Ben johnson said:
Please understand that as I view salvation as FELLOWSHIP WITH JESUS, and though (as you correctly say) I do sin, I do not DESIRE sin and the act GRIEVES me; it drives me to my knees in repentance that my fellowship with Him not be disturbed.
Understood. Nevertheless, that which you do not want to do, you do, and that which you want to do, you do not do. You've said the solution to this dilemma is in Rom 8. So, does that mean that since you continue to do that which you do not want (sin), that you do not have the solution?
From personal experience, I know that during times when I've struggled with persistent sins that I sometimes can't believe I'm doing what I am, and though I'm immediately remorseful somehow I fall right back into it again. It grieves me deeply, and to be sure it is injurious to my fellowship, but my salvation is not lost for that season. Were that so, my heart would be plagued with the fear that I might die in the midst of one of those struggles and be cast down.
I understood you to have asserted that they DO. Case in point --- 2Pet2:20. You say "they only APPEAR to escape but are never SAVED." Doesn't "appearing to escape", by definition mean "doing righteous things"? I mean, if they are UNRIGHTEOUS, then they are not "appearing to escape defilements", are they?
No, Ben. That is a mischaracterization of what my position is. The true test of whether acts are righteous is in the heart. If one is performing righteous works without the right motivation, then they are not truly righteous acts...merely what is often termed "civic righteousness." My position is that they appear saved by their outwardly righteous actions, but in fact are not. The Pharisees are
prime examples of this. That is why Jesus called the "whited sepulchres" and "whitewashed tombs." Their outward appearance was one of purity and righteousness, but their hearts were far from Him. When Jesus said that our righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees, was He setting the bar low or high?
This is my question also. I think a difference between us on verses like 2Pet1:9, is maybe you see it as DYNAMIC (they are forgotten but will recover eventually), while I see it as STATIC (the contrast between the thesis --- those who with DILIGENCE remain useful and Heaven is abundantly provided, as opposed to the antithesis of those who LACK the qualities, LACK the diligence, FORGOTTEN purification from former sins (meaning they are back INTO those sins), and the gates of heaven will not be provided at ALL. It appears to me that you deal with verses like 1Jn3:10 (in regards to 2Pet1:9) by saying "they are GROWING and WILL practice righteousness AGAIN". (I just don't see any assurance in the text that they will...) What I'm saying, is that if one IS REGENERATED NOW (is "born again"), how can he avoid repentance? How can he be "immoral-ungodly-uncontrolled-unloving" (even if you say he WILL be someday AGAIN)?
Ben, if you are regenerated now, why do you still sin? Do you have personal assurance that you have repented of each and every sin committed post-conversion without exception? If so, did you immediately repent of them after they occurred? Do you realize each and every sin you committed when you committed it from Day One of your conversion?
What you just wrote appears to me to be saying that unless one repents of their sins, each and every one, and does so immediately, that they are 'unrepentant' and therefore unregenerate.
Do I get drunk? No. Do I visit prostitutes? No. My sins are more subtle; if I miss an opportunity that God has given me, or know something is right but fail to carry through, that constitutes sin. Yet it grieves me, and I walk in repentance --- which means conscious turning AWAY from sin TOWARDS Him.
Your sins are more
subtle, but are they any less severe? Are you honestly comparing your sins to that of your brother or neighbor as a measure of your own salvation/sanctification? Again I must ask, if you've already repented and turned away from sin, why are you still sinning at all?
WHAT sin? Do I pocket an item from a store that Icannot afford? No. Do I KEEP the excess change that I received (or ignore the item that was missed by the store scanner)? NO. I know you, Fru, you and I agree that "forgiveness is not license to sin"; God desires us NOT to sin.
Agreed. But in the times that you do stumble (and we both know you do), are you unsaved because of it? Only unsaved up to the point of repentance?
You do understand don't you that when you sin, you are doing so according to your strongest desire at that moment. That means that at the moment you choose to do so, your desire in the flesh to sin is greater than your desire in the spirit to please God.
It depends on how you define, "WE". You and I --- NO. But I have seen others who return to fornication, DAILY, and/or to robbery, and/or cursing, and/or drunkenness. It's all a question of REPENTANCE, isn/t it?
Do you know for a fact any of the following things about that person or persons?
1) That they truly had saving faith in Jesus Christ...not just
notitia or
assensus, but true
fiducia?
2) That they felt absolutely no remorse for their actions and in fact delighted in them
3) That they have not and will not ever repent of their actions
4) That they were completely and wholly devoid of any fellowship or inclination towards Christ
I know personally people who are saved who have fallen off the wagon with respect to alcoholism after being dry for years, only to pick themselves back up and eventually return to abstinence. But you are telling me that that entire time they were in the midst of their struggle that they were unsaved?
DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT, BEN?
YES. This is because of how I define salvation --- I see it as "black-n-white", no 'middle-of-da-road". We are slaves either to RIGHTEOUSNESS, or to SIN. Rm6:16 What does "REGRESS-SOME" or "BACKSLIDE" mean? Doesn't it mean "sin repeatedly, iow without repentance"?
If you are a slave to righteousness, why do you sin at all, Ben? Are you engaged daily in going back and forth between slavery to sin and slavery to righteousness?
This is what the context of 2Pet1 says to me. It seems black-n-white to me, EITHER we have these qualities AND the entrance of Heaven abundantly provided, OR we LACK the qualities and the entrance not provided at all. The struction of the passage presents HEAVEN'S PROVISION as conditional to our DILIGENCE.
No, Ben. There is no concrete necessity to view it that way. The correct logical conclusion is that either we have these qualities and the entrance will be abundantly provided, or we lack them and the entrance will not be abundantly provided. You have to show reasonable cause for concluding that the only way the entrance can be provided is "abundantly." This is the type of logical/grammatical fallacy that is perpetuating your view.
I do not see how you can understand "he who LACKS these qualities (morality, self-control, godliness, love) is nevertheless STILL SAVED". You say "ADD these TO our salvation" --- but how can one be saved if he HAS NOT these qualities? If he is immoral, will he enter heaven? If unloving, will Jesus welcome him? How?
Because we have our salvation in the merit of Christ, Ben, NOT in our own righteousness. What it sounds like you are saying is that that merit is not enough...that we are reliant upon what we add to our faith in order to preserve our salvation.
And it is the Apostle Peter who said "ADD TO your faith," not me. As you seem to have readily admitted above, it's not enough that we exhibit any of these virtues at any time to varying degrees...we are in fact wholly reliant upon these additions to our faith in order to be saved.
No, there is a clear, but foundational difference. LEGALISM asserts that "these things, SAVE you". Responsible grace says "we are warned to be diligent IN CHRIST, that He indwells us, so that these THINGS display a heart that IS SAVED". IOW, legalism proposes salvation as the consequence of the traits, while Responsible Grace proposes the traits as the consequence of the salvation (consequence of Jesus indwelling us as Savior and Lord-Master)."
But see, you have to presuppose that salvation can be lost in order to advocate that an observable lack of these traits, whether momentary or for a season, of necessity indicates a complete and total lack of salvation. That is false. What your position and legalism share in common is the absolute and definitive lack of salvation for those who do not display the traits for any period of time.
The Reformed position agrees in principle with your notion that the traits are the consequence of genuine salvation, but in practice as you've put it forth your doctrine shares with legalism in the manner I just spoke to above. In essence, your doctrine of sanctification is for practical purposes completely monergistic on the part of the believer. God is limited in His ability to refine and sanctify you by the fallibility of the human condition. I find this to be completely counter to New Testament teaching.
This "thesis/antithesis" contruct of "diligent-saved / undiligent-fallen" occurs in many places in Scripture. It seems identical in 2Cor13:5 --- we are to "test ourselves to see if we are in the faith". I seem to remember you saying that "verse 6 states the GIVEN that we WILL PASS THE TEST" --- while I read this as another "positive affirmation" (said as encouragement towards the goal); for why would he say "TEST if IN THE FAITH", if it was impossible to fall OUT of it?
I don't recall saying any such thing, but to an extent it is true. This verse serves two purposes: to urge them to seek the assurance of their own faith by examining the evidence which manifests it, and to encourage diligence in rooting out the areas of their lives where they still have work to do.
It should lead towards righteousness and sinlessness. We both reject "Carnal Chrsitianity" (Antinomianism), as it asserts the SAVED can live as the REPROBATE; and yet, what does "backslidden-but-saved" assert, but the very same thing? I have heard you clearly say, "Predestination is not a LICENSE to SIN" --- yet if one can be backslidden but saved, where is the motivation away from slothfulness?
You tell me, Ben. You are saved, yet a sinner. It has been the understanding from Apostolic times: simul justus et piccator (at the same time just and sinner). What is your motivation away from sinning at all given that despite what assurance you have of your salvation you persist in sinning at all?
The answer is a contrite heart, moved to continued and renewed repentance by the Holy Spirit. The reality is that we still wage war against the flesh from the moment of our conversion to the moment of death. Every second we are in this corrupt body we are at war. It is not as though we have always been at war from birth and it's only at our conversion that we started winning at all. The battle did not even START until our regeneration and indwelling. This is not a sprint, but a marathon, and some miles are more difficult than others. Not every battle is won, but the outcome of the war is assured.
"No other foundation can be laid but Jesus; let each be careful how he builds on it. If any man builds with gold silver precious-stones wood hay straw, ...the fire will test the quality of the work; if his work is burned up, he shall suffer loss, but he shall be saved yet so as through fire." I see this as merely extension of 1Pet1:6-9: "you have been distressed by various trials, that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though TESTED BY FIRE (trials), may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ. ...obtaining as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls." Clearly trials TEST us, and non-qualitiy works will be burnt up; but if we HAVE Jesus as our FOUNDATION, we will learn to produce QUALITY works that will NOT burn up...
1 Cor 3:15 is crystal clear, Ben. "If his work is burned up, he shall suffer loss, but HE SHALL BE SAVED, yet so as one through fire." Your excerpt from 1 Peter left out a critical part in verse 5: "who are kept by the power of God through faith for salvation ready to be revealed in the last time." To borrow your phrase, you advocate that this verse "does not mean what it says." Your position really says those "who keep themselves by the power of their faith for salvation." It makes NO SENSE to say that the power of God to keep men is only applicable so long as men maintain their faith. This is not what the verse says. It says God's power keeps them for salvation, and the instrument by which this is accomplished is faith. If God's power only works to the extent our faith allows it with respect to salvation and perseverance, then this verse quite simple does not mean what it says.
God preserves them (Jude 1), is able to keep them from stumbling (Jude 24), He has sealed them (Eph 4:30) by the Holy Spirit Who is the guarantee/down payment/earnest of their inheritance until their redemption is fulfilled (Eph 1:13-14), He will confirm them to the end (1 Cor 1:7-9), He WILL glorify them (Rom 8:30), and He in faithfulness WILL DO IT (1 Thess 5:24).
Thus the "saved through fire" speaks of our maturing by trials. "Blessed is he who perseveres under trial; for when he has PASSED THE TEST, he will receive the crown of life, which the Lord has promised to THOSE WHO LOVE HIM." Jms1:12
So, the person in 1 Cor 3:15 whose works have all been destroyed by fire but is still saved, what does that say about the externals in relation to our faith. If the works perish but the faith perseveres, he has passed the test, no? According to you, it's not a lifelong test, but a series of smaller tests, and if one fails any of the tests, he's unsaved until he manages to pass the next test with something other than his faith to show for it?
Again, salvation being INDWELT by Jesus (inseparable from fellowship) either we HAVE Jesus or NOT (1Jn5:12-13). And I don't worry at all about heavenly crowns; we may have different rewards, but they are of no consequence to me. Neither mansions, nor golden streets, nor fancy crowns have any value to me --- just to be in the presence of the Creator who loved me and died for me, that's all the reward I need.
And that clearly is the glory one finds even if he has been saved as through fire. He has nothing left, nothing to show for his building, but he has his life and may glory in rejoice in that alone.
The rewards may be of no consequence to you, but our Lord encouraged us to store up for ourselves treasures in Heaven. To be sure, we do not do the work merely for the sake of the reward, but from a heart that seeks to do that which pleases God. Nevertheless, just because you "don't worry at all about heavenly crowns" does not render their existence insignificant. I long to hear the words from my Savior "Well done thou good and faithful servant" not because it fuels my pride or status, but because I know upon hearing such that I have pleased my Lord. The heavenly crowns glorify Him, not me.
I recall reading several very long OSAS threads where my intuition would lead me to say that neither side understands what the other is saying--on the basis that they mean two different things by the word saved. That is, though, merely my opinion.
Try sharing with a Jehovah's Witness --- type in "JEHOVAH", and the screen says: "JEHOVAH not in the Bible"... 
