Author Archives: MikeB

Faith and Creed (Two views on Enduring Faith)

Posted on by
Reply

In his book, Eternal Security, Charles Stanley seeks to defend the idea that enduring faith is not necessary for salvation.

God does not require a constant attitude of faith in order to be saved – only an act of faith.

In chapter 10 he asks and answers in the affirmative the question: Does the Scripture actually teach that regardless of the consistency of our faith, our salvation is secure? In seeking to provide a basis for his answer of yes, Dr. Stanley says:

The clearest statement on this subject is issued in Paul’s second letter to Timothy (2:11-13). …

The apostle’s meaning is evident. Even if a believer for all practical purposes becomes an unbeliever, his salvation is not in jeopardy. Christ will remain faithful.

This passage captures, what most scholars consider, an existing creed (or hymn) used by the early church.

If we died with him, we will also live with him.
If we endure, we will also reign with him.
If we deny him, he will also deny us.
If we are unfaithful, he remains faithful, since he cannot deny himself.

If this passage is the clearest teaching that we don’t need enduring faith to be saved then it is this position that is in jeopardy. Not because this passage cannot be construed in the way Stanley and others in the Free Grace movement propose. But, because this passage is not explicit and thus open to other (and in my opinion better) interpretations. In this post we examine how some tackle this creed in light of the context and literary form.

Continue reading →

The Assurance Anomaly

Posted on by
1

This post is the third in a series exploring the Grace Reaction, or the logical order of events in salvation. In this series we have compared this to a chemical reaction. In the Justification Transposition, I  proposed the following logical order of steps in salvation:

Dead → Grace → Faith → Justification → Reconciliation → Regeneration/Life

Science seeks to propose theories to explain the physical world using the data that we have at hand. Breaking Bad - Assurance Anomaly3In a similar fashion, theology seeks to describe God.

In both science and theology, you might think you have something figured out. But then you notice, or more likely someone notices and points out to you, an anomaly. Something that doesn’t fit in with the explanation or theory that you have provided.

This is not a bad thing. It helps us learn and grow. Did you know that it was a conflict in the theories proposed by Maxwell and Newton that allowed Einstein to find an anomaly in Newton’s laws that further led to the Theory of Relativity. It was also an anomaly that rocked the world when scientists reported they measured subatomic particles traveling faster than light (an impossibility according to Einstein). Further testing could not reproduce the effect and the original anomaly is considered the result of faulty hardware.

Reformers would consider the first part of 1 John 5:1 as an anomaly to the logical order of events that were proposed above.

Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God …

This passage, they contend, supports the idea that regeneration precedes faith. Continue reading →

How Free is Free Will?

Posted on by
7

Over the last week I have been in a discussion over soteriology, which started with the request to define free will. Free will can be a hard concept to define because there are very different ideas of what it means and how it works.

This discussion was not with Michael Patton. However, he has written an excellent post entitled “A Calvinist’s Understanding of Free Will”, explaining free will from the Determinist/Reformed point of view. The points raised in this post are representative of the problems often cited against libertarian free will .

In this post libertarian freedom is defined as the ability to choose against who you are.

If you ask whether a person can choose against their nature (i.e. libertarian freedom) the answer, I believe, must be “no.” A person’s nature makes up who they are. Who they are determines their choice.

This definition may be how Reformers define and understand libertarian freedom, but this is not how proponents of libertarian free will (Arminians) would define it (noted later in the post). That aside, most proponents would agree with the idea that who a person is determines the choices that they make. Most would also accept the notion that a person can not choose against who they are. Continue reading →