It’s interesting to read posts in which someone reacts to the content of a particular idea by this kind of comment: “you say that because you are a xyz.”

This is given a very funny spoof in C.S. Lewis’ book “Pilgrim’s Regress,” in one section of which he’s spoofing Freud. One character tells another how to answer the assertion that “2 + 2 = 4.” The proper response, Lewis spoofs, is to tell them “you say that because you are a mathematician.”

Of course I’m talking about responding to someone’s ideas by describing their supposed origin or associations.

I’m not saying we should be naive about where people are coming from. If we’re talking to an expert in Jehovah Witness doctrine, we should be aware of the kind of discussion we will probably be hearing about the Person of the Holy Spirit. However, this does not prove, by itself, that what they are about to say is false — or provide a short-cut for putting them down. The Lord Jesus allowed the meanest-motived person to set forth their case if they could (Jn 18:23).

Now, let me respond to the content of a previous post by you, Robert, in discussing the Centurion’s faith. I’m very happy you comment concerning the Centurion that the issue had nothing to do with promising anything or promising to commit to anything. You’re out from the trap of what you called extreme LD.

You give a very confused presentation for someone who would follow Wilkin and Hodges into saying that faith is intellectual assent only. For example, your use of the word reliance would be another way of saying trust. So you at the onset aren’t being consistant.

“belief without a content is meaningless”

And where have I suggested otherwise?

“What does it mean to “believe in Jesus”? It is to believe His guarantee to impart eternal life and to resurrect the one who believes His promise.”

And true to the mosre extreme form of Free Grace theology, you cloud the gospel by giving a promise that isn’t dependant upon who He is. You have done the very thing that Charlie and I spoke about and even agreed upon. What you have done, in following the extremeism of GES, is to seperate the promise from the one who made it. That is a rediculious idea since Jesus said to believe in Him. However, I do understand why you do this: you have to do this so you can present faith as being only intellectual assent, yet even in your above post you could not remain consistant, which really throws the extreme GES position into a huge confusion.

Perhaps if you were to rely more upon the Biblical text and less upon treating both Hodges and Wilkin as some type of magesterial teachers……….

Robert

belief without a content is meaningless

What does it mean to “believe in Jesus”? It is to believe His guarantee to impart eternal life and to resurrect the one who believes His promise.

If you aren’t believing into Christ FOR eternal life, you aren’t relying upon Christ’s promise, for eternal life is His promise.

When you believe in Jesus, in the soteriological sense, you are believing something about Him. What you are believing about Him is that He guarantees your eternal destiny.

“Believing in Jesus”, in the soteriological sense, has a content.

That content is that Jesus guarantees the believer’s eternal well-being.

“Hey, it’s a small world. So we have a mutual ally! Kewl! A Kc says.”

So you do know Gojira if only by introduction? He spoke highly of you.

“About the doctrine of eternal security, in a certain sense it depends on how we would define that doctrine doesn’t it.”

No doubt about it. That was why I brought up the supposedly three different views acceptable as Free Grace. The one in particular, the more “Reformed View” which was number 3 under the Free Grace heading.

“These promises, really the same promise, can’t be believed without understanding one’s afterlife as settled. So the person would not have to have a worked out doctrine of eternal security…”

That is where I would have to disagree somewhat. As I have already said, Eternal Security is the outcome. That is not in dispute. But where I disagree with you is saying that those verses “can’t be believed without understanding one’s afterlife as settled.”

Let’s look at your first verse:

“he who believes in Me has everlasting life”

Believes in me is the key phrase in all three. A reader could very normally look at those verses and say the offer is valid as long as one believes. Now you and I see eternal security there, but the lost person on the street that you would be speaking with may not see it like we do. But just because they don’t see it like that, it doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t believe the very promises that were given. They would see that believe is in the present tense. But that doesn’t mean that they didn’t believe in Jesus; it would mean that they didn’t think your interpretation was correct. Now they would have believed, but when you place eternal security as an entrance requirment, you have to look to them as unbelievers since they would not have agreed with what you would say that have to belive in just to be saved. Jesus is the object of our faith.

“Or that God would automatically prevent him from deserting the faith. That, even though wrong, wouldn’t stand in the way either.”

But of course the Free Grace view number 3 ***would*** in fact say that he could not apostize.

In the end, it would be like saying that if one doesn’t believe in unconditional election at the moment of initial faith, then they never really believed. (I wouldn’t say that by the way, it is an example. Just wanted to clear that up, not because I think you would ascribe that to me, but because it is easy to take things in a confused manner on these blogs.)

Robert

Hey, it’s a small world. So we have a mutual ally! Kewl! A Kc says.

I’d hoped to find a larger window of time with which to respond to your comment, but will just have to dash this off for now.

About the part you didn’t understand, the original snippet I was wondering about was something you said above: “In essence, the FG position is guilty of the same charge it gives to the LS position in regards to repentance.”

About the doctrine of eternal security, in a certain sense it depends on how we would define that doctrine doesn’t it. So moving away from the word doctrine toward the simple truth that Jesus is promising to take care of a person’s after life, I’ll quote again the three verses I quoted above:

“he who believes in Me has everlasting life”

“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life”

“I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die.”

These promises, really the same promise, can’t be believed without understanding one’s afterlife as settled. So the person would not have to have a worked out doctrine of eternal security, but in fact he might, and if so, in my opinion, he would have to either believe that even if he apostatized from the faith he would still have his eternal life. Or that God would automatically prevent him from deserting the faith. That, even though wrong, wouldn’t stand in the way either. There are probably other options, but you get my drift.

We may have a different view of the content of the minimal offer of eternal life, though. That would affect this question quite a bit.

God bless, Robert!

If we overspecify the meaning of repentance in order to prop up a foregone conclusion, however common that is in debate circles, we are guilty of a dishonesty, even a bearing of false witness to the Scripture.

I wish I had read before I hit post. The centurion would have also had to “BELIEVE ABOUT” that is, recognize that Christ was also a savior (deliverier) of what he needed. When he “BELIEVED IN,” the saving action on the part of Christ was given.

I hope what I wrote made sense.

Robert

I hope that you are doing well today. I would also like to thank you for continuing this discussion with me. As I told you previously, I most certainly do find this to be an honor and a blessing.

“Also, on my website….”

Yes, i have read many of the things in your Grace Notes previously over the last year to year and a half. You have more than a few there that I think you have absolutely nailed. I will also have to renew my subscription to BibSac to read your article. I would imagine that it will be an expansion of the treatment you gave the verse in your Grace Notes.

“With all due respect to Berkhof and many others who divide faith into notitia/assensus/fiducia (knowledge/assent/faith)”

I hope that you do not fail to include Ryrie into that group.

“I think this is more an anthropological construct that a biblical one.”

Personally, I have no reason to disagree with you there, although I do think the above has it’s positive service. Ryrie gives it a very fair treatment, of which I am sure you are aware.

“Besides, it is a tautology anyway, since fiducia = faith.”

Ah, Gordon Clark. He is one of the people I would personally never direct anyone to.

Regardless, I would disagree with the manner in which the above is framed. Clark had to frame it that way to remain consistant with his borderline hyperCalvinistic theology and the role he gave to logic (in my opinion, extreme as well). The reason it is framed wrong is because it doesn’t match how it is used by those who advocate it. For example, Berkhop doesn’t say that faith is made of knowledge, assent, and faith. That would be crazy. Yet that would be the way Clark would have to misrepresent Berkhof to make his (Clark’s) theology work. It is positivily given as knowledge, assent and trust. The misrepresentation has to do with the “trust.” Is trust a by word for faith? It most certainly is. That however doesn’t necessitate that be it’s exclusive usage. Nor is that the way it is used in the above formula, a formula which is descriptive of the components of faith, but not a definition of faith. It’s usage in the forumla is a technical point. Trust is used to describe the active component. Why is an active component necessary? Because one is believing ***IN*** someone else. The “in” demands (believe in) something that “about” (believe about) doesn’t. One would have to “believe about” in order to “believe in” Why? one of the reasons (and we can develope this further in private or here, depending on the amount of time you have available) is this fact that pistis is used in the Gospel of John as a verb. That would indicate that there certainly is something active about faith (***However, let it be know that doesn’t necessarily imply the LS position. It is simply an honest admission on my part).

Let’s take an example. The Centurion’s faith as found in Matthew 8 and Luke 7. I don’t want this to cloud this issue, but I would personally say that the Centurion never left his house. Your solution to the problem may be different than what I would give. And that would certainly be fine. Either way, our focuse will be on the confession he made. AND WHAT A CONFESSION THAT WAS!

Okay, I have presented a believe in catagory and a believe about catagory. (The believe in catagory, by the way, is dependant on the believe about.)

BELIEVE ABOUT
We can see from his confession his appraisle of Christ as Lord. That had to do with Christ’s authority. Christ was authoritative in his very Person. He had the power at His command to heal the servant. The centurion knew that and agreed with it. Had he not agreed with it, he would have never sought Christ in the first place. He had to believe about before he could believe in. And the believing about had to be built off of what he knew, and his agreement with that knowledge.

BELIEVE IN
Here is the active component.There was something he desperatly needed and desired: his servant to be healed. Had he never “believed in” not only would his beloved servant have died, but what he “believed about” didn’t do one iota of good for what he needed. To seperate those two, for example as Wilkin does, would be total disaster. That would be doing something the Bible never does. The centurion’s “believing in” is shown in his totaly reliance upon Christ for what he (the centurion) desperately needed and wanted: his beloeved severent healed. Had he retained just his intellectual assent (believe about), his servant would have died.

Now let’s address one question (and I do this in regards to some of the more extreme LD advocates). The issue had nothing to do with the Centurion promising to do anything. Similarily, in regards to the reception of salvation, the issue has absolutely nothing to do with one promising anything, or promissing to commit to doing anything. In the reception of salvation, the issie is that one is a dead in sins kind of person who needs deliverance (salvation) from that. The issue on the table at that moment has nothing to do with any good works or any transformation. The issue has to do with God saving that person from the state of being they are in.

As before, Charlie, I look forward to hearing from you again. And if I have said anything to you that may have personally offended you in this post, I certainly do apologize, as that was not my intent.

Blessings to you, brother.

Robert

I agree with your view of hope as an expression of faith. I direct you to the January 2007 issue of Bibliotheca Sacra which will carry my article on Colossians 1:21-23. Hope is a critical concept in understanding that warning. I develop the idea of hope in the book of Colossians as context. Also, on my website www.GraceLife.org, see the GraceNote on hope in Colossians:
http://gracelife.org//index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=14&dir=ASC&order=name&limit=15&limitstart=0