin by way of God’s mighty provisions through Jesus on our behalf.

Eternal Security is not against the law. It does not change God’s grace into a license to sin. Holiness is the biblical standard that all must embrace. Being saved does not mean that believers can safely live in sin. Robert Brinsmead notes that a golden ring in a pig’s snout is more becoming than talk of salvation by grace on the tongue of those who disdain to obey God’s commandments.

Although Eternal Security is against sin and for holiness, it affirms that Christians can apostatize. The harmonization key shows that these false NSNS accusations come from their unscriptural understanding that makes justification dependent on sanctification. The refutation of these accusations comes from understanding that justification must be kept distinct from sanctification. Although both justification and sanctification depend on faith, the faith of justification leads to a secure destiny while sanctification depends on obedience, faithfulness, endurance which leads to rewards. Rewards are far different than destiny!

Lloyd

 

Hey Bob

Most people don’t have a clear idea of what Eternal Security means. True, most would be able to say something about gaining heaven or avoiding hell. Some would be able to speak of Eternal Security as an issue of destiny. Only a few would be able to say that Eternal Security is the possession of all spiritual blessings in the heavenly places “in Christ” (Eph 1:3). John declares that believers are NOW the children of God (1 John 3:1-2). Eternal Security is more than some conditional “pie in the sky” future event. Eternal Security is a present possession as well as a future promise!

What would be a good definition of Eternal Security? Stanley doesn’t attempt a definition. There are many snippets. Walvoord says, “Eternal Security is the logical outcome of regeneration.” Whiting talks about it negatively saying to deny Eternal Security: sets aside God’s sovereignty, denies the sufficiency of the Cross, and turns a deaf ear to the clear teachings of scripture. Eternal Security is not a doctrine which guarantees the end apart from the means of salvation through Jesus Christ. For Wilkin, Eternal Security is “based on His faithfulness, not ours” (2 Tim 2:13).

Rokser provides a good working definition:

Gromacki talks around it by discussing what it means to be saved using nearly 40 pages in the process. Gromacki lists a significant sequence of spiritual blessings associated with God’s glorious salvation. His chapter follows on the heels of defining what it means to be lost.
Another good working definition of Eternal Security is:

This definition is structured around the three tenses of justification: past salvation over the penalty of sin, present salvation from the power of sin, and future salvation from the presence of sin. Notice that there is no reference to overcoming sin – (sin is not endorsed or encouraged)!

If Eternal Security only meant conditional security why would God have used those words? The NSNS view carefully uses other words such as “hope” or “that we might attain.” If they ever use the word eternal they quickly add many qualifiers so that “eternal” is redefined to mean “conditional.” A typical redefinition would be something like this: “Although God’s forgiveness is full and free, it is nevertheless conditional.”

The Bible records 30 usages of “eternal life” in 26 verses. Why would God use eternal when there are so many words implying the conditionality of human faithfulness? God could have used: applicant, aspirant, brief, candidate, conditional, draft, eligible, ephemeral, fleeting, impermanent, initial, interim, momentary, nominee, opening, pilot, preliminary, pro tem, provisional, recruit, restricted, qualified, short-termed, temporary, transitory, uncertain, etc.

Instead, the Bible uses words like: confident (48 times - Phil 1:6), endless (2 times – Heb 7:16), eternal (47 times – Titus 1:2), everlasting (97 times – John 6:40), sure (2 Tim 2:19, Heb 6:19, 2 Pet 1:10), and uttermost (Heb 7:25). Salvation can be known (1 John 5:13) with certainty (Luke 1:4). The hope of eternal life is not like the hope of winning a lottery. It is a hope only in that we look forward to something that is certain. It is a hope only because while we are living we can’t be in heaven enjoying the certainty of fellowship with God and other believers.

Eternal Security means that the game of life is already over while the participants are losing individual battles left and right. Eternal Security is a better hope than a silly gamblers hope since believers know the outcome before the end. The struggles of life are less than nothing compared to the security of an eternity reveling, basking, and exulting in indescribably close intimate fellowship with God. Don’t get me wrong – works are still important – but for sanctification.

This is only a partial initial discussion of eternal security. This initial idea of eternal security needs to be augmented by all of the other concepts provided in this section: God’s purposes, promises and provisions, Christ’s multi-facet work on our behalf, and the ministries of God’s Spirit. By the time that you reach the end of this section, you will know that eternal security truly is the doctrine that verifies and validates all systems.

But there are some who will do what they can to defy God’s Word and promote a lie in lieu of the truth. Let’s see some standard ruses and deceptions used to blind people to the eternal truth of God’s covenantal faithfulness.

God bless!
Lloyd

 

Greetings

The Never Saved - Never Sure (NSNS) view typically confuses the real issues. They react by using ignorance together with fear to erect a false argument that is wrongly attributed to the OSAS position. This false view is then attributed to the OSAS position. This twisting of the arguments is known as the logical fallacy called “a strawman.” The NSNS view then attacks the false strawman and discredits it. Their hope is that you are deceived into believing that the strawman is the real OSAS view. In the process of defeating the strawman they would like you to believe that they have defeated the OSAS view and hence claim theological victory. This works rather well when the biblically ignorant are involved. Here are some of their more common strawmen.

Strawman #1: Antinomian.
A good example of this deception is the misunderstanding of the Calvinist doctrine of perseverance. Are all Calvinistics antinomian? Antinomian means that one is against the law. Evil would attribute this to Calvinists who claim that salvation is secure because of God’s saving decrees from before the foundation of the world. Hence, evil thinks that all Calvinists hold that works are not important for salvation. At this point evil fails to distinguish the Calvinist view of justification which is completely separate and distinction from sanctification. In theological confusion, it wrongly accuses the Calvinist of lawlessness.

This is not an honest exchange and has the devil’s fingerprints all over it. No Calvinist would appreciate being equated to the strawman that is against the law. Paul declared that the law was still valid (Rom 3:31). So the evil tactic is unethical because no reasonable system is against the law. The differences between various systems are the correct applications of the law.

Calvinist know that justification and sanctification are in a PARALLEL and distinction relationship as is shown in the figure given in the introduction. Calvinists and other OSAS advocates also know that works, law or obedience are not used to determine justification – but that these are a very important part of the continuous sanctification process!

The biblical understanding of salvation is a liberating freedom from bondage to sin. We are set free from sin and the devil so that we can be bond servants to and for Jesus Christ. Salvation places us firmly in the liberty by which we stand “in Christ” (Gal 5:1). Salvation from sin is not a license to sin. This aspect of salvation is called sanctification. It is in parallel with justification.

Those who deny Christ bring an emotional outburst based solely upon ignorance of scripture and personnel failure to enter into an honest exchange in the spirit of Christian love and gracious communication.

Lloyd

 

Strawman #2: Grace Changers
Again, the NSNS view provides another example of a wild unscrupulous untheological accusation. It declares that those who teach God’s faithfulness to His promises to believers from a one time act of faith are “grace changers.” It uses “a security-in-sin gospel” to make you think that the OSAS view endorses sin. Then, it lists a few spiritual sounding verses yanked out of context, forces his unbiblical spin on them and then declares that anyone who doesn’t hold to his self-righteous works perversion of the scriptures is a “grace changer.” It is actually a pretty smooth argument if you naturally recoil against the “security-in-sin” phrase and are ignorant of the biblical teaching on the subject.

Here, the issue isn’t that one side believes in grace while the other side doesn’t. That is Corner’s spin on things to make you think that only he has the right view. But both sides believe in grace! The issue isn’t that one side is against sin while the other side is for sin. Both sides believe in living a sin-free grace-filled life of obedience! But the OSAS side sees salvation as God’s grace as a gift that is to be passively received by faith in Jesus Christ – end of the discussion. But the NSNS side see God’s grace as something that needs to be perfected by repeatable enduring works of personal faithfulness. The NSNS view reasons that God’s salvation may be a gift, but then one has to work hard, persevere, by faithful, hold to the end, etc. in order to keep the gift.

Scripture declares that righteousness is by faith (Rom 4:3). The promise through faith is according to grace (Rom 4:15-16). Scripture also puts grace in opposition to one who works. Moreover, any work of faithfulness is counted as a debt (Rom 4:4). The law has no part in faith by grace (Rom 4:15-16). So when one has to be faithful in order to keep God’s gift of grace, then grace ceases to be grace. If salvation is kept by faithfulness, then salvation is by works (Rom 11:6).

The OSAS view holds to faith by grace plus nothing. The NSNS view holds to faith by grace plus human responsibility to do faithful works. According to Romans, not only is Dan Corner wrong for wrongly attributing this nasty strawman to the OSAS position, but he himself is guilty of the very things that he criticizes in his false strawman. Who can be perfect?

The NSNS view has now changed God’s gracious gift of salvation given freely through faith in Jesus to something that has a “string” demanding some human obligation. It has changed grace into human faithfulness. Human faithfulness failed so miserably under the OT that when the apostles were faced with the very same corrupting NSNS view, they (through Peter) were quick to condemn it saying,

If the negative response wasn’t enough they rephrased it positively saying,

 

Greetings

Here is yet another strawman common used instead of Bible.

Strawman #3: The Present Tense Grammatical Error
Scripture is very clear about Eternal Security in the original languages: Hebrew in the OT and Greek in the NT. The NSNS view has to scurry fast and hard to cover up this consistent OSAS affirmation. The standard method of avoiding this powerful truth is to force every Greek present tense verb into a continuous or habitual idea rather than a presentation of a timeless truth. Again, the NSNS’s blindness to the biblical languages provides yet another opportunity to twist Scripture out of context.

John 11:25-26 is a typical example of how the NSNS view forces every present tense verb to be translated as “a continuous tense in the Greek.” For the NSNS view, this means that Jesus declared that the righteous would never die spiritually as long as they maintained this type of belief. But this strawman is built on a half-truth. Since most laypersons don’t know Greek, they cannot readily challenge this NSNS error.

But the underlying Greek, in verse (26), uses the double negative with a subjunctive (ou me with apofavn) to highlight the utter impossibility of the NSNS denial. Why doesn’t Corner mention that the double negative (ou me) by itself is used to highlight or underscore the impossibility of the stated action occurring?

This is a beginning level Greek idea that the NSNS view stumbles over. The double negative stresses the total absence of what it negates.

Second, while the simple present mood denotes reality, the simple subjunctive mood denotes a step away from reality into probability. So on the flip side while the negative of the present denies reality, the negative of the subjunctive denies even a step away from reality. Together the double negative with the aorist subjunctive has the force of a categorical and emphatic denial. Wallace says that ou me with the subjunctive “rules out even the idea as being a possibility.”

The Greek language is doing everything possible to make a categorical gnomic assertion that any act of faith in Jesus denies even the potential of spiritual death. Jesus is preaching eternal life. How much clearer does it have to be? Even a beginning knowledge of Greek would prevent this error.

Enjoy!
Lloyd

 

Strawman #4: All who are saved can safely live in sin.

The NSNS view claims that Eternal Security is the basis to sanction sin. Stauffer provides the following partial summary: “if a person is truly born again by the Spirit of God, he is saved eternally, no matter how he lives and how he dies.” However, there is a hidden trap in his incomplete summary. Stauffer lays the basis for judgment on his ability to judge. Now Stauffer would deny any right to judge since that is God’s alone. But he sneaks around this by laying right to be a “fruit inspector.” Although there is some truth to the claim, the danger is that there is no clear cut guide beyond Scripture’s mandate to be perfect.

The first error is to assume that life qualifies one to be a fruit inspector of another person’s life with respect to pronouncing judgment on Eternal Security. This view thinks that no one who lives in sin has eternal life. But is there anyone who doesn’t live in sin? Psalm 39:5 simply says that in our best state humans are but vanity. Since no one is able to live to perfection, thank God that Eternal Security does not depend on some preset level of spiritual living!

NSNS’s second and greater error is to assume that Eternal Security “makes it safe for a believer to live in sin if he desires to do so.” This is the standard error of ignorance that confuses justification with sanctification. Figure 1, at the beginning of this section, clearly shows that justification is in parallel with sanctification. The NSNS view confuses this important distinction. Justification is dependent upon faith in Jesus Christ and secures the believing sinner’s eternal destiny. Sin is not considered in the process of justification. However, sanctification is dependent upon the faithfulness of human responsibility to be obedient to God’s commands and leads to eternal rewards. Paul’s preaching on Christ’s Judgment seat shows that believers can suffer great loss yet still be saved (1 Cor 3:11-15). Stauffer confuses: justification with sanctification; God’s responsibility with human responsibility; and destiny with rewards. Sin brings judgment – temporal consequences and the loss of divine fellowship. There is no escape! The OSAS position exhorts all of God’s children to love and good works knowing that our labor is NOT IN VAIN (1 Cor 15:58). The NSNS view completely ignores that justification is by faith apart from works and that sanctification leads to rewards.

The third NSNS error is to assume that all who profess the Lord Jesus are saved. Thus, NSNS envisions a person who has made a profession and he assumes that this professing person is the recipient of eternal life. Now when that professing unsaved person acts out their corrupted nature the NSNS view claims proof for loss of salvation. This strawman is easy to destroy but doesn’t address the real issues.

Meanwhile, the OSAS view is that a truly saved person is truly saved. The OSAS view does not say that all professors are truly saved. Since we cannot look upon the heart and know for certainty, the best we can do is hope that the process of spiritual growth will evidence itself in good works. We humans should never make a categorical statement regarding the salvation of another human no matter what their works may be showing. Unsaved people can appear as righteous and deceive us; saved people can appear as the devil’s agent and disappoint us. This error is yet another result of the confusion that comes from not keeping justification distinct from sanctification.

Lloyd

 

Strawman #5: Eternal Security denies the Biblical teaching on apostasy.
The NSNS view claims that salvation is only a present condition not a future realization. Eternal life is only received IF we endure faithfully and is granted only AFTER this life is over. Notice how consistent this is with the confusion that comes from making justification = sanctification. The Bible is clear about the believer’s future status. Consider the following verses:

These verses highlight the NSNS confusion that comes from equating justification with sanctification. According to the Bible, apostasy for true believers results in a serious loss of conditional heavenly rewards – not a loss of their unconditional eternal destiny. OSAS warns about the seriousness of apostasy. The goal of Christian life is not rebellion or drifting away. The goal of Christian life is to live it to the fullest. This only comes from a close personal fellowship with God.

The OSAS view denies that apostasy is associated with justification. Since justification and destiny are so firmly secured, apostasy can only be associated with sanctification. Hence the vital importance of understanding basic biblical terms before one builds a systematic theology. The NSNS view affirms that human works supplements Jesus’ Cross and that the lack of (the right quality and quantity ) human works damns one to hell. When the presuppositions are known, then the twisting of individual passages is better understood.

God's children should be aware that in most discussions with the NSNS Sadvocates, that the NSNS speakers guide the discussion to the Section 1 verses instead of the Section 2 verses. By avoiding verses that destroy their system, any success they might feel leads them to that much greater blindness.

If it is ever your turn to discuss the faithfulness of God, you should seek to use the verses and concepts provided in this section.

Lloyd

 

Greetings

OSAS goes hand in hand with Luther’s doctrine of justification by which the Church stands or falls. If justification is by Christ’s righteousness being imputed to the believer at the moment of faith and has no part human merit, then it seems natural that the keeping of that external justification based on Christ’s righteousness should also be by Christ’s faithfulness and righteousness!

In Christ!
Lloyd

 

Greetings

What would you say to the unsaved?

Why would anyone wish to embrace something that depends on fickle continued human faithfulness? The gospel message is supposed to show how Jesus has purchased us out of the slave market of sin. If the gospel message is perverted to an exhortation to work ourselves out of the slave market of sin – what hope would that be?

Is there a soul that actually believes that they can live up to God’s holy, righteous, and perfect requirements without even once failing? Let’s be real! No one in their right mind can even dare say this. The honest person knows that slaves don’t buy themselves out of the slave market of sin. They need outside help. A self-righteous works religion only works if one doesn’t examine the natural conclusions of a system that depends on human merit, human faithfulness, or human endurance. The Bible doesn’t call us sheep for nothing!

OSAS must be the gospel message. OSAS announces a sure salvation with eternal blessings. The OSAS gospel is something that those considering Christ could see the eternal promises even in the face potential loss of life for their decision? The gospel is worth the dieing without any reservations.

Lloyd

 

Greetings

What would you say to the saved?
Can one live up to God’s holy, righteous, and perfect requirements with the help of God’s infused righteousness and the power of the indwelling Spirit? Here, one has to hope that when they die that they are all “confessed up.” With infused righteousness, believers are forced to hope that there isn’t any spot on their record when they die since final acceptance with God is dependent on faithful enduring obedience and being spiritually cleansed.

Lloyd

 

Greetings

OSAS affects God’s character.

Why would we embrace a human self-righteous works system that makes God a liar? God has promised to conform all believers into the image of His Son (Rom 8:29). He has promised to keep all believers from falling (Jude 24). He has promised that His seal is valid until the Day of Redemption (Eph 4:30). He has made Jesus to be the mediator, surety, High Priest, and Finisher of the New Covenant. All of these aspects of God’s saving preserving ministries are defamed under any system that falls away from total dependency on Christ’s righteousness on our behalf.
Either God is able to save sinners or He is not. Any middle ground is a disguised version of saying He is not capable of saving sinners. Scripture clearly shows that Jesus came to seek & save sinners.
Salvation is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth. God doesn’t have much power if:

Thank God that Scripture is clear that God is faithful even when we aren’t! God is faithful even if humans falter; He cannot deny Himself (2 Tim 2:13).

Furthermore, Scripture is adamant that God wrote the names of all believers in His Book of Life from before the foundation of the world (Luek 10:20). Did Jesus lie to His followers? Certainly not! This is why Jesus used the word “REJOICE.”

Lloyd

 

Greetings!

OSAS affects Jesus’ character.
Either Christ paid for all sins or He did not. If He did not pay for all sins, they we have work to do for ourselves. The NSNS heresy would have us finish the race and transform ourselves in perfection. Can we really avoid every temptation? Can we unfailingly do everything that is put before us without omission? Can we remember every sin of commission and every sin of omission to continuously keep our slate clean? Will we faithfully confess every sin? Will we be able to confess sins before we die with unconfessed sin on our slate? It doesn’t take a theologian to realize the hopelessness of such a gospel. Jesus was quick to declare, “It is finished!”

The NSNS view claims that God’s grace and Christ’s righteousness are good enough for initial salvation but final salvation requires human faithfulness. But if the gospel isn’t absolutely grounded on Christ’s righteousness, then the “so great salvation” (Heb 2:3) really isn’t so great. If the so great salvation can be supplemented by human works, then salvation really isn’t so great. Scripture is quick to deny the NSNS heresy. It declares that no one has any right to glory in God’s presence (1 Cor 1:29).

Thank God that Jesus is both the AUTHOR and the FINISHER of our faith. Humans merit has nothing to do with the finality of salvation.

Lloyd

 

Greetings

OSAS affects the character of God’s Spirit.
Either the Spirit’s seal is good until the Day of Redemption (Eph 4:30) or it is not! The NSNS view holds that believers can somehow unmark themselves and not be God’s purchased possession. The OSAS view holds that the Spirit is the down payment or earnest (Eph 1:13,14) until the transaction is finalized.

Either God’s Spirit is a sufficient down payment or He is not. Either God will honor the Spirit or He will not. The OSAS view honors both God’s down payment and that the Spirit’s seal is effective until the Day of Redemption.

Enjoy!
Lloyd

 

Greetings

Assurance[/b[
The real issue at stake is assurance. 1 John 5:13 claims that believers can be assured of salvation. The Bible proclaims God’s provisioning and faithfulness, Christ’s mediation and suretyship, and the Spirit’s guidance and sealing. Yet it is not uncommon to meet Christians who claim to be justified by faith in Jesus who are nevertheless not sure of their own salvation. Some even claim that such assurance is an unbiblical presumption or even a dangerous heresy. How can anyone be sure of salvation when the daily experience of life confirms continuous sins and failures?

Sincere faith in the Son of God is essential for salvation but assurance is by no means essential to faith. Many humans doubt and struggle until this biblical fact is established in the heart of the child of God. If justification is not by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, then no one can be sure of their eternal life. Where there is no peace, there is no joy.

Lloyd

 

Greetings

Forgiveness
Confession and forgiveness of sins is so critically important that Martin Luther feared failing to confess any one sin and wearied his confessors. He was tormented by the fear of unknown sins and of his inability to satisfy God’s righteous demands until He realized that righteousness was imputed by faith in Jesus.

Anyone who would add to the finished works of Christ on the cross implies that His work was not fully satisfactory to God and needs to be supplemented by enduring human faithfulness. Who can live up to this holy standard of enduring perfection?

If salvation depends on enduring human faithfulness, then salvation is ultimately a work of self-righteous merit and not by faith alone. This is the equivalent of saying that all will go to hell for there is none righteous, none holy, none who seek for God (Rom 3:1-12).

Lloyd