Question to protestants about Faith Alone

[The Liturgist]

-

​

Never heard of Jeff Durbin, but if he is talking about elect, more than likely he is a Calvinist and Calvinist are not faith alone.

He states people are to repent and believe. that is not a faith alone person.

Actually Sola Fide is one of the Solas that underpins the Calvinist belief system.

 

[The Liturgist]

Or maybe because you are bad at math, right? Do you realize that people who live in 2024 are not the only people who will be in heaven?

That’s an absurd accusation to level at an Orthodox Christian considering that unlike most denominations, we remember and celebrate those saints who were martyred by the Roman Empire in the first, second, third and fourth centuries. For example, St. George the Great Martyr, St. Justin Martyr, St. Polycarp, St. Abanoub the Child Martyr, St. Mina, and many others. And we memorialize those who were martyred by the Saracens, and the Turks, and those who were killed in the 20th century by the Young Turks in 1915, the Communists from 1917 through the 1980s, and who continue to be killed in China and North Korea, and those killed by Islamist terrorism, for example, by ISIS, such as the 18 Coptic martyrs and a sympathetic Ghanaian martyred by ISIS in Libya.

It must also be stressed that Heaven is a transitory state between our repose and the Last Judgement, when we will face the dread judgement seat of Christ Pantocrator, but those in Heaven are experiencing a foretaste of the life of the World to Come, and will be accounted among the righteous. But in Orthodoxy, we actively pray for the dead because, except in the cases of martyrs and a few other scenarios where it has become evident that someone has been saved, we do not know what the soteriolocial status and eschatological prospects of anyone reposed is. On the other hand, when we pray to the saints, we are not praying to the dead, because the saints are those who by virtue of being in Heaven and being accounted worthy to enter the World to Come, we have confirmed that they are alive in Christ, and are therefore worthy of veneration, although not worship. We reserve worship for God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, who is alone worthy of adoration.

 

[The Liturgist]

-

​

Many Protestant denominations are not faith alone (free grace) but align more with what is called lordship salvation. Martin Luther and Calvin both would probably be a lordship salvation supporter.

The Reformation Had Lordship Salvation and Free Grace – Grace Evangelical Society

Saved by Faith, or by Faith Formed by Love? – Grace Evangelical Society

The Righteousness of God: The Heart of the Lutheran Reformation – Grace Evangelical Society

Who Was Right, Erasmus or the Reformers? – Grace Evangelical Society

That’s an absurdly anachronistic statement. Martin Luther was among the first to stress the idea of Sola Fide, even going so far as to regard the Epistle of James as being semi-apocryphal, which was a serious error, since it clashes with the Sola Fide concept (the Antilegomenna along with the anti-Semitic book he wrote, with vile illustrations by Lucas Cranach the Elder, are the two main objections I have to Martin Luther, although on the other hand I greatly admire his devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary and his focus on Holy Communion as the center of Christian worship).

I would be interested to know what my dear Lutheran friend @MarkRohfrietsch and my knowledgeable Lutheran friend @ViaCrucis think about your idea, and likewise, what my pious Calvinist friend and fellow enthusiast of church architecture and ecclesiastical history @bbbbbbb thinks about that statement. Because frankly, from my perspective, it seems extremely anachronistic, in that you are seeking to take a modern idea, which as far as I am aware is not even a thing in Confessional Lutheranism, and certainly not within liberal ELCA lutheranism, and you are superimposing it on the views of John Calvin, whose theology was quite different in many respects from that of Reformed Christians today (since one aspect of “Calvinists” is the idea of semper reformanda, and since the time of John Calvin there have been numerous developments, such as the double predestination concept which was developed at the Synod of Dort, birthplace of the “Tulip Idea”, and various permutaitons on Calvinism, such as early Scottish Covenanting Presbyterianism, and later on, Mercersburg Theology and Scoto-Catholicism and Reformed Catholicism, and then still more recently the Neo-Orthodoxy of Karl Barth outlined in his ponderous Church Dogmatics, a voluminous work of systematic theology which unlike Calvin’s institutes, does not make significant recourse to Church tradition or Patristics, since historically Calvinists were very much into Patristic thought and even coined the phrase “consensus patrum.”

So ideas like Lordship Salvation may be applicable to some derivatives of Calvinism in some contemporary denominations, but not so much Lutheranism, at least as far as I am aware, and certainly not if we dive into the history of the Calvinist movement.

 

[The Liturgist]

I think division is a good thing. We should divide ourselves very strongly from people who believe in false things, false doctrine, etc. Of course it makes no sense to divide over very small or trivial disagreements but just because someone claims to believe in Jesus is not enough to have any fellowship with them.

This is a misunderstanding. Christ also prayed that we may all be One, just as He and the Father are One. Now, St. Paul directed that we anathematize those who teach a false Gospel, in Galatians 1:8-9, which is appropriate, but this does not mean that we should avoid people who have erroneous beliefs, because if we do that, we lose the ability to convert them.

The Plymouth Brethren are a less extreme example of a group that isolates itself from those it disagrees with. More extreme examples include the Old Order Mennonites and Amish. But these groups seem to me to be falling short of the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19.

By the way, I take it you are not a member of either the Lutheran Church of Finland or the Orthodox Church of Finland?

 

[The Liturgist]

The only difference with purgatory is that the Orthodox do not classify it as purgatory, but simply designate it as hell, in which souls are subject not only to eternal punishment, but also to temporary punishment. The second difference is that according to the Orthodox view, souls subject to temporary punishment are not punished with cleansing fire. It looks like purgatory, it's just that the Orthodox call it hell, where the souls of various sinners fall, including those who repented of mortal sins, but did not bear the fruits of repentance, so they can temporarily stay in hell. They are helped by the prayers of the Church, alms, and the Eucharistic Sacrifice. But the Orthodox also insist on the need for satisfaction, because this is a Biblical representation. There is a concept of satisfaction, God is not only Merciful, but also Just, it is necessary to bring satisfaction to Divine Justice. Therefore, the Sacrament of Confession provides for the practice of ἐπιτιμία.

This is not entirely accurate, because you are confusing the foretaste those in danger of damnation experience of the Outer Darkness with the Outer Darkness itself. The state you call Hell can be used to refer to this foretaste, but it is not the same thing as what results from Christ Pantocrator sending someone to the Outer Darkness.

Furthermore, it must be stressed that God is infinitely loving. The Outer Darkness is regarded by Orthodox theologians as a mercy, since those who hate God will experience his Love as a torment, and thus will not be able to tolerate living in the World to Come, where God will be in such proximity to everyone as to be a source of primary illumination, according to the accounts in Revelation and elsewhere in Scripture. Naturally this would be extremely intolerable to the misotheist.

Thus the Outer Darkness becomes a form of final mercy, as a means of preventing an eternal torment rather than inflicting one. However, as St. John Chrysostom points out, knowing that one is missing out on the joy of the life of the world to come is the most severe and dreadful possible punishment, worse than any other torments that might conceivably be inflicted. But the people in this actual Hell of the Outer Darkness, this true lake of fire, will not change - they are set in their ways. Metropolitan Kallistos Ware and other Orthodox theologians like to quote the Anglican theologian CS Lewis on this point, who wrote “the gates of Hell are locked on the inside.”*


*Quoting those Western theologians whose views inclined towards Orthodoxy even if they were not themselves members of the Orthodox Church is important because in the English language we lack much of the well-known cultural heritage that communicates Orthodox ideas, aside from a few Greek and Russian writers, for example, Dostoyevsky, and even then, we are not really within the realm of high theology, and Dostoyevsky is not venerated as a saint within Orthodoxy, and unfortunately some of the other well known Russian writers, such as Leo Tolstoy, were heretics - Leo Tolstoy was analogous to the Unitarians and paid for the emigration of the heretical Doukhobors to Canada, where they later caused civic unrest because of their disagreement with Canadian laws on legislation, by parading nude through Canadian cities and even engage in arson, but it is good that Leo Tolstoy sent them to Canada, because had they done that in Czarist Russia or Soviet Russia they likely would have experienced extremely violent reprisals, and the problem with that is we can’t convert people to Orthodoxy if they have been killed off by the Secret Police or the Chekists or the Militia.

 

[The Liturgist]

From a letter from Cyprian of Carthage to Fide: "Cyprian and other comrades who attended the Council, among 66, wish Fide, my brother, good health. We have read your letter, most beloved brother, in which you inform us that our comrade Ferapius prematurely and too hastily granted peace to the former presbyter Victor before he brought full repentance and satisfaction to the Lord God, before whom he had sinned. This matter greatly confused us, since peace was granted to him in violation of the importance of our definition, granted before the fulfillment of the lawful time of repentance and satisfaction, without his request and without the approval of the people, in the absence of any urgent infirmity and tedious necessity. However, after a long discussion, we found it sufficient to reprimand our comrade, Ferapius, for this reckless act of his and to convince him not to do anything like that later. Meanwhile, we did not consider it necessary to take away the peace that was once granted by the priest of God in any way, and therefore allowed Victor to use the communication provided to him."

That being said, it is important that we not interpret St. Cyprian of Carthage as being some prototypical figure akin to Anselm of Canterbury with his Satisfaction Theology, which was one of the earliest Scholastic departures from the Patristic system of Orthodoxy.

 

[d taylor]

That’s an absurdly anachronistic statement. Martin Luther was among the first to stress the idea of Sola Fide, even going so far as to regard the Epistle of James as being semi-apocryphal, which was a serious error, since it clashes with the Sola Fide concept (the Antilegomenna along with the anti-Semitic book he wrote, with vile illustrations by Lucas Cranach the Elder, are the two main objections I have to Martin Luther, although on the other hand I greatly admire his devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary and his focus on Holy Communion as the center of Christian worship).

I would be interested to know what my dear Lutheran friend @MarkRohfrietsch and my knowledgeable Lutheran friend @ViaCrucis think about your idea, and likewise, what my pious Calvinist friend and fellow enthusiast of church architecture and ecclesiastical history @bbbbbbb thinks about that statement. Because frankly, from my perspective, it seems extremely anachronistic, in that you are seeking to take a modern idea, which as far as I am aware is not even a thing in Confessional Lutheranism, and certainly not within liberal ELCA lutheranism, and you are superimposing it on the views of John Calvin, whose theology was quite different in many respects from that of Reformed Christians today (since one aspect of “Calvinists” is the idea of semper reformanda, and since the time of John Calvin there have been numerous developments, such as the double predestination concept which was developed at the Synod of Dort, birthplace of the “Tulip Idea”, and various permutaitons on Calvinism, such as early Scottish Covenanting Presbyterianism, and later on, Mercersburg Theology and Scoto-Catholicism and Reformed Catholicism, and then still more recently the Neo-Orthodoxy of Karl Barth outlined in his ponderous Church Dogmatics, a voluminous work of systematic theology which unlike Calvin’s institutes, does not make significant recourse to Church tradition or Patristics, since historically Calvinists were very much into Patristic thought and even coined the phrase “consensus patrum.”

So ideas like Lordship Salvation may be applicable to some derivatives of Calvinism in some contemporary denominations, but not so much Lutheranism, at least as far as I am aware, and certainly not if we dive into the history of the Calvinist movement.

-

​

Faith alone is a simple black and white issue. It is easy to see who does not believe in faith alone. He back loads faith with works, some people front load faith with works, but both are adding to faith, works.

Martin Luther
Instead, faith is God's work in us, that changes us and gives new birth from God. (John 1:13). It kills the Old Adam and makes us completely different people. It changes our hearts, our spirits, our thoughts and all our powers. It brings the Holy Spirit with it. Yes, it is a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this faith. Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn't stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever. He stumbles around and looks for faith and good works, even though he does not know what faith or good works are. Yet he gossips and chatters about faith and good works with many words.

Faith is a living, bold trust in God's grace, so certain of God's favor that it would risk death a thousand times trusting in it. Such confidence and knowledge of God's grace makes you happy, joyful and bold in your relationship to God and all creatures. The Holy Spirit makes this happen through faith. Because of it, you freely, willingly and joyfully do good to everyone, serve everyone, suffer all kinds of things, love and praise the God who has shown you such grace. Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire! Therefore, watch out for your own false ideas and guard against good-for-nothing gossips, who think they're smart enough to define faith and works, but really are the greatest of fools. Ask God to work faith in you, or you will remain forever without faith, no matter what you wish, say or can do.

 

[The Liturgist]

-

​

Faith alone is a simple black and white issue. It is easy to see who does not believe in faith alone. He back loads faith with works, some people front load faith with works, but both are adding to faith, works.

Martin Luther

That’s an absurd allegation, frankly, considering that St. James in his Epistle says “Faith without works is dead.” Every coherent theologian who advocates Sola Fide addresses this issue by declaring good works to be the fruit of a living faith, which is clear based on the content of the New Testament. All of the moral instruction provided by our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ and His Apostles exists for a reason.

It should also be stressed that the early church did not even believe in Sola Fide; as a concept it originated with Martin Luther’s forensic Augustinian reading of St. Paul in reaction to the soteriological distortions of Scholastic Roman Catholic theology. The Orthodox understand faith to be an hereditary disease, which we are delivered from through faith, through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, which helps cleanse us from the sinful passions.

I believe that Martin Luther and especially John Wesley were headed in that direction, byt the extreme emphasis of the Roman church on works based on a forensic hamartiology created a powerful inducement to embrace Sola Fide. But all of the major Protestant reformers agreed that a living faith would be accompanied by good works. Which is a view close enough to Orthodoxy as to make sense. And it is a matter of historical fact.

We do not need someone coming along in the 21st century unilaterally redefining Sola Fide in a manner inconsistent with the entire New Testament, not just the Epistle of James, and the entire Patristic corpus and the entire body of work of the Reformers such as John Calvin, Martin Luther, Thomas Cranmer, Philip Melancthon, and John Wesley, among others. But of course, the bottom line is that the Epistle of James summarizes the issue by declaring “Faith without works is dead,” so if someone wants to take up this doctrine, they have to address that issue, and fortunately, everyone did, without recourse to what you anachronistically call “Lordship Salvation.”

 

[d taylor]

That’s an absurd allegation, frankly, considering that St. James in his Epistle says “Faith without works is dead.” Every coherent theologian who advocates Sola Fide addresses this issue by declaring good works to be the fruit of a living faith, which is clear based on the content of the New Testament. All of the moral instruction provided by our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ and His Apostles exists for a reason.

It should also be stressed that the early church did not even believe in Sola Fide; as a concept it originated with Martin Luther’s forensic Augustinian reading of St. Paul in reaction to the soteriological distortions of Scholastic Roman Catholic theology. The Orthodox understand faith to be an hereditary disease, which we are delivered from through faith, through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, which helps cleanse us from the sinful passions.

I believe that Martin Luther and especially John Wesley were headed in that direction, byt the extreme emphasis of the Roman church on works based on a forensic hamartiology created a powerful inducement to embrace Sola Fide. But all of the major Protestant reformers agreed that a living faith would be accompanied by good works. Which is a view close enough to Orthodoxy as to make sense. And it is a matter of historical fact.

We do not need someone coming along in the 21st century unilaterally redefining Sola Fide in a manner inconsistent with the entire New Testament, not just the Epistle of James, and the entire Patristic corpus and the entire body of work of the Reformers such as John Calvin, Martin Luther, Thomas Cranmer, Philip Melancthon, and John Wesley, among others. But of course, the bottom line is that the Epistle of James summarizes the issue by declaring “Faith without works is dead,” so if someone wants to take up this doctrine, they have to address that issue, and fortunately, everyone did, without recourse to what you anachronistically call “Lordship Salvation.”

-
​

Looks like you do not even understand what you are advocating for. I never said good works are not a result of a living faith. the parable of the soils teaches this. As the fourth soil bore much fruit.

The issue is not does a living faith save. The issue is can a permanent born again child of God let their faith die and yes they can. As also seen in the parable of the soils by the second soil and even the third soil, even thought they lasted a little longer. But still they 92nd and 3rd soils) remain a born again child of God and will spend eternity with God.

Which a believer who believes in faith alone would agree a born again child of God can let their faith die and still remain a permanent born again child of God.

 

[The Liturgist]

The issue is can a permanent born again child of God let their faith die and yes they can.

Ah, “once saved, always saved.” But even if one subscribes to that, the issue is, how does one presume to know if one is a member of the elect? Also it happens to be unbiblical insofar as St. Paul himself feared that he might fall away, and also warned of the consequences of specific actions that could be spiritually destructive. Apostasy is possible. But we can of course pray for God’s mercy.

 

[d taylor]

Ah, “once saved, always saved.” But even if one subscribes to that, the issue is, how does one presume to know if one is a member of the elect? Also it happens to be unbiblical insofar as St. Paul himself feared that he might fall away, and also warned of the consequences of specific actions that could be spiritually destructive. Apostasy is possible. But we can of course pray for God’s mercy.

-
​

What do you think it means to be a believer in faith alone. See you, like all other who are depending on more than faith alone. Do not even understand the faith alone position.

Elect is a calvinist belief not a free grace (faith alone) belief. There are no people elected to receive God's free gift of Eternal Life. I bet you do not even understand belief. I bet you believe a person an choose their beliefs and in turn can choose to believe or not believe in Jesus.

Paul feared he may fall away and be disqualified for rewards not that he would fall away from being a born again child of God.

Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may obtain it. And everyone who competes for the prize is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a perishable crown, but we for an imperishable crown. Therefore I run thus: not with uncertainty. Thus I fight: not as one who beats the air. But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified.

 

[The Liturgist]

What do you think it means to be a believer in faith alone.

I am not a believer in Sola Fide. I believe I made that expressly clear. I am an Orthodox Christian and believe in what the early church fathers wrote, and they clearly did not believe in sola fide; rather, they believed in salvation by grace through faith as expressed through baptism, by which we are grafted onto the Body of Christ, as described in 1 Corinthians, and as is also described in the same epistle by St. Paul, the salvific importance of Holy Communion.

However, I recognize Sola Fide as articulated by Martin Luther and John Calvin et al as being compatible with the Patristic model, and at one time I was a Calvinist, of sorts - technically a Congregationalist, with an Arminian inclination, but nominally Calvinistic.

It should also be noted that most Calvinists believe in irresistible grace, so if someone is regenerated according to Calvinism, nothing they do can cause them not to be saved, which is effectively OSAS, albeit with a bit more subtlety.

 

[The Liturgist]

Paul feared he may fall away and be disqualified for rewards not that he would fall away from being a born again child of God.

That’s not how I read the passage in question; indeed, I’ve never come across anyone who read that passage that way before, even supporters of OSAS. It seems very strange.

Now by the way, despite the fact that I am Orthodox, I hope that OSAS is the case, because I have a beloved friend who apostatized before his death, and so I pray for his salvation and that of everyone else. In Orthodoxy, we do not presume to know who will have what outcome, but we do believe that Christ our True God is infinitely merciful, and that only those misotheists who hate God will be consigned to the outer darkness, and even that is a mercy, since they would experience close proximity to God and specifically experience His love as a burning fire, and thus life in the World to Come would be an intolerable torture.

 

[bbbbbbb]

That’s an absurdly anachronistic statement. Martin Luther was among the first to stress the idea of Sola Fide, even going so far as to regard the Epistle of James as being semi-apocryphal, which was a serious error, since it clashes with the Sola Fide concept (the Antilegomenna along with the anti-Semitic book he wrote, with vile illustrations by Lucas Cranach the Elder, are the two main objections I have to Martin Luther, although on the other hand I greatly admire his devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary and his focus on Holy Communion as the center of Christian worship).

I would be interested to know what my dear Lutheran friend @MarkRohfrietsch and my knowledgeable Lutheran friend @ViaCrucis think about your idea, and likewise, what my pious Calvinist friend and fellow enthusiast of church architecture and ecclesiastical history @bbbbbbb thinks about that statement. Because frankly, from my perspective, it seems extremely anachronistic, in that you are seeking to take a modern idea, which as far as I am aware is not even a thing in Confessional Lutheranism, and certainly not within liberal ELCA lutheranism, and you are superimposing it on the views of John Calvin, whose theology was quite different in many respects from that of Reformed Christians today (since one aspect of “Calvinists” is the idea of semper reformanda, and since the time of John Calvin there have been numerous developments, such as the double predestination concept which was developed at the Synod of Dort, birthplace of the “Tulip Idea”, and various permutaitons on Calvinism, such as early Scottish Covenanting Presbyterianism, and later on, Mercersburg Theology and Scoto-Catholicism and Reformed Catholicism, and then still more recently the Neo-Orthodoxy of Karl Barth outlined in his ponderous Church Dogmatics, a voluminous work of systematic theology which unlike Calvin’s institutes, does not make significant recourse to Church tradition or Patristics, since historically Calvinists were very much into Patristic thought and even coined the phrase “consensus patrum.”

So ideas like Lordship Salvation may be applicable to some derivatives of Calvinism in some contemporary denominations, but not so much Lutheranism, at least as far as I am aware, and certainly not if we dive into the history of the Calvinist movement.

I agree wholeheartedly with your understanding that all of the historic Reformed and Calvinist Churches strongly affirm sola fide. Chapter 11 of the Westminster Confession of Faith covers the doctrine of justification. It affirms the Reformation doctrines of justification by faith alone and the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the elect.

 

[d taylor]

That’s not how I read the passage in question; indeed, I’ve never come across anyone who read that passage that way before, even supporters of OSAS. It seems very strange.

Now by the way, despite the fact that I am Orthodox, I hope that OSAS is the case, because I have a beloved friend who apostatized before his death, and so I pray for his salvation and that of everyone else. In Orthodoxy, we do not presume to know who will have what outcome, but we do believe that Christ our True God is infinitely merciful, and that only those misotheists who hate God will be consigned to the outer darkness, and even that is a mercy, since they would experience close proximity to God and specifically experience His love as a burning fire, and thus life in the World to Come would be an intolerable torture.

-
​

So you think Paul referring to what he is hoping to receive (for running a good race) a prize. Is the same as Eternal Life, which is plainly stated in The Bible as a free gift.

Well as for your friend, if he ever believed in Jesus (that is Jesus was the object of his faith) for God's free gift of Eternal Life. Then he is with Jesus now in heaven, if Jesus was never the object of his faith then I have to say he is not with Jesus.

 

[The Liturgist]

So you think Paul referring to what he is hoping to receive (for running a good race) a prize. Is the same as Eternal Life, which is plainly stated in The Bible as a free gift.

The Bible makes it clear that faith without works is dead, and that if we do not forgive those who trespass against us, God will not forgive us, and many other things.

Is Salvation a free gift? Yes, insofar as God does not charge us to receive it. But nontheless it is a process, not an event, and it is something we must, to quote St. Paul, work out with fear and trembling.

 

[d taylor]

The Bible makes it clear that faith without works is dead, and that if we do not forgive those who trespass against us, God will not forgive us, and many other things.

Is Salvation a free gift? Yes, insofar as God does not charge us to receive it. But nontheless it is a process, not an event, and it is something we must, to quote St. Paul, work out with fear and trembling.

-
​

This faith with out works, I have given my position/ belief on this, not going to repeat it

Forgiveness for a born again child of God is a fellowship forgiveness. That is to be recognized no longer as a disobedient child. but to be accepted again as a child who wants to please God and be a good productive family member.

Receiving God's free gift of Eternal Life happens in a moment of time. The believing in Jesus and receiving of Eternal Life happen the very moment a person comes to believe. It is belief in Jesus that gives a person God's free gift of Eternal Life.

When they believe that, that is true (belief in Jesus) is the way a person becomes a born again child of God. They are born again, they do not have to decide to believe in Jesus or to not believe in Jesus. But until they believe it is belief in Jesus that gives them God's free gift of Eternal Life. They will remain an unbeliever no matter how active they are in a church or how much they love God or how many times they have been baptized or repented of sins, etc..

John 5:24 states they cross over from death to life and will not come into judgement. The verse does not say they will eventually cross over from death to life if they remain faithful their whole life, etc......

 

[The Liturgist]

Forgiveness for a born again child of God is a fellowship forgiveness. That is to be recognized no longer as a disobedient child. but to be accepted again as a child who wants to please God and be a good productive family member.

Receiving God's free gift of Eternal Life happens in a moment of time. The believing in Jesus and receiving of Eternal Life happen the very moment a person comes to believe. It is belief in Jesus that gives a person God's free gift of Eternal Life.

When they believe that, that is true (belief in Jesus) is the way a person becomes a born again child of God. They are born again, they do not have to decide to believe in Jesus or to not believe in Jesus. But until they believe it is belief in Jesus that gives them God's free gift of Eternal Life. They will remain an unbeliever no matter how active they are in a church or how much they love God or how many times they have been baptized or repented of sins, etc..

But the problem is this is inaccurate, it clashes with the plain meaning of the text of the New Testament, for example, St. Paul, and with the writings of the Early Church Fathers.

To put it another way, what possible prize do you think St. Paul hoped to win, if not salvation? And why are we told to work out our salvation with fear and trembling?

 

[d taylor]

But the problem is this is inaccurate, it clashes with the plain meaning of the text of the New Testament, for example, St. Paul, and with the writings of the Early Church Fathers.

To put it another way, what possible prize do you think St. Paul hoped to win, if not salvation? And why are we told to work out our salvation with fear and trembling?

-
​

Paul is addressing believers and their appearing at the bema seat judgment of believers (the day of Christ) for rewards. Paul even states this in Philippians 2 so that I may rejoice in the day of Christ

holding fast the word of life, so that I may rejoice in the day of Christ that I have not run in vain or labored in vain.

 

[The Liturgist]

-
​

Paul is addressing believers and their appearing at the bema seat judgment of believers (the day of Christ) for rewards. Paul even states this in Philippians 2 so that I may rejoice in the day of Christ

holding fast the word of life, so that I may rejoice in the day of Christ that I have not run in vain or labored in vain.

I have no idea what you think such a reward would be if not eternal life. The interpretation you propose does not agree with the text in the slightest, and I know of no one who has interpreted as such, even among low church Protestants.