Positions on Assurance

I accept that. I admit that I see a tension in scipture, an already and not yet to our salvation. It is not the first place such tension exists in the scripture. Pauls tells us we are holy, so be holy. Paul tells us Holy Spirit gives gifts to who he chooses, but later says, seek after the greater gifts. And my favorite tension in scipture, Jesus is FULLY GOD and FULLY human. I am very happy to have THAT both ways and I CAN.

First off, let's not forget that both these men are calvinists. They do not believe any of the good works of which God prepared before hand for us has anything to do with our merit or striving after them. And second of all, all of these works are nothing more the practicial applications of actually trusting in Jesus, namely, having faith. Obedience is simply true faith going public. If I belive (trust, have faith in, pisteo if you will) what Jesus says is true, I will follow it. Everytime I don't I betray that I don't really believe Him.

But finnally, I admit, it IS close to works-salvation, in a sense. Or it sounds a lot like it and makes us all very uncomferable. But let's not tose it out simply because it doesn't fit with our overephesised Reformed position. These men are simply dealing with every aspect of scripture, even the parts that don't easily fit into a classic Reformed understanding.

Anyway, I wouldn't group MacArthur and Schreiner together on this anyway, as MacArthur is not a means guy. I happen to side with him on the nessicity of repentence. It is not a work, it is simply that if I haven't repented, what DO I trust Jesus for? If I don't realize I need to be saved, how can I say I trust Jesus to save me. "I trust Jesus to save me, of what I am not sure, because I have not done anything wrong!" That is nonsense.

 

1. Maybe they are.

2. This doctrine is not built upon one passage and does not collapse with one passage.

3. It is certainly possible that there are in fact degrees of the ability to enjoy eternal life. Your personal life as a believer may contribute to your enjoyment of eternal life. That is not to say that all people will not be amazed beyond imagination.

Anyway, the "loss" is what could have been.

This is actually the same as when I held your view. It isn't that something is taken away, but because the potential is there, and you could have taken it, and didn't, you lost out of that.

For example, your name is entered into a drawing for a new car. Your name is chosen. All you have to do, is pick it up. You wait. You stall. You never show up. They give it to someone else. I could say you lost that car even though you never had it. You see what I mean?

 

1. This is a point that I think you are missing here.

Salvation is a point in time event that will definitely continue until the end. No one is denying that once a person is justified, that he is forever saved, born again, redeemed, etc. What we are saying is that salvation includes more than initial justification. That is just the beginning. Salvation also includes being conformed to Christs image, growing in knowledge, growing in victory over sin, growing in worship, etc. Salvation also includes a time in the future whereby Christ will judge true believers as victorious over sin and absolutely righteous. It is this final aspect that most of the N.T. either looks toward or speaks about.

Notice what Paul says in the following text:

Romans 2:5c-10

5c God,
6 who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS:
7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life;
8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation.
9 There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek,
10 but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

Pay close attention to verse 7. God will REWARD with eternal life certain people. Who are these people? Those those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality.

Either that is works salvation, or it is saying that those people who are saved will incorporate into their lives such things and by doing so, will be rewarded with eternal life.

This does not in any way deny faith alone in Christ alone. It does say that those who truly believe will do such things. That is in NO WAY works. You see why it can be easily confused though.

2. I think this passage answers your second objection also.

 

bump

 

I think Jesus being fully man and fully God is pretty important to know as well but I'll let that one pass.

I'm not advocating that people need worry about their salvation. All who trust in Jesus Christ are saved. Everyone should examine themselves to see if they do indeed trust Jesus, or so says the apostle Peter.

Because truly trusting Jesus is actualized in obedience (Lordship) or obedience is part of the means by which you are finnaly saved (means) says nothing of motive. I could just as well turn around and say, your motive is to have rewards. To this you would reply, "no, we serve out of love." Just because rewards will be given does not make invalid the claim that we serve out of love.

I do not advocate that we are obedienent in order to be saved. I believe obedience in being saved, namely it is ACTUALLY trusting in Jesus Christ. If Jesus says, "I will care for all your needs" and then you go steal, then you simply don't believe what Jesus says is true. How can I believe Jesus will care for my eternal soul when I don't believe he will care for my earthy one?

People will still steal, and lie, and otherwise be disobedient, and they are still saved. It takes the faith of a mustard seed to save. But still, trusting faith is real, and it is displayed by do what God says, trusting that what He says is true.

So to sum up, obedience is not out of fear, it is simply actually trusting.

I agree with you completly that we will not all show fruit to the same degrees, or that it will always be visisble. But I disagree on what a fruit is in the first place. If someone believes in Jesus Christ, they will continue to believe in Jesus Christ. It is impossible to continue to believe in Jesus Christ without concrete experiences where that believe is acted out.

I do not doubt my salvation for a second. Whosoever believes and I do . . .

 

IFBReformer, the bold portions are quotes from you.

“First of in Romans 2, "rendered" is not the same as reward and in fact the NIV translates it correctly that way…”

Correct. However, since it is a gift, and it will come at the judgment, and because of what is being given, I can still say it is a reward.

Also I agree that at face value verse 6 seems to suggest a works based salvation. But since we have the rest of the New Testament to contradict that interpretation we must take a second look at it.

I agree that it is not work based salvation. However, each passage carries with it the same amount of force. In other words, this passage is just as true and worth paying attention to as Eph. 2:8-9. People are always using their own horrible hermenuetic - i.e., I don't want to know so let's look everywhere else and see if I can lessen the force of what is being said - to justify their theology.

This passage specifically says that eternal life will be given at the judgment. That statement cannot mean anything else. Now, we do have other passages telling us that those who believe also possess it. So, there is an already/not yet tension in regards to eternal life.

At face value this passage would seem to tell me to sit on my duff and trust God and don't do anything. If I work at all then I am not trusting God for my salvation. But you and I both know that is not what it is saying. It is telling us that we should not be trusting in our works for our salvation.

Paul says that we do not work for our justification. We all agree with that.

Let me also point out that I (and Schreiner) believe that the Christian life is lived BY FAITH. The real question is what is the nature of that faith, not the object. I agree wholeheartedly with you that we do not trust in our works for salvation. Do you see anywhere where Dr. Tommy said that? I don't. If I ever saw that, I would immediately put the book down and burn it.

That is my big beef with both the Means of Salvation theory and the Lordship Salvation theory - you make works part of the Salvation process.

It would be better to say that we make it part of the nature of saving faith. That is not the same as saying it is part of salvation.

Even James asks in chapter 2, "Can that faith save him?". Then he proceeds to explain the kind of faith that does save a person.

You are careful like MacArther to say that works do not "merit" our salvation but with all you language you are saying works maintain or prove our salvation.

This would actually be part of a different discussion, but suffice it to say that Peter tells us to examine our salvation with our works/attitudes/doctrine.

There are things you "have to do" to be saved.

You must believe in Christ.
You must believe he is God and not some pretender.
You must believe that he is who he says he is.
You must believe he was virgin born.
You must believe he was sinless.

You see where I am going? None of the above is works. They do define faith and the object of saving faith though.

I am leaving work, but will reply later on the rest.

 

I will address it tomorrow.

It would be nice if someone else would join this thread also.

Between slavery and the south dying without honor, we can't get anyone to cooperate.

 

IBF,

This is my longest post in BB history. I hope you will read it all. I would never write something this long and expect someone to read it but since only you, Gunther, and I have particpated in this thread (for which I am very thankful) I hope you will bear with me. Gunther, you won't miss anything by skipping it since you and IBF are taking this discussion along a different line.

You got me all wrong here. I don't sit around judging other peoples salvation, I don't recall questioning a single person. It has nothing to do with making laundary lists of sins in which you are not saved, if I did that I would never pass my own list. Nor do I presume to know who is saved and who is not, God only knows. I give most people the benefit of the doubt.

You say you agree with me about obedience? You say,

At the end here I am going to have to ask this question back at you. If you agree with me then what kind of obedience are you expecting? But first I want to look at your examples.

I just noticed that I spelled "Actualized" wrong in my post and now the spelling has been copied via qoute for a few posts

In a sense . . . Yes. To trust in God is to Love Him. To trust Him is to seek out that very thing your Trust, to learn about Him, worship Him, share in His supper that reminds of His deed, and to believe the Bible when it is commanded to meet together.

Now before you start asking "how many weeks in a row", I am saying that is missing the point. I don't attend Church every time the doors are open. I missed yesterday because I have been having trouble sleeping at night (with my wife out of town), so I took a sleeping pill (first time in my life) and my eyes didn't open until 12:44, 1 minute before our church gets out! So that night I was planning on going (which I usually don't because it is hard with our 18th month old who is now out of town) and instead I got a call from a friend who I haven't seen in a while who wanted me to go to borders. I went to borders. I don't mind missing church because I don't get saved by racking up points, I knew it was more important for me to see my friend. You might be saved if you went once a month . . . You might be saved if . . . I am not advocating then we can tell if someone is saved or not by any manner of attendance. I am just saying it is a one litmus test (one among many) about how much a believer wishes to learn and worship God, and how much a believer wishes to learn and worship God is a good indicator of how much He trusts in God. I knew a guy who NEVER went to church. He gave me some line about thinking the apostles saying we should meet because they knew we would need support (but he didn't need any of course). Well you might be suprised to find that I didn't even write him off. He might be saved. But judging from his actions in life (not the church thing, I didn't know about that), and then finding out about the church thing, I told him about Jesus. Yea, I thought it wouldn't hurt to share the gospel as I am not sure he is saved. I share the gospel with my own family who have been saved for decades because it doesn't hurt to hear it again, so it is no offence to this guy if he was a true believer.

I believe wishing to meet together to learn about God and worship him demonstates that we actually have trusted our life to Him.

I don't believe smoking in itself is a sin. Just a bad idea. Diddo on too much McDonands, not wearing your seatbelt in the backseat, or twoo much Pepsi.

Yes. Before I start this one, I want you to know that I don't believe the tithe as a strict 10% is carried over into the New Covenant Believers. I believe Christians our commanded to help the needy and poor, look after the widow and orphain, or generally support the advance of the gospel in the world. I believe the NT church is the best place to pool the resources, and that those who look after your spiritual health are worthy of sharing in your material belongings (in other words, pastors should be paid if possible). I believe that if you see someone on the street who needs help you can give, you should give it. If family members or friends, or others are in need, you should help (especially other believers). I think for most Christians in America, to only give 10% is to be rather stingy in this country where the poverty level is a fortune for those in Africa.

Do we always need to give, to be saved. No. No. No. We are saved by trusting in Christ. But wouldn't it be strange if you were saved of all your sins but won't give $5 for someone to eat. Wouldn't it be strange if you truly believed the gospel of Jesus Christ, but weren't interested in paying money to others so they could spread the gospel so others could believe in the gospel and be saved. Do you truly believe it if you don't care if others do??? When I hear someone say, "I believe in God and Jesus but it is okay if he doesn't", I really question exactly what he believes because IT IS NOT OKAY! that this third person doesn't.

We are not saved by giving. Giving is actualized obedience to truly trusting. Would you believe for a single picosecond (1/1000 of a nanosecond) that I loved my mom if I kept telling her I loved her but left her outside in the snow and wouldn't let her in my house. Does this mean I love her because I brought her inside. No!!! I brought her inside because I love her. It is actualized loving . . . if you will.

To finish off, I haven't given to the church for a few months. I don't have the money. A couple of finacial setbacks and now I need to find money I don't have. This doesn't bother me (too much, it does when I see those truly in need) because God is not asking me to give 10% to prove anything, he is asking me to give what I can to help real people in real situations.

James 2 gives this exact situation, telling your brother to be well but not giving anything to his need, then your religion is worthless.

Jesus gives the exact parable, telling people if they didn't help those in Need, they didn't know Jesus. He didn't say you are saved by helping those in need. You are saved by knowing Jesus. He said that those who know Jesus would help people in need. That is what it means to KNOW JESUS!

My answer here is 0.0000000001% or smaller. It takes the faith of a mustard seed. It takes just the smallest true belief in resting your salvation to the Lord. We all sin and probably sin more then we think. Spurgeon believed we never left our knees in prayer without sin!

You are confusing the issue. I am not arguing how much faith we need. I am not Paul (yet . . .just kidding), I am not Jeremiah (though I want to be). And even these two at time lacked and sinned agaist God. I am just saying that those moments they did exercise faith, it was actualized in obedience. And all of their obedience is no credit to them, it was the outworking of true trust in their God. I am saying there is no reason to seperate obedience from trust. The times I sin (and oh I do), I show my lack of faith in God. Yet still saved I am, because I do trust in Him, and my life demonstates more obedience the more I grow in trust.

I will answer your second two questions first. How righteous? None of your own, that is for sure! You will need to trust in Jesus Christ to save you from your sins. Whatever righteousness that flows from is whatever it is, and we agree that it doesn't save you. How much sin . . . my salvation? There is no sin that can cost you your salvation. You are not saved by not sinning, but by trusting. All of your sin is accounted for. The times you trust in Jesus you will not sin, and it only takes a mustard seed of that faith to save. Jesus said, "Those who love me will keep my commands." You might say, we love Jesus all the time, and we can not keep those commands. I say, we don't love Jesus all the time. We betrey that we don't when we don't keep his commands. That is why we are still being saved. That is why it is a process that will only be finished on the "day of the Lord"! I expect more for my own salvation, when I WILL love Jesus every second of every day, and you better believe I will be being obedient. Does this mean I am not saved. No, salvation does not require perfect love, or love 100% of the time. Indeed, it is love of a mustard seed (well, not exactly Biblical but I'm trying).

Well good we agree I feel like you haven't answered you own assertion. You say all true believers will produce fruit. I agree. You says how much and how visible, I say at least something!!!! How visible, WHO CARES!!!! But it certainly will be visible when my brother sees someone in need. He is demonstating a lack of love for God by not helping his brother. It doesn't mean he is not saved, it just means he needs to be saved more!!! (call it glorified if you wish). He needs to trust in God more.

I believe all believers will produce fruit because as obedience is "actualized trusting", all "who trust" (ie all who believe) are beling obedient by definition. I believe that believers will produce more and more fruit, simply because I believe that is what the Bible teaches, not because of great will power, ect, but because it is God's plan and Him working in you!

Okay, now that I am finished with my longest post in BB history, I have to ask back at you, if

is not the kind of obedience listed above, then what kind of obedience is it?

Pete

P.S.

you wrote

which is rather funny because I spent ALL DAY on Saturday sitting on the couch watching College Football. About 8 straight hours at least.

 

Pete, did you see Florida State put the same hurt on North Carolina as the North put on the South?

 

I don't exactly know what Schreiner's view as I have never read his book, "the race set before us." I did read "Paul the Apostle of God's glory in Christ" which is his theology on Paul, and he had a chapter on perserverce, but it didn't all sink in. So I'm not sure whether I agree with Schreiner or not. I get more of the "means" view from Scott Hafemann and I certainly don't understand him nor am I sure I agree yet, but I respect him and know he doesn't teach works salvation.

When I think about persevering, I am not thinking 100% obedience as stated above, but continuing to believe. Believers come back, because they perserve in believing that Christ is Lord. What percentage of the time is not important, only that they will continue. Of course, you could start playing mathimatical analysis and say for every time period I state you could increase it to infinity, but hopefully I am the only one with a math degree here.

Let me offer a quick scenario. You have a guy who walks down the alter and receives Christ, and then never for the rest of his life trust in Jesus to save Him from his sins. It is possible, I suppose, that he is saved and spending time in one huge backslidden state. But I believe generally this is not the case for those who truly believed the first time, they will continue to believe, and then still continue again, even if their faith is week and the are apt to sin, or even attempt to reject God, but then again they will still come back. They won't be able to escape belief if they wanted.

So to answer, if you could somehow squeze my above percentage into every single day (maybe it takes three days), but still that point 1 always comes back again and again and the man continues to believe, then he is perservering. And since I believe all belief is actualized in obedience then by definition he is perserving in obedience as well, even for just so short a time.

Let me offer another quote from a book from an Author you will recognize

What should be said. Do we need to keep his commands 50% of the time to love Jesus? What about 80%? What about 10%? I take this statement the same way I would take Schreiner. It is a pretty solid prouncement, Jesus doesn't leave much room for error on the command obedence with reference to love. So I believe when I don't keep his commands I am NOT loving him. But I am not saved by loving him perfectly, that is part of my salvation itself, and I long for more and more.

I don't exactly see two calls anymore, nor do I seperate sanctificaiton into positional and practical as you do. But as I said a few pages ago, I definitly see a tension in scripture over the "you are holy, so be holy". Part of this is as I have already discussed, for me the call to perserve in belief and to perserve in Godly behavior is one and the same.

Well . . . I agree with them in a sense, namely that as all the examples I gave above, much belief is forced to be visible obedience. Whenever you see a brother in need, whenever you are wronged in front of others, whenever your attitute betrays you, etc. I guess there position is if someone never truly trusts in any one situations that can be seen, does he ever trust at all? A strict mathematical answer of course is Yes, and I am not sure they would nessasirily disagree with the example pushed to the extreme. But would I whitness to the person, Oh yes, I certainly would. For all practical purposes if someone failed to show any belief in EVERY visible situation then I would doubt they belief in private. Indeed, I would have NO REASON AT ALL TO EVEN THINK THEY WERE A CHRISTIAN UNLESS THEY TOLD ME. Bill Clinton claims to be a Christian, claims to have accepted Christ at a Billy Graham crusade. He Bill Clinton saved? I actually give him more hope then most people, but the fact remains most people would still whitness to him given the chance because most Christians don't think he is saved because he has never given ANY visible evidence of it. My wife is one of them.

Which order should I take this? Okay, last first, I believe a believer can die in a state of sin and backsliddenness as well. Indeed, I would not call it "a state of sin", to Roman Catholic for my tastes. If such a thing existed everyone would be in it everyday because everyone sins every day, betraying they do not perfectly trust God. But even so, I understand you point, a long extended period of time where the sinner is rather ungodly. I also believe, if time could be extended for this man on earth for infinity, he would eventually pick up belief once more, and it would be impossible for a true believer to continue life for infinity not believing again.

As for believers producing more and more fruit. That was the line I wrote with the most hesitency, since it is the line I believed the least and have not seen whitness in real life in all situations. But I believe it is a clear statement in the Bible, that "he who begun a good work in you will complete it until the Day of Christ Jesus" Philippians 1:?8?. Unless you take this good work to be the actual gift given to Paul as Hawthorne does in the WBC, it means (as all other commentators believe) that the salvation in you that was begun will be completed. It is a process as God is "working" in you. Or even so, just as we are being transformed into the image of Christ, are we ever being transformed the wrong way. So this statement is my trying to take the Bible as face value and not my life experience. I could possibly be convinced that my exegesis is wrong.

We are somewhat faced at a cross roads here because we are playing examples, pushed to extremes. Can a believer stop producing fruit altogether? Well for how long? Forever? From the moment he belives as a 12 year old until he dies as a 80 year old. First off, I believe that everytime someone continues again to believe, that in itself is a fruit, and is actualized in whatever obedience is there at the moment, but let's put even that aside. Can someone "believe" when they are 12 and then never believe again before they die at 80, so my period of unbelief is 68 years. If we take our respective models and simply extend the period of unbelief then the answer is yes, they can still be saved. Would I believe it, NOT FOR A SECOND! No hard feelings toward the guy, I would hope he is saved as I want all people to be saved, both for the glory of Christ as well as for the person. But for all practical purposes, I would treat him as if he was not saved.

So I leave you with two questions. The first is my question from the last post, if the obedience that is actualized in faith is not the obedience listed above, then what is it? And number two, how long can a believer not produce any fruit (whether visisble or invisible)?

You know it just occured to me that we probably think of fruit differently. You may see it as something greater, something actually helpful to others or what not (I am not saying you do, just taking a guess). You began by saying you didn't doubt the salvation of any one in the pews because you wouldn't test their fruit. Nearly 100% of the time I see fruit right there in the pew itself, so whether I tested on their fruit or their simply confession would be one and the same thing. Part of our disagreement may be rooted in our definition here.