# Question on Warnings to the Elect



## fralo4truth (Sep 17, 2012)

A good friend of mine is currently engaged in debate over the purpose of warnings in scripture. He stated:

“The warning passages warn of real danger and serve as means of salvation. In the case of those who have been predestined to salvation, they will succeed. “

In response the opponent stated:

"My question would be how can they be a real danger if they could never actually occur to the elect? Also if the elect can’t fall away, then following
the thought all the way through, the warnings become false warnings, and even further lies."

I'd like to get your thoughts on this.

Thank you.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 17, 2012)

The reality is that we live by the things revealed and not the hidden decree of God (Deut 29:29). When we're warned by Scripture, therefore, to hear His voice Today, it would be disobedient to the revealed Word of God to begin to speculate about whether that warning is appropriate to _me_ because, after all, if I'm elect, the threats and warnings of the passage could not possibly endanger me. I would imagine, in fact, that some have given in to this faulty speculation and it is the very means of their hardening: the very thing that is supposed to comfort (knowing the God saves the elect to the uttermost) is actually twisted to speculative use when the question is, Today, whether or not I'm going to heed the warnings of Scripture.

In the ultimate sense God will preserve the elect so, if the question is whether or not the Elect can be lost, then the answer is "No". But reasoning from that fact to the pointless speculation about whether a warning is real or not in the Scriptures is an improper inference. It's rather like speculating that any sin I commit has no real consequences because Christ paid for it any way. It's the very folly that Paul rebukes in Romans 6. It's as if the detractors are saying: "Well if God forgives my sin no matter how bad I am then what you're saying is that it doesn't matter how bad I am thereafter because God's grace abounds all the more....." Paul rebukes this notion as missing the whole point of salvation and yet we can embrace it as a "positive" in the case of Hebrews and start using election as some sort of "fire suit" for all the warnings of Hebrews instead of reasoning (as Hebrews wants us to) that we've received more light and we need to press on together because, if the consequences were dire to those in the OC who heard the Gospel, then how much more will we be condemned....

We can sit there and reason: "Isn't that a nice hypothetical..." or we can actually _obey_ the things revealed and take the fellowship of the Saints and the "pressing in" lest anyone be left behind with the seriousness that Hebrews demands of us.


----------



## malum in se (Sep 17, 2012)

My understanding would be that God uses the warnings as a means, just as preaching is used as a means of salvation, to keep and encourage the elect to faithfulness and to damn the reprobate.


----------



## rbcbob (Sep 17, 2012)

Two men sitting in the same church hear the same warning from the pulpit; neither of them know infallibly if they are elect. Both have been dabbling in the same sin for some time now. The same sermon penetrates each man's heart. One is led to sanctifying repentance and the other is led to true salvation having been a deceived professor. The same sober warning worked God's will in each man's heart.


----------



## Peairtach (Sep 17, 2012)

fralo4truth said:


> A good friend of mine is currently engaged in debate over the purpose of warnings in scripture. He stated:
> 
> “The warning passages warn of real danger and serve as means of salvation. In the case of those who have been predestined to salvation, they will succeed. “
> 
> ...



As Josh has reminded us before, you can't buy regeneration goggles; or did he say he'd got them free with a comic? 

There are people that I'm pretty well 100% sure are truly converted, but I'm not infallible.


----------



## crimsonleaf (Sep 17, 2012)

rbcbob said:


> Two men sitting in the same church hear the same warning from the pulpit; neither of them know infallibly if they are elect. Both have been dabbling in the same sin for some time now. The same sermon penetrates each man's heart. One is led to sanctifying repentance and the other is led to true salvation having been a deceived professor. The same sober warning worked God's will in each man's heart.



If neither knows infallibly if he is elect, how can the one who is elect then state that he is assured that he is saved? On the basis of your statement he can only state that he has the hope of salvation at best. This issue has been of recent concern to me so it's a serious question, highlighted by the OP.


----------



## rbcbob (Sep 17, 2012)

crimsonleaf said:


> rbcbob said:
> 
> 
> > Two men sitting in the same church hear the same warning from the pulpit; neither of them know infallibly if they are elect. Both have been dabbling in the same sin for some time now. The same sermon penetrates each man's heart. One is led to sanctifying repentance and the other is led to true salvation having been a deceived professor. The same sober warning worked God's will in each man's heart.
> ...



Assurance of salvation ought not be confused with infallible knowledge.


----------



## Peairtach (Sep 17, 2012)

> If neither knows infallibly if he is elect, how can the one who is elect then state that he is assured that he is saved? On the basis of your statement he can only state that he has the hope of salvation at best. This issue has been of recent concern to me so it's a serious question, highlighted by the OP.



You can surely know that you are converted and of the elect, otherwise we are of all men most to be pitied.

The case is not the same with your knowledge of others' calling and election.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 17, 2012)

I obviously believe the WCF is useful here:



> Chapter XVIII
> Of Assurance of Grace and Salvation
> 
> I. Although hypocrites and other unregenerate men may vainly deceive themselves with false hopes and carnal presumptions of being in the favor of God, and estate of salvation1 (which hope of theirs shall perish):2 yet such as truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love Him in sincerity, endeavouring to walk in all good conscience before Him, may, in this life, be certainly assured that they are in the state of grace,3 and may rejoice in the hope of the glory of God, which hope shall never make them ashamed.4
> ...


I think if I were to simplify it, the bottom line is that the Spirit of God testifies of our adoption in a manner consistent with what we see revealed about Christ in the Word. The reality of life is that we're all sinners but the primary sign of the earnest of the Spirit to me is the _fight_. I find myself in constant battle with temptation and often I'm overcome and discouraged. I do not conclude, therefore, that the battle is futile and so give up on battling sin. I don't learn to accommodate sin and convince myself it's not so bad after all but I literally _hate_ the sin that is in my members. I'm tempted to despair but that's why I am constantly engrossed in the things of God and availing myself of the means of grace that I might be brought into contact with Christ and receive my sustenance from Him.

My election is not a quiet contemplation wherein I speculate how God may or may not protect me from certain sins. His Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. That light does not illuminate the full race ahead but gives me enough light to take the next steps ahead in faith. It is enough, TODAY, that I hear His voice and do not harden my heart. And because I believe in Christ and am strengthened for this day, God's Promise in my baptism stands to remind me that I am His.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 17, 2012)

The warnings are for the elect! Consider:*
Hebrews 3:12 *Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. *13* But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.

*Hebrews 10:25* Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. *26* For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, * 27* But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.​ 
Even we the elect tend to be thick headed and hard hearted when it comes to heeding the commands of God and the leading of His Spirit. Bunyan paints a picture of it in _Pilgrim’s Progress_, of the fire in the hearth that the devil is pouring water on to quench it, but it keeps burning, because out of sight the Lord is pouring oil on it to keep it aflame and hot. In that oil, among other elements, are the terrible warnings.

We need the dire warnings to remind us that this is no game, where we may indulge in presumptuous sins (“it’s okay, He will forgive me afterwards”), and that we may know it is the false professor who scoffs at warnings, the one whose roots do not go deep. We then cry out, “Lord, do not let me fall away, please keep me from this wicked heart of mine, please give me a heart to truly fear and love You!”

Of course the elect will be saved, but there are consequences to deliberate disobedience. If you tell a child not to cross the street except by the lights, and he does, the Lord’s child will not perish but he may be hit by a car and be crippled all his life. He will not be lost, but he may suffer damage. And his life and ministry may suffer damage.

Heed the warnings: there is a devil roaring about, seeking who he may devour, and your own heart – a worse enemy than the devil – has within it a wild beast (Luther called it, “Pope Self”) – that only the Lord can subdue, and we must bring this heart with its remaining corruption into His presence that He may enable us to reckon it dead and crucified with Him. That our hearts may be risen with Him and in Him.

The elect treasure the warnings – as road-signs of danger along the Highway of Holiness – reminders of our dependence on our Shepherd. The false professor says, “I’ll be okay – not to worry!”


P.S. That "sinning willfully" is to lead a life of continually practicing sin.


----------



## crimsonleaf (Sep 18, 2012)

rbcbob said:


> crimsonleaf said:
> 
> 
> > rbcbob said:
> ...



OK. so what is the difference between infallible knowledge and assurance - in the sense that we, as reformed brethren, are keen to point out to anyone that we KNOW we are saved? It would appear from your answer that we don't KNOW at all...


----------



## crimsonleaf (Sep 18, 2012)

Peairtach said:


> > If neither knows infallibly if he is elect, how can the one who is elect then state that he is assured that he is saved? On the basis of your statement he can only state that he has the hope of salvation at best. This issue has been of recent concern to me so it's a serious question, highlighted by the OP.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I have always believed I am saved. I appreciate that I cannot know if another is saved, but that wasn't my question. So, once I KNOW I am saved we can return to the OP's question - for whom are the warnings?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Sep 18, 2012)

See also:

http://www.sbts.edu/documents/tschreiner/2.1_article.pdf

AMR


----------



## Peairtach (Sep 18, 2012)

*Paul*


> I have always believed I am saved. I appreciate that I cannot know if another is saved, but that wasn't my question. So, once I KNOW I am saved we can return to the OP's question - for whom are the warnings?



God uses the means of His Word including warnings generally to the Church, of the possibility of a lost eternity to focus the minds of his true people, or those who are going to become his true people once they believe.

They are encouragements to the unsaved elect to get right with God, and encouragements to the saved elect to make their calling and election sure and to walk humbly with their God.


----------



## crimsonleaf (Sep 18, 2012)

Peairtach said:


> *Paul*
> 
> 
> > I have always believed I am saved. I appreciate that I cannot know if another is saved, but that wasn't my question. So, once I KNOW I am saved we can return to the OP's question - for whom are the warnings?
> ...



To make their calling and election sure? My point exactly - I thought it was.


----------



## rbcbob (Sep 18, 2012)

crimsonleaf said:


> rbcbob said:
> 
> 
> > crimsonleaf said:
> ...



As our Confession says 14:3 "3. This faith, although it be different in degrees, and may be weak or strong, yet it is in the least degree of it different in the kind or nature of it, as is all other saving grace, from the faith and common grace of temporary believers; and therefore, though it may be many times assailed and weakened, yet it gets the victory, growing up in many to the attainment of a full assurance through Christ, who is both the author and finisher of our faith"

Infallible knowledge is, quite obviously, knowledge which is incapable of being in error. The Scriptures alone and the God who gave them are infallible. Biblical Assurance is a confidence which, based upon objective Revelation plus the observations of men, is a warranted confidence. Taking God's Word and matching it with an observed life which, as best as fallible men may judge, are in conformity we are then warranted by the Word of God in being confident, assured that we are genuinely a child of God.


----------



## jwithnell (Sep 18, 2012)

The same question might be asked for any of the means of grace: if we are elect and found in Christ why do we need these means of grace? One answer is hinted at in the question: what advantage has the Jew? He was the first to receive the scripture. As part of the covenant community we are warned (or should be) over and over about trusting in mere externalism, our own strength or subjective feelings and instead urged to flee to the only One who can save. (The same message preached over and over by the prophets.) Those outside the covenant community stumble along in darkness and never give it a second thought, never hear these warnings.


----------



## crimsonleaf (Sep 18, 2012)

rbcbob said:


> Infallible knowledge is, quite obviously, knowledge which is incapable of being in error. The Scriptures alone and the God who gave them are infallible. Biblical Assurance is a confidence which, based upon objective Revelation plus the observations of men, is a warranted confidence. *Taking God's Word and matching it with an observed life which, as best as fallible men may judge, are in conformity we are then warranted by the Word of God in being confident, assured that we are genuinely a child of God.*



Sorry, I know I'm being pedantic, or maybe just missing the point, but this answer seems to bring in the question of works. My own understanding of the Reformed definition of salvation hinges entirely on God's grace. Not on any question of living a life which as best as fallible men can judge is in conformity.

I've been troubled by the whole issue of "temporary believers" for some time. It seems that I may believe that I'm saved, but that this knowledge may be fallible and I may be a temporary believer. The crux of the matter comes down to my behaviour in the future. I'm aware of being judged by my fruits, but also concerned that if those fruits are never revealed then I'm unsaved. This sounds very close to the Catholic doctrine of faith plus works being required for salvation. Now I'm sure that someone will point out that the fruits are a natural result of my being saved, but it also seems that (on the basis of the answer above) my faith plus my behaviour are necessary for my salvation to be recognised. In other words, if I don't behave as if I'm saved then I probably am not. Catholics would reach exactly the same conclusion.

I'm hoping you'll recognise that this is on-topic, as it screams to the heart of the OP, which is "why the need for warnings for those who are infallibly saved".

Catholics will say "faith plus works equals salvation", where we would seem to say "faith alone equals salvation, but unless works follow, then salvation never occurred". it's a very, very fine distinction. So fine, I'm not sure whether the distinction occurs at all.


----------



## rbcbob (Sep 18, 2012)

crimsonleaf said:


> My own understanding of the Reformed definition of salvation hinges entirely on God's grace. Not on any question of living a life which as best as fallible men can judge is in conformity.



Brother I sense your struggle and am not indifferent to it but you have a number of things confused. The defiinition of salvation would include such things as the atoning sacrifice of Christ for His elect, the repentance and faith of the same, the perseverance of those same souls, and the glorification of them in eternity. The biblical doctrine of holiness involves, among other matters, the progressive sanctification of those redeemed souls. The objective, discernible fruits of the Spirit are no grounds of our salvation; they are however an indispensable fact of a renewed life.

I would recommend a slow, careful reading of First John.


----------



## crimsonleaf (Sep 18, 2012)

Thanks Bob, but I did shortcut my response to avoid writing an essay. I understand, by the way, the need for faith and repentance. I also understand the progressive nature of sanctification. But what I'm not going to do is confuse sanctification with salvation. By perseverance are you referring to my continuing faith (in which case you seem to suggest that my loss of faith means my loss of salvation, something which goes against my teaching) or Christ's perseverance in me?

So to cut it even shorter, should I _not_ display objective, discernible fruits, am I saved? This is probably the only question I really need an answer to.

I'm trying not to sound argumentative, but probably failing miserably. You used the term "struggle" and you're not wrong! ;-)


----------



## rbcbob (Sep 18, 2012)

crimsonleaf said:


> So to cut it even shorter, should I not display objective, discernible fruits, am I saved? This is probably the only question I really need an answer to.



Paul, I would say that for the duration of a protracted period of total absence of discernible fruits you ought to have your assurance correspondingly shaken. If truly regenerate you will be, in God's kindness, shaken unto repentance and renewed holiness. Upon repentance you will observe the Spirit again producing His fruit in you and rejoice with due assurance.

Psalm 38:1 <A Psalm of David. To bring to remembrance.> O LORD, do not rebuke me in Your wrath, Nor chasten me in Your hot displeasure!
2 For Your arrows pierce me deeply, And Your hand presses me down.
3 There is no soundness in my flesh Because of Your anger, Nor any health in my bones Because of my sin.
4 For my iniquities have gone over my head; Like a heavy burden they are too heavy for me.
5 My wounds are foul and festering Because of my foolishness.
6 I am troubled, I am bowed down greatly; I go mourning all the day long.
7 For my loins are full of inflammation, And there is no soundness in my flesh.
8 I am feeble and severely broken; I groan because of the turmoil of my heart.
9 Lord, all my desire is before You; And my sighing is not hidden from You.
10 My heart pants, my strength fails me; As for the light of my eyes, it also has gone from me.
11 My loved ones and my friends stand aloof from my plague, And my relatives stand afar off.
12 Those also who seek my life lay snares for me; Those who seek my hurt speak of destruction, And plan deception all the day long.
13 But I, like a deaf man, do not hear; And I am like a mute who does not open his mouth.
14 Thus I am like a man who does not hear, And in whose mouth is no response.
15 For in You, O LORD, I hope; You will hear, O Lord my God.
16 For I said, "Hear me, lest they rejoice over me, Lest, when my foot slips, they exalt themselves against me."
17 For I am ready to fall, And my sorrow is continually before me.
18 For I will declare my iniquity; I will be in anguish over my sin.
19 But my enemies are vigorous, and they are strong; And those who hate me wrongfully have multiplied.
20 Those also who render evil for good, They are my adversaries, because I follow what is good.
21 Do not forsake me, O LORD; O my God, be not far from me!
22 Make haste to help me, O Lord, my salvation!
(Psa 38 NKJ)


----------



## crimsonleaf (Sep 18, 2012)

Thanks again Bob. I hasten to add that I am assured of my own salvation, but I'm trying to establish, or rather confirm principles. Once we can discern just how long this "protracted period" actually is, we can determine whether the salvation in question is real or imagined!

So, in short, faith without (ultimate) works (or fruit) isn't faith at all, as highlighted by the apostle James. But that logically implies that faith without works cannot be an indicator of salvation, whereas faith plus discernible fruits is. Which brings me back to my Catholic problem. It seems, as I've said before, an extremely fine distinction between saying "faith alone saves (but without fruits it's not real faith)" and "faith plus fruits equals salvation". Both statements, by the way, take it as read that all salvation is a free gift from God. You see my dilemma?

I understand that one answer is likely to be "It is the faith which is the fruit of salvation" which is the Reformed view, and that works are a by-product of faith. However, if it can also be stated that should the by-product never materialise then that faith was false and there is therefore no salvation in the first place, then faith and works seem inexorably linked.


----------



## chuckd (Sep 18, 2012)

crimsonleaf said:


> Thanks again Bob. I hasten to add that I am assured of my own salvation, but I'm trying to establish, or rather confirm principles. Once we can discern just how long this "protracted period" actually is, we can determine whether the salvation in question is real or imagined!
> 
> So, in short, faith without (ultimate) works (or fruit) isn't faith at all, as highlighted by the apostle James. But that logically implies that faith without works cannot be an indicator of salvation, whereas faith plus discernible fruits is. Which brings me back to my Catholic problem. It seems, as I've said before, an extremely fine distinction between saying "faith alone saves (but without fruits it's not real faith)" and "faith plus fruits equals salvation". Both statements, by the way, take it as read that all salvation is a free gift from God. You see my dilemma?
> 
> I understand that one answer is likely to be "It is the faith which is the fruit of salvation" which is the Reformed view, and that works are a by-product of faith. However, if it can also be stated that should the by-product never materialise then that faith was false and there is therefore no salvation in the first place, then faith and works seem inexorably linked.



There are three prominent views:
Faith -> Salvation
Faith + Works -> Salvation
Faith -> Salvation + Works


----------



## crimsonleaf (Sep 18, 2012)

Thanks Chuck. I'm aware of that, but it doesn't answer my question.


----------



## rbcbob (Sep 18, 2012)

crimsonleaf said:


> Once we can discern just how long this "protracted period" actually is, we can determine whether the salvation in question is real or imagined!



Paul, having pastored a church for many years now, I will tell you that there are times when I could wish that there was a black and white list which we could consult in the many difficult cases that come up. But the reality is that no such quick-answer list exists. What the Scriptures give are principles and illustrations which must then be prayerfully and wisely applied to real life situations. David was at least nine months in a most serious backslidden condition. Is that the standard for all spiritual backsliding? 

It is probably good for us, knowing how deceptive our hearts can be, that the warnings against sin and backsliding addressed to believers are as general as we find in the Bible. Thus no man may comfort himself in his wayward heart saying that "I am not yet over the line" or "I am still three steps short of apostasy" and therefore may continue as I am. The warnings ought to stir the conscience of any Christian who is dabbling in sin rather than confessing and forsaking it.




crimsonleaf said:


> So, in short, faith without (ultimate) works (or fruit) isn't faith at all, as highlighted by the apostle James. But that logically implies that faith without works cannot be an indicator of salvation, whereas faith plus discernible fruits is. Which brings me back to my Catholic problem. It seems, as I've said before, an extremely fine distinction between saying "faith alone saves (but without fruits it's not real faith)" and "faith plus fruits equals salvation". Both statements, by the way, take it as read that all salvation is a free gift from God. *You see my dilemma?*



I am not sure that I do see. It might take me a while to untangle the things you have mixed together in that paragraph. If you could state your dilemma in one concise sentence then I might have a better chance to answer.


----------



## crimsonleaf (Sep 18, 2012)

The question became more of a statement. It's about the link between faith and works, but I can't break it down any further than I have I'm afraid Bob. And I'm not sure I've "mixed" anything. It's straightforward enough.


----------



## MarieP (Sep 18, 2012)

> It is an old and time-worn objection that this doctrine ministers to licence and looseness. Only those who know not the power of the gospel will plead such misconception. Justification is by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone. Justification is not all that is embraced in the gospel of redeeming grace. Christ is a complete Saviour and it is not justification alone that the believing sinner possesses in him. And faith is not the only response in the heart of him who has entrusted himself to Christ for salvation. Faith alone justifies but a justified person with faith alone would be a monstrosity which never exists in the kingdom of grace. Faith works itself out through love (cf. Gal. 5:6). And faith without works is dead (cf. James 2:17-20). It is living faith that justifies and living faith unites to Christ both in the virtue of his death and in the power of his resurrection. No one has entrusted himself to Christ for deliverance from the guilt of sin who has not also entrusted himself to him for deliverance from the power of sin. “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?” (Rom. 6:1-2)



Redemption Accomplished and Applied, John Murray, (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1955). [p. 131]


----------



## MW (Sep 18, 2012)

On perseverance, WCF 17.2, "This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will." The danger of falling away is real when it is considered that there is nothing in the saints in and of themselves which causes them to persevere. As their perseverance depends on "the abiding of the Spirit," among other things, they must continually be working out their salvation with fear and trembling and making sure of their calling and election.

On assurance, WCF 18.2, "but an infallible assurance of salvation." The basis of assurance is the unchangeable and infallible promise of God in Scripture. The subject knowing might be fallible but the object known is infallible.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Sep 18, 2012)

crimsonleaf said:


> So, in short, faith without (ultimate) works (or fruit) isn't faith at all, as highlighted by the apostle James. But that logically implies that faith without works cannot be an indicator of salvation, whereas faith plus discernible fruits is. Which brings me back to my Catholic problem. It seems, as I've said before, an extremely fine distinction between saying "faith alone saves (but without fruits it's not real faith)" and "faith plus fruits equals salvation". Both statements, by the way, take it as read that all salvation is a free gift from God. You see my dilemma?
> 
> I understand that one answer is likely to be "It is the faith which is the fruit of salvation" which is the Reformed view, and that works are a by-product of faith. However, if it can also be stated that should the by-product never materialise then that faith was false and there is therefore no salvation in the first place, then faith and works seem inexorably linked.



Paul:

There is a world of difference between believing, on the one hand, that faith alone saves, and that such faith is never alone, being accompanied by other saving graces and having as its fruits good works, and, on the other hand, believing that faith entails the other saving graces and good works. Saving faith does not include in its essence other saving graces and good works. Saving faith is extraspective, looking away from all that one is and has and does. In the act of faith itself, other saving graces--like repentance--and the fruit of faith, good works, are not at all in view. They are, in fact, repudiated and disavowed. Saving faith looks to Christ and Christ alone, counting even the highest accompaniments of faith as nothing, desiring only to be found in Christ, having that rigtheousness which comes by nothing that we are or do or have, even by grace (as these accompaniments of faith are), but by faith alone. Faith looks away from everything to rest and trust in Christ alone. We don't, while in the exercise of such, have in view our repentance or our desire to obey the law. 

The Westminster Larger Catechism gets at this:

Q. 73. How doth faith justify a sinner in the sight of God?
A. Faith justifies a sinner in the sight of God, not because of those other graces which do always accompany it, or of good works that are the fruits of it, nor as if the grace of faith, or any act thereof, were imputed to him for his justification; but only as it is an instrument by which he receiveth and applieth Christ and his righteousness.

This is how faith justifies; it does so without any reference to anything to do with you. It involves you looking away from yourself to Christ. When we exercise such faith, yes, we enjoy other accompanying graces and the fruits of our faith (good works). And in the exercise of such faith, which will always have accompanying graces and fruits, we enjoy and grow in assurance. We can come to look to Christ in this so as to enjoy, as WCF 18.2 says, "an infallible assurance of faith founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation, the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made, the testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God, which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption." But we are not to be discouraged in lacking this, as WCF 18.3 says, "This infallible assurance doth not so belong to the essence of faith, but that a true believer may wait long, and conflict with many difficulties before he be partaker of it: yet, being enabled by the Spirit to know the things which are freely given him of God, he may, without extraordinary revelation, in the right use of ordinary means, attain thereunto." This seems, to me, to get at what you were asking.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## crimsonleaf (Sep 19, 2012)

It helps Alan, thank you.

Perhaps the difficulty in communicating lies with me. What is clear is that faith plus works is a necessary sign of salvation (for without works the faith may be temporary). The Catholic doctrines, which are so disparaged in Reformed circles, are hardly different under close scrutiny. They will claim that faith will lead to good works too, and that the combination of the two provides salvation. We claim that the works are unnecessary for salvation, but without them there is no faith in the first place. It seems to me that both faith and works result in salvation in both cases (Catholic and Reformed) because to remove either component results in a false faith.


----------



## earl40 (Sep 19, 2012)

armourbearer said:


> On perseverance, WCF 17.2, "This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will." The danger of falling away is real when it is considered that there is nothing in the saints in and of themselves which causes them to persevere. As their perseverance depends on "the abiding of the Spirit," among other things, they must continually be working out their salvation with fear and trembling and making sure of their calling and election.
> 
> On assurance, WCF 18.2, "but an infallible assurance of salvation." The basis of assurance is the unchangeable and infallible promise of God in Scripture. The subject knowing might be fallible but the object known is infallible.



So would this be saying we can posses an infallible knowledge and assurance? This reminds me of When Paul said "I know in Whom I believe in". Now we have the infallible knowledge and assurance that Paul was indeed saved because we base that on the scripture but can we say Paul possessed such? It appears Paul knew infallibly he was saved when he penned Romans 7.


----------



## MarieP (Sep 19, 2012)

crimsonleaf said:


> We claim that the works are unnecessary for salvation



I'm don't think that's a helpful phrase. That's like saying air is unnecessary for breathing. I don't breathe because of air, but I certainly can't breathe apart from it. And ultimately, as Berkhof said, it is not faith that justifies us, or saves us either. It is Christ, who is laid hold of by the hand of faith (a faith that is one that results in good works). We are declared blameless because of Christ, His life, death, and resurrection. Good works never earn us eternal life, nor can our faith earn it either (Eph. 2).

The thief on the cross is often pointed to as one who was one saved "without works." 

But AW Pink wrote: 



> In what sense are good works "necessary" unto salvation-necessary in order to final and complete salvation? First, they are requisite as the way in which that final salvation is attained. As a destination cannot be reached without journeying thither, neither can life be entered except through the strait gate and treading the narrow way: it is via the path of holiness that heaven is reached. Second, they are requisite as part of the means which God has appointed: they are the means of spiritual preservation. The only alternative to good works is evil ones, and evil works slay their perpetrator-sin is destructive: "if ye live after the flesh ye shall die" (Rom. 8:13; and cf. Gal. 6:8). Third, they are requisite as a condition of the possession of full salvation. Not a condition like a stipulation in a bargain, but as a connection between two things. As food must be eaten for the body to be nourished, as seed must be sown in order to a harvest, so obedience, equally as repentance and faith, precede the crowning. Fourth, as an evidence of the genuineness of faith: the fruit must manifest the tree.
> 
> Those who deny that good works are in any sense necessary to salvation appeal to the instance of the thief on the cross, arguing that in his case there was nothing more than a simple and single look of faith unto the Saviour. We might dispose of such an appeal by pointing out that his case is quite exceptional-for it is very rarely that God at once removes to heaven him who believes-and that it is not permissible to frame a rule from an exception. Instead, we meet the objector on his own ground and show that his assertion is erroneous. There was far more than a bare looking to the Saviour in his case. (1) He rebuked his companion: "Dost not thou fear God?" (Luke 23:40). (2) He repented of his sins: "we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds" (v. 41)-he condemned himself, owning that death was his due. (3) He bore public witness to Christ's sinlessness: "this man hath done nothing amiss." (4) In the face of a hostile mob, he testified to Christ's Lordship and Kingship: "Lord, remember me, when Thou comest into Thy kingdom."
> 
> In his sermon on Ephesians 2:10, Manton says: "Our well-doing is the effect of salvation if you take it for our first recovery to God, but if you take it for full salvation or our final deliverance from all evil, good works go before it indeed, but in a way of order, not of meritorious influence. To think them altogether unnecessary would too much deprecate and lessen their presence or concurrence; to think they deserve it would too much exalt and advance them beyond the line of their due worth and value. The apostle steered a middle course between both extremes. They are necessary but not meritorious. They go before eternal life not as a cause but as a way. Let us now summarize it thus: God has made promise of salvation unto His people: Christ has purchased it for them: faith obtains title thereto: good works secure actual admission into the full and final benefits of redemption, and in order to empower the Spirit renews the believer day by day."



The Sermon On The Mount - Chapter Fifty-One

And JC Ryle wrote:


> "See, for another thing, what brotherly love the thief showed to his companion. He tried to stop his railing and blaspheming, and bring him to a better mind. “Dost not thou fear God,” he says, “seeing thou art in the same condemnation?” There is no surer mark of grace than this. Grace shakes a man out of his selfishness, and makes him feel for the souls of others. When the Samaritan woman was converted, she left her water-pot and ran to the city, saying, “Come, see a man that told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ?” When Saul was converted, immediately he went to the synagogue at Damascus, and testified to his brethren of Israel, that Jesus was the Christ.
> 
> Reader, would you know if you have the Spirit? Then where is your charity and love to souls?
> 
> ...



Christ and the Two Thieves* -- J. C. Ryle


----------



## crimsonleaf (Sep 19, 2012)

MarieP said:


> crimsonleaf said:
> 
> 
> > We claim that the works are unnecessary for salvation
> ...



Neither do I, although I'm guilty of coining it. Eph 2:8 is often quoted to illustrate the faith alone aspect of reformed belief:

"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast."

However, I've always believed that these verses counter those who claim salvation because of their Christian-like behaviour. The verses continue:

"For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them."

For me, this shows that faith and works are not independent of each other. I've been accused of Catholic Soteriology before, and as time goes on I see the gap closing if I'm honest.


----------



## MarieP (Sep 19, 2012)

crimsonleaf said:


> However, I've always believed that these verses counter those who claim salvation because of their Christian-like behaviour. The verses continue:



How is that a "however?" I believe Paul is further explaining what he said in v.6, "even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)"

He's reminding them that what makes them to differ from others is the grace of God. It was not them who one day decided to love God and turn over a new leaf. Rather, it was God who loved us showed us mercy even while we were dead in trespasses and sins. He was the One who raised us from the dead and seated us in the heavenly places with Christ! But now that God has made us alive, we will do good works, for which we were created in Christ Jesus.

He then says, therefore, because of this, the Ephesians ought to remember that God called them out from their paganism, having been alienated from the covenants of promise and the commonwealth of Israel. They were without hope and without God. They were strangers and aliens from the covenants of promise and thus called uncircumcised by the Jews. But now, by grace through faith, they are circumcised in heart and now fellow heirs with the saints in light., which is what really matters (Romans 2:28-29; 4:9-12)

That brings me to my answer to your statement that, "I've been accused of Catholic Soteriology before, and as time goes on I see the gap closing if I'm honest." Paul ends with a statement of the doctrine of solus Christus. We have access to the Father by the Spirit through Christ alone. Roman Catholics deny this. They add the saints and superogation and other traditions of men. Even if they could prove that they believe the same as we, that justification is a forensic declaration that we are blameless children of God because of the finished work of Christ and that apart from our works, they end up denying sole fide because they deny solus Christus. And JI Packer points out that this is no legal fiction because,

“[God] reckons righteousness to them, not because he accounts them to have kept his law personally (which would be a false judgment), but because he accounts them to be united to one who kept it representatively (and that is a true judgment)”

“Justification,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1984], p. 596

Or, to put it another way, as he does in Knowing God

The gospel centers upon justification—that is, upon the remission of sins and the acceptance of our persons that goes with it. Justification is the truly dramatic transition from the status of a condemned criminal awaiting a terrible sentence to that of an heir awaiting a fabulous inheritance"

Knowing God (Downers Grove, IL; Intervarsity Press; 1993) p. 150.


----------



## crimsonleaf (Sep 19, 2012)

MarieP said:


> crimsonleaf said:
> 
> 
> > However, I've always believed that these verses counter those who claim salvation because of their Christian-like behaviour. The verses continue:
> ...



It's a "however" because most end the quote there and it's used to bolster the "faith alone" claim. The remainder of the quote goes on to show that God's action is for a purpose - to enable us to perform his good works. As for the doctrines of Saints and supererogation I haven't yet stepped that far. And I didn't say the gap had closed, just closing.


----------



## MarieP (Sep 19, 2012)

crimsonleaf said:


> It's a "however" because most end the quote there and it's used to bolster the "faith alone" claim. The remainder of the quote goes on to show that God's action is for a purpose - to enable us to perform his good works.



And just how does the following verse deny faith alone?




crimsonleaf said:


> As for the doctrines of Saints and supererogation I haven't yet stepped that far



Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you would consider stepping that far? That's a lot to accept in order to remove the tension that the church has to deal with throughout its history in regards to these things. You also need to remember that the Roman Catholic Church rejects sola Scriptura.


----------



## rbcbob (Sep 19, 2012)

crimsonleaf said:


> As for the doctrines of Saints and supererogation I haven't yet stepped that far



Brother that statement sounds ominous. Have you spoken to your elders about these thoughts you are wrestling with? Many have started down just such a road and ended up at the altar of Rome!


----------



## MW (Sep 19, 2012)

earl40 said:


> So would this be saying we can posses an infallible knowledge and assurance?



Yes. Infallible Scripture would be of no use if it could not be known. When one says that the Scriptures are the only rule of faith and life he essentially makes a claim to know something infallible even though he does not know it infallibly. On this basis the reformed have maintained the authority of the word rightly translated, the subordinate authority of confessions, the authority of the ministry which speaks according to the word of God, the marks of the church, and the marks of a Christian.


----------



## crimsonleaf (Sep 19, 2012)

rbcbob said:


> crimsonleaf said:
> 
> 
> > As for the doctrines of Saints and supererogation I haven't yet stepped that far
> ...



To be honest, this forum could do with some smileys. It's English humour. Ignore me. It's difficult to convey dry humour over the Internet.

But seriously, thanks for your concern.


----------



## MarieP (Sep 19, 2012)

crimsonleaf said:


> To be honest, this forum could do with some smileys. It's English humour. Ignore me. It's difficult to convey dry humour over the Internet.
> 
> But seriously, thanks for your concern.



1. We have smileys- it's the 10th button from the left above the quick reply box, and you can get more when you hit the "Go Advanced" button to the right of the "Post Quick Reply" button
2. Great to hear that was just dry humor!


----------



## NB3K (Sep 19, 2012)

Here is a question, who actually heeds to the warnings in Scripture?


----------



## crimsonleaf (Sep 20, 2012)

MarieP said:


> crimsonleaf said:
> 
> 
> > To be honest, this forum could do with some smileys. It's English humour. Ignore me. It's difficult to convey dry humour over the Internet.
> ...



Now I feel discriminated against - I have no buttons at all over quick reply and none in advanced. (insert sad smiley here).


----------



## rbcbob (Sep 20, 2012)

When you click "reply" to any post the box for your response opens up where you write; at the top of this box are font choices, text color, etc. This also has a smiley icon  which if clicked on will offer very many choices.


----------



## crimsonleaf (Sep 20, 2012)

rbcbob said:


> When you click "reply" to any post the box for your response opens up where you write; at the top of this box are font choices, text color, etc. This also has a smiley icon  which if clicked on will offer very many choices.



Nope, there's nothing I promise you. It's a plot against the English.


----------



## rbcbob (Sep 20, 2012)

What operating system/browser are you using?


----------



## MarieP (Sep 20, 2012)

NB3K said:


> Here is a question, who actually heeds to the warnings in Scripture?



Me- and Lord give me the grace to continue doing so!


----------



## crimsonleaf (Sep 20, 2012)

rbcbob said:


> What operating system/browser are you using?



Firefox on Windows 7. I have the buttons on every other forum I regularly use (all 12 of them)! That includes Vbulletin boards.


----------



## rbcbob (Sep 20, 2012)

I'll see what I can find out.


----------



## crimsonleaf (Sep 20, 2012)

rbcbob said:


> I'll see what I can find out.



 Found it. It was in user settings - I was using "basic" user interface. Sorry for all the trouble, but it's the site's default position and I'd never changed it.


----------



## NB3K (Sep 20, 2012)

MarieP said:


> NB3K said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a question, who actually heeds to the warnings in Scripture?
> ...



I'm inclined to believe that the declared warnings in Scripture are of the voice of the Law and points us back to Jesus Christ and what He has done otherwise known as the Gospel of Jesus Christ.


----------



## MarieP (Sep 20, 2012)

NB3K said:


> I'm inclined to believe that the declared warnings in Scripture are of the voice of the Law and points us back to Jesus Christ and what He has done otherwise known as the Gospel of Jesus Christ.



Who's denying that they do? Christ is not only Savior but Keeper and Lord.


----------



## NB3K (Sep 20, 2012)

MarieP said:


> NB3K said:
> 
> 
> > I'm inclined to believe that the declared warnings in Scripture are of the voice of the Law and points us back to Jesus Christ and what He has done otherwise known as the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
> ...



Im simply giving counter-arguments for the op.


----------



## NB3K (Sep 20, 2012)

Here's another thought:

Did not Noah warn the people in his day & age? And we know that the whole world was wiped out! What was the reason why Noah and his family was spared?



> But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.
> (Genesis 6:8 ESV)



It goes right back to what Paul says in Romans 9:



> So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
> (Romans 9:18 ESV)


----------



## Afterthought (Sep 20, 2012)

armourbearer said:


> Yes. Infallible Scripture would be of no use if it could not be known. When one says that the Scriptures are the only rule of faith and life he essentially makes a claim to know something infallible even though he does not know it infallibly. On this basis the reformed have maintained the authority of the word rightly translated, the subordinate authority of confessions, the authority of the ministry which speaks according to the word of God, the marks of the church, and the marks of a Christian.


Just wondering because of another thread: does "infalible assurance" mean 100% certainty of one's knowledge, and does "infallible knowledge" mean the same thing (because isn't all knowledge 100% true, though one may have doubts that what one knows is knowledge or true?)?


----------



## MW (Sep 20, 2012)

Afterthought said:


> Just wondering because of another thread: does "infalible assurance" mean 100% certainty of one's knowledge, and does "infallible knowledge" mean the same thing (because isn't all knowledge 100% true, though one may have doubts that what one knows is knowledge or true?)?



There are two different concepts here. They can be divided as follows: "I know," and "I know that I know." To "know" something requires certainty of the object known. To "know that I know" requires certainty of the subject knowing. Your question allows that the object known is 100% true. It is not possible for it to be and not be. The fallibility of the subject knowing means that he might not be 100% sure of his own knowledge, but this does not affect the object known.


----------



## Afterthought (Sep 20, 2012)

armourbearer said:


> There are two different concepts here. They can be divided as follows: "I know," and "I know that I know." To "know" something requires certainty of the object known. To "know that I know" requires certainty of the subject knowing. Your question allows that the object known is 100% true. It is not possible for it to be and not be. The fallibility of the subject knowing means that he might not be 100% sure of his own knowledge, but this does not affect the object known.


Thank you! That helps clear up a lot. Correct me if I'm wrong: it would also seem then that the object of knowledge could possibly not be 100% true (or else it would seem it would be true that all objects known are infallible), which means that the object of knowledge gives knowledge (knowledge must be true belief) less than 100% of the time, which especially seems true of fallible humans.


----------



## OPC'n (Sep 20, 2012)

I could be wrong, but couldn't those warnings also be to his children to not fall away even for a period of time i.e. in David's case. I think a child of his can fall away for a period of time grieving not only him, but also can cause so much damage to his child and those around them.


----------



## MW (Sep 20, 2012)

Afterthought said:


> Thank you! That helps clear up a lot. Correct me if I'm wrong: it would also seem then that the object of knowledge could possibly not be 100% true (or else it would seem it would be true that all objects known are infallible), which means that the object of knowledge gives knowledge (knowledge must be true belief) less than 100% of the time, which especially seems true of fallible humans.



(We are side-tracking the thread; it might be better to start a new one.) A brief answer -- in writing to you I know you exist. You either exist 100% or you don't exist at all. It is impossible to speak of less than 100% certainty in the object known. What is known is either true or false. Uncertainty and percentage can only come into it in relation to knowing that I know.


----------



## bookslover (Sep 20, 2012)

armourbearer said:


> On perseverance, WCF 17.2, "This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will." The danger of falling away is real when it is considered that there is nothing in the saints in and of themselves which causes them to persevere. As their perseverance depends on "the abiding of the Spirit," among other things, they must continually be working out their salvation with fear and trembling and making sure of their calling and election.
> 
> On assurance, WCF 18.2, "but an infallible assurance of salvation." The basis of assurance is the unchangeable and infallible promise of God in Scripture. The subject knowing might be fallible but the object known is infallible.



Welcome back, Matthew! You must be feeling better.


----------

