Questions about when people get "saved"

[Reuben_J]

How is receiving a free gift work on my part?

By cooperating with it, right? How do you receive it then? Would it not involve some decision on your part and what you have to do?

As I said, your explanation is confusing. Perhaps when doing so you are aware that you still have to maintain that ‘faith alone’ theology, but to me, it sure is a complicated way of explaining something that is seemingly so straight forward.

 

[ltwin]

How do you receive it then? Would it not involve some decision on your part and what you have to do?

As a Pentecostal I believe faith is received as stated:

All the benefits of divine grace are received by faith. This is true to the character of promise from God, because promise by nature is a claim of faith. This is the unifying thread through all the experiences of grace. Living in grace is the life of faith: ‘The manner in which the just live is by believing’ (Hab. 2.4).[ 3] Life in the Holy Spirit is a life of faith, for it is in faith that believers seek and cultivate the Spirit’s indwelling and filling.

The Word of God is the announcement of the law of God in the conviction of sin and the announcement of the grace of God in the forgiveness of and healing from sin; as divine Word, it fulfills its own commands and promises. When the law of God speaks, judgment of sin is thereby accomplished. When the gospel of God speaks, salvation is fulfilled. These things are true because the Word of God has in it the power to fulfill its own decree.

The other personal Agent for the realization and application of the benefits of grace is the Holy Spirit, divine Person and member of the Holy Trinity. He is the convicting Agent in the call to repentance, confession and salvation. He is the Executor of God’s will in the application of redemptive provision. He is the cultivating Agent who leads the believer through all the experiences of grace. His operations are represented in the various titles and functions which are ascribed to Him. He is the Spirit of grace, the Spirit of life, the Spirit of adoption, the Spirit of holiness, the Spirit of truth, the Spirit of glory and many others.

(R. Hollis Gause, Living in the Spirit: The Way of Salvation)

Yes, we must repent. We must confess. We must answer the call to live according to “the obedience that comes from faith” (Romans 1:5, 16:26). Yet, at the end of the day, this is not our work but the Holy Spirit living and working within us.

Continued next

 

[ltwin]

Expanding on the area of faith and works, let me quote from Gause again:

Faith claims acceptance before God (even at the judgment bar of God) in Jesus Christ. This acceptance places the believer in a position to receive the reward of Christ’s righteousness which is eternal life. Faith also abandons all attempts to achieve eternal life except the saving name of our Lord (Jn 14.6; Acts 4.12).

Biblical faith is described by the Apostle Paul with the expression ‘the obedience of faith’ (Rom. 1.5; 16.26). Faith always operates in the context of obedience especially the obedience of repentance and confession (Rom. 10.8-10). James joins faith and obedience in these words, ‘You see that faith worked together with his [Abraham’s] deeds, and out of works faith was fulfilled’ (Jas 2.22). James follows this statement with the same quotation of Hab. 2.4 that Paul used in Rom. 1.17, ‘The righteous person lives out of His faith’.[ 26] James goes on to make the bold statement, ‘You see that out of works [by works] a man is justified and not out of faith alone’ (Jas 2.24). Any other interpretation of faith is antinomian; that is, it is an attack on the law of God and a rejection of obedience.

Faith as a gift of grace has its origin in God and has God as its Object of belief. From the human standpoint, it is an abandonment and repudiation of any form or claim of human merit. It rejects any notion of the inherent goodness or worthiness of the creature.[ 27] The vocabulary of worthiness is the vocabulary of obligation; such language implies that God owes forgiveness and righteousness to the creature. Such is the language of contract between equals. God establishes covenant with the creature, but never contract.

Faith rejects any notion that the individual can make himself/ herself righteous by any form of good deeds or other claims of worthiness, whether defined by law or human culture.

Perhaps this theologian’s explanation is clearer. We do act when we cooperate with God’s grace, but our actions do not obligate God to forgive us nor does it make us worthy to enter his presence. There is no “I do x so that God will do y.” The life of faith says “God has done everything and he offers it freely to us.”

 

[Gorgias]

That is not what I’m saying. I’ve never said any of that. What I have said is this:

ltwin:

What is meant by “faith alone” is that doing good stuff outside of faith is meaningless when considering one’s spiritual condition. An atheist can feed a homeless man, but that good work cannot atone for sin. A lifelong church member’s good deeds in the church and in the world cannot apart from faith atone for sin.

The hypothetical church member is not saved. He’s not even being saved, because he does not have faith. My point was and still is that you can be a member of a church and still not be saved. You can even be a “good person” and still not be saved.

Yet, that’s a different claim than what you’re trying to demonstrate, isn’t it? Your claim now dissolves into the claim, “yes, it’s possible for Ananias and Sapphira to exist.” Yes, I agree. However, you’re trying to use that to suggest that “good works do not have a role in saving a person”, not simply that “a non-believer who is a member of a Church is not saved.”

If I get your example correctly now, then it really doesn’t help your case.

No, I’m not. What I was talking about was specifically those who are church members but do not believe in Christ (they might intellectually believe he exists, but they haven’t put their faith and hope and trust in him), have not accepted him in their hearts, and have rejected his grace. That’s who I’m talking about.

Right. Got it now.

That doesn’t help make your case about good works, though. What you need to show, for your case to have legs, is that there are believers who do good works and, absent any other consideration that would condemn them (e.g., the sin of Ananias and Sapphira), are not saved.

I can see we have a communication problem. If that’s my fault, I apologize.
All I was saying is that being a good person and a church member is meaningless if you have not put your faith in Christ.

Fair enough. That doesn’t address ‘good works’, though… just that it’s possible to lose one’s faith (and therefore, one’s salvation).

 

[Reuben_J]

Expanding on the area of faith and works, let me quote from Gause again:

…

Faith rejects any notion that the individual can make himself/ herself righteous by any form of good deeds or other claims of worthiness, whether defined by law or human culture.

Ok. Thanks.

I thought we are closer on faith as I wanted to imagine but after considering the last paragraph, there is a quite a big gap of differences.

I have read the two posts. It is still confusing to me but it is not your fault, but mine. I am not a trained theologian but probably more so what you’ve given me is not something that I was looking for.

My definition on faith is Hebrew 11:1 (faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see). You see, when one starts from this, the rest would be easier to see whether they conform or not.

Faith, first of all is in the state of the mind - believing, confidence and hoping. That is why we do not believe in the theology of “faith alone” because as St. James said, it is a dead faith if it is just in the state of the mind without putting what in that state of mind into work.

Insofar you said that work is a result of faith, I have no problem with that. However, as been seen, both are important. One cannot do without the other.

But more, I cannot agree with this, "Faith rejects any notion that the individual can make himself/ herself righteous by any form of good deeds or other claims of worthiness, whether defined by law or human culture."

So that is where we differ. I hope I am not reading that wrongly but we certainly do make ourselves righteous by our good work in accordance to what God wants us to, for example, by following the work being commanded of us as in the Gospel.

Otherwise, as been said, it is like saying, “Lord, Lord, I believe in you,” or like what the other son said, “I will do it,” but never went about doing it.

This is what our saints were made of - doing good work for the Lord.

I hope you can see why your explanation is confusing to me.

 

[MT1926]

OK I think I see why we are talking past each other now.

Let’s compare some quotes here…

So that is where we differ. I hope I am not reading that wrongly but we certainly do make ourselves righteous by our good work in accordance to what God wants us to, for example, by following the work being commanded of us as in the Gospel.

I understand what Reuben means with this statement. However, I wanted to point out that it isn’t worded the best which will make the protestant miss the point you are making.

The way you make it sound here is it is our works. Which any protestant is going to jump on. Yes they are our works, but they are our works after we have received sanctifying grace. So we believe they are our works through Christ. I know that is what you meant but sometimes it’s like we are talking in a court of law and if you don’t spell it out your done.

The only other thing I think I would change is we don’t make ourselves righteous, technically God does this. From my understanding to say we do half is considered semi-Pelagianism.

The Catholic position is in the “work of salvation” all is from God including our own co-operation, in the sense that we cannot distinguish a part as exclusively ours, which does not come from the author of all good. So we aren’t saying this work is ours and that work is God’s. It’s not either/or (which I think is the protestant position), it’s both/and.

From the Catholic point of view, God initiates our salvation by his grace, but he doesn’t stop there. Our works of obedience which follow the start of God’s salvific action in us are also the work of grace. (Phill 2:12-13) I’m pretty sure IT agrees with this.

However, Catholics further believe what St. Augustine said… when God rewards our merits or works, he crowns his own gifts to us.

Jesus speaks of righteousness in Matthew 5:20 when He says our righteousness must surpass that of the scribes. He is speaking of our internal righteousness joined to Him in our hearts. Jesus is telling us here how one can become righteous if works are done in our hearts. So like Reuben is getting at this does occur in us, it is our works in our heart.

If we continue to Matthew 6:33 Jesus continues by telling us to seek for God and his righteousness and they will be given. Sure we agree it is a free gift, but it is given if we seek. So in a way we can say if we seek X we will be given Y.

Anyway, I think I’m understanding what Itwin is saying. From his point of view…

Which I will continue in the next post…

 

[MT1926]

…continued from the last post to Reuben

Yes, we must repent. We must confess. We must answer the call to live according to “the obedience that comes from faith” (Romans 1:5, 16:26). Yet, at the end of the day, this is not our work but the Holy Spirit living and working within us.

It looks like we agree that we do good works through Christ, but it seems he is saying that once this occurs they are no longer our works they belong to Christ. Therefor we aren’t the ones doing them.

Am I understanding this correctly?

I just want to finish by saying…Sure we agree God has done everything. We agree salvation is a free gift. However, if God has to give us this free gift X it has to be based on something Y. or everyone would automatically get it.

We believe Y=faith working through love.

God Bless

 

[Reuben_J]

Thanks for clarifying my post. I was essentially did not want to agree that good work does not save or not make us righteous in the eyes of the Lord in reference to Itwin’s post. I don’t mind him jumping on that because I had Mt 25 in mind, when the righteous asked the Lord,"when did we do that to you?"implying at least they did not know that they did them to him when they did (clothed, fed, visited, etc.) to the least of the brethren (of the Lord). Thus good work had saved them anyhow, rather than not.

 

[ltwin]

Yet, that’s a different claim than what you’re trying to demonstrate, isn’t it?

No.

However, you’re trying to use that to suggest that “good works do not have a role in saving a person”, not simply that “a non-believer who is a member of a Church is not saved.”

What I am saying (and have always said) is that we are saved by grace through faith. Where there is true faith, there will be a corresponding repentance, change of heart and life, and an obedience to God. Good works that stem from faith are means of grace that help us to progress in sanctification.

What you need to show, for your case to have legs, is that there are believers who do good works and, absent any other consideration that would condemn them (e.g., the sin of Ananias and Sapphira), are not saved

I don’t need to show that because that is not the case I’m making. If someone is a believer (i.e. possesses truth faith), is confessing and turning away from sin, performing good works and the fruit of the Spirit is evident in their life, then they are saved.

 

[ltwin]

My definition on faith is Hebrew 11:1 (faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see). You see, when one starts from this, the rest would be easier to see whether they conform or not.

This is my definition of faith as well.

Faith, first of all is in the state of the mind - believing, confidence and hoping.

This is subtle, so I hope I can say this without causing more confusion, and instead of addressing your entire paragraph will break it up instead.

First, I agree that faith is assurance, confidence, hope and trust in God and the promises he has made.

That is why we do not believe in the theology of “faith alone” because as St. James said, it is a dead faith if it is just in the state of the mind without putting what in that state of mind into work.

I agree that there can be living faith and dead faith (or true faith and false faith). However, I would say that your definition of “faith” is interesting. You seem to be saying that you can have real faith with no follow through.

I would say that you cannot have real faith without follow through. If you tell me that you have assurance that Christ and his promises are real then you go and live a life of sin, I will tell you that your faith is dead, empty, false. Perhaps, you had real faith once and lost it or maybe you really did not have saving faith at all.

However, if you tell me that you have faith in Christ and his promises and then live like that is true–perform good works–then I can say–ok you seem to have a living faith, a real faith, a true faith.

Otherwise, as been said, it is like saying, “Lord, Lord, I believe in you,” or like what the other son said, “I will do it,” but never went about doing it.

That is dead faith. If someone really believes in Jesus, their life will reflect that. Living faith moves the person to good works because that person truly believes the promises of God. A dead faith cannot move a person to good works because there is no true conviction that the promises of God are true.

 

[Gorgias]

What I am saying (and have always said) is that we are saved by grace through faith. Where there is true faith, there will be a corresponding repentance, change of heart and life, and an obedience to God. Good works that stem from faith are means of grace that help us to progress in sanctification.

OK – that’s identical to Catholic teaching.

Let’s go back to something you said:

Therefore, just as “only believing” cannot atone for sin, neither can doing good deeds atone for sin.

You mean “neither can only doing good deeds atone for sin”, right?

 

[ltwin]

You mean “neither can only doing good deeds atone for sin”, right?

Sure, I can agree that to that, but as has been pointed out elsewhere on this thread, my language here was not theologically precise. Only Christ can atone for sin. This is applied to our lives by grace through faith. True faith can never be separated from active obedience to Christ, because faith is believing in God and in his promises. If we really believed what God said, we would obey him. Faith and good works both have to be present.

However, I still say that we are saved by grace through faith alone to emphasize that we cannot approach God by good works. We must approach him by faith. We must live by faith in order for the good work we do to bring glory to God–otherwise, they are just activity we do ourselves and have no eternal benefit.

 

[tgGodsway]

I don’t begin with this premise, I believe eternal security is received by grace, but I understand where you are going with it. I’m more interested in the not being able to lose it part, so we can shelve the works part right now.

Okay… I can expound this point. However, I’m sure you understand that both Catholic and so called Protestant views agree against it, at least in part. Only the truly reformed view that have survived the reformation continue to hold it’s central view.

The salvation of our spirit is a finished work. The salvation of our soul (=literal life) is up to us to cooperate with God’s leading. It requires us to sell-out to God’s way of doing things.

Eternal life begins just as Jesus said it would in John’s gospel when He said, “He who believes in the Son has everlasting life…” This type of passage is repeated multiple times in John’s gospel where the apparent condition to receive eternal life is simply to “believe.” Works are never part of the equation, not even repentance is part of the equation. Paul called this a GIFT of God, not of works, … This gift is also described as a REGENERATION and renewal BY the Holy Spirit. Titus 3:5, To be born of the Spirit (Jn. 3:3-5) is to become one spirit in Christ. (1st. Cor. 6:17.) He is a “NEW CREATION” (2nd. Cor. 5:17; Ga. 6:15,) on a spiritual level alone.

The result of this new creation is a new STANDING in Christ. Meaning that this Gift has now earned us a righteous standing. Christ work on the cross earned it FOR US. His work alone earned it. There is no work worthy enough to add to the finished work of Christ.

In Catholic theology, from what I understand, you are MADE righteous(=just) through your own acts of righteousness over the span of one’s life.

For us, righteousness has been DECLARED over us, through a new law, the law of faith. (Rom. 3:27.)
Can anything, or anyone reverse this new birth? despite what Paul wrote in Rom 8 when he insisted that nothing, "shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Rom. 8:39)

I must take the time here to develop the understanding of how justification works contrary to the Catholic view.
Allow me to quote in the next post from Dr. R.C. Sproul in his book Are We Together, a Protestant Analyzes, on page 30 and following.

 

[tgGodsway]

R.C. Sproul, p. 30
"Part of the disagreement over justification stems from the meaning of the word justification itself. The English word justification is derived from the Latin term justificare, which literally means “to make righteous.” The early Latin father, who studied the scriptures by means of the Vulgate (the fourth-century Latin translation of the Bible) rather than the Septuagint, (the Greek translation of the O.T.) and the Greek N.T. developed their doctrine of justification based on their understanding of the legal system of the Roman Empire. In time, the doctrine of justification came to address the question of how an unrighteous person, a fallen sinner, can be made righteous. In the development of the doctrine of justification in Rome, the idea emerged that justification occurs after sanctification. That is, in order to be declared just, we first must be sanctified to the point that we exhibit a righteousness that is acceptable to God.

The protestant reformation, which followed the revival of the study of antiquities, focuses attention of the Greek meaning of the concept of justification, which was the word dikaioo, which means “to declare righteous” rather than “to make righteous.” So in Protestantism, justification was understood to come before the process of sanctification. Therefore, very early on, there was a complete difference of understanding regarding the order of salvation between the two communions." end quote.

Thus, my only point here is to show the absolute “freeness” of the gift of justification and eternal life to which I will now show how it is impossible to lose, in the next post.

 

[tgGodsway]

Can spiritual birth be reverses?.. and on what bases? Can a regenerate man/women become unregenerate again? Can a spiritual man become natural again? And on what bases?

Can a believer lose their salvation? I had to first validate the freeness of salvation’s gift, by using R.C. Sproul’s argument first) to, show a finished work only to be appropriated in each generation.

In other words, the work of salvation (by Christ) to condemn all sin at the cross, is NOT an on-going judgment. It is a finished judgment. (Jn. 5:24) Therefore 2000 years later, we, by faith can receive all that He did for us when we receive Him as savior. All of the benefits come with the person of Christ in the moment we say “yes” Lord Jesus, come live in my heart." All of those benefits are retroactive, so to speak.

To lose one’s eternal salvation of a regenerate spirit and a free Gift, must be done by a deficiency in the one who earned it for us. That would be Christ. To lose the Gift of eternal life could only mean that the means to gaining it has now become insufficient. That "means’ would be Christ and His work on the cross.

If I stop believing in the very one who regenerated me (in spirit) and it results in the loss of eternal salvation, I can only point to the one who purchased it for me. I would have to say, since Christ made the purchase for me, His purchase did not finish the work. If I say, I didn’t finish the work, I would have to conclude that “my work” was part of the saving solution. Therefore we are saved by grace through faith INCLUDING works… so that man can boast.

There is no pattern I am aware of in scripture to this scenario. I would contend there is no teaching anywhere in the N.T. about losing the regenerating work of eternal life. If so, please bring it to my attention.

This is only a small part of this subject but I will pace myself.

 

[Reuben_J]

Reuben_J:

My definition on faith is Hebrew 11:1 (faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see). You see, when one starts from this, the rest would be easier to see whether they conform or not.

This is my definition of faith as well.

Faith, first of all is in the state of the mind - believing, confidence and hoping.

This is subtle, so I hope I can say this without causing more confusion, and instead of addressing your entire paragraph will break it up instead.

First, I agree that faith is assurance, confidence, hope and trust in God and the promises he has made.

That is why we do not believe in the theology of “faith alone” because as St. James said, it is a dead faith if it is just in the state of the mind without putting what in that state of mind into work.

I agree that there can be living faith and dead faith (or true faith and false faith). However, I would say that your definition of “faith” is interesting. You seem to be saying that you can have real faith with no follow through.

I would say that you cannot have real faith without follow through. If you tell me that you have assurance that Christ and his promises are real then you go and live a life of sin, I will tell you that your faith is dead, empty, false. Perhaps, you had real faith once and lost it or maybe you really did not have saving faith at all.

However, if you tell me that you have faith in Christ and his promises and then live like that is true–perform good works–then I can say–ok you seem to have a living faith, a real faith, a true faith.

Otherwise, as been said, it is like saying, “Lord, Lord, I believe in you,” or like what the other son said, “I will do it,” but never went about doing it.

That is dead faith. If someone really believes in Jesus, their life will reflect that. Living faith moves the person to good works because that person truly believes the promises of God. A dead faith cannot move a person to good works because there is no true conviction that the promises of God are true.

I agree entirely with your post. Thus I am confused why it is “faith alone”. It is not.

Heb 11:1 is clear on what faith is, which is confidence, hoping and assurance on what we cannot see, and which you acknowledged. Like you said, it does not save if it is a dead faith, meaning without work (you were saying following through, I guess it means that).

But at least you mentioned that faith can be a living and a dead faith. The first saves, the latter does not.

Thus, faith need a follow through, as you said, which I maintained in my last few posts.

Rather than saying faith alone, why not say, “living faith alone”? That, I think, is what we mean because we should not be lulled into complacency and sitting back thinking that any kind of faith will save.

 

[ltwin]

Rather than saying faith alone, why not say, “living faith alone”? That, I think, is what we mean because we should not be lulled into complacency and sitting back thinking that any kind of faith will save.

Because dead faith is not really faith at all. If I say I believe and love Christ, then by my actions show that all of that is just lip service, then either I lost what real faith I had or never had it to begin with. It’s not faith. Dead faith is no faith at all.

 

[Reuben_J]

Reuben_J:

Rather than saying faith alone, why not say, “living faith alone”? That, I think, is what we mean because we should not be lulled into complacency and sitting back thinking that any kind of faith will save.

Because dead faith is not really faith at all. If I say I believe and love Christ, then by my actions show that all of that is just lip service, then either I lost what real faith I had or never had it to begin with. It’s not faith. Dead faith is no faith at all.

You are right but it is not what Heb 11:1 says.

I’ll summarize it this way:

FAITH ALONE does NOT save remembering that there are living faith and dead faith.

The former does, the latter does not.

Dead faith is still a faith, only it is not alive. It sounds like a chicken and egg question, but the scripture does warn us about dead faith.

The Catholic’s position is that faith must be accompanied by work - the living faith. Faith alone, on the other hand, does not save.

I understand now what you are trying to say; I just find that the Protestant terminology is confusing.

I’ll elaborate, though the wording may not be the best ones - one can say that faith is a gift, a gift being a grace. One needs to receive this grace and that involve works - to believe, sometimes to step out in faith in believing, and to do the work required of us to serve Christ.

Simply put, we call that cooperating with God/grace. This may be a problem with you, but grace has to be received and without receiving it, it is just a grace, unsaving and not utilized.

 

[ltwin]

I understand now what you are trying to say; I just find that the Protestant terminology is confusing.

I believe the context of the terminology’s development is important. It is coming from the Reformation. While you may not agree with this, it is obvious that from their perspective Luther and the other Reformers were attempting to correct what they saw as the effects of an over reliance of “faith as simply cognitive” teaching–which was rightly seen as insufficient to save but arguably led to an imbalance in the faith/works relationship in many places where people may have misunderstood the true nature of repentance and good works and produced some serious abuses (such as the medieval indulgence trade).

Originally, Luther thought that the precondition for justification was human work. Before a sinner could be justified, there was something they had to do. As he became convinced this was impossible, Luther began to despair, interpreting “the righteousness of God” in Romans 1:17 as a punishing righteousness–a righteousness by which we are measured as a precondition to justification. His discovery of sola fide offered him hope. He began to understand that God meets the precondition, giving us what we need to be justified. The “righteousness of God” is the righteousness God gives to us for our justification.

Luther said this once (and I don’t have a citation for it but found it in Alister McGrath’s Historical Theology, p. 156): “The reason why some people do not understand why faith alone justifies is that they do not know what faith is.” Luther understood faith–truly justifying faith–to be something more than simply mental process. He called it fiducia (trust)–taking hold of Christ, hearing and claiming God’s promise, and apprehending our acceptance by God in Jesus Christ.

Again, quoted in McGrath, Luther wrote:

Everything depends upon faith. The person who does not have faith is like someone who has to cross the sea, but is so frightened that he does not trust the ship. And so he stays where he is, and is never saved because he will not get on board and cross over.

McGrath, Alister E. Historical Theology: An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought (p. 156).

Faith is not about just believing that Jesus (the ship) exists. It’s about trusting Jesus (stepping onto the ship). For Luther, faith unites us to Christ. Faith is not an acceptance of abstract doctrines, but a union of the whole person to Jesus Christ, leading to the real and personal presence of Christ in the believer.

For someone like Luther, who felt that he was constantly trying to measure up to “the righteousness of Christ” and despairing because he could never do that, the discovery of sola fide was a revelation that allowed him to rejoice in God’s love knowing that he did not have to earn or strive but simply had to live by faith in Christ and his promises.

 

[ltwin]

(Continued from above)

While often criticized, Luther’s teaching that righteousness is imputed to us (rather than infused) is often misunderstood. While Luther does say that those justified by faith are outwardly righteous in God’s sight while still sinners inwardly, no where does Luther indicate that this is a permanent condition. As McGrath explains:

Luther does not necessarily imply that this coexistence of sin and righteousness is a permanent condition. The Christian life is not static, as if – to use a very loose way of speaking – the relative amounts of sin and righteousness remain constant throughout. Luther is perfectly aware that the Christian life is dynamic, in that the believer grows in righteousness. Rather, his point is that the existence of sin does not negate our status as Christians.

God shields our sin through his righteousness. This righteousness is like a protective covering, under which we may battle with our sin. This approach accounts for the persistence of sin in believers, while at the same time accounting for the gradual transformation of the believer and the future elimination of that sin. But it is not necessary to be perfectly righteous to be a Christian. Sin does not point to unbelief, or a failure on the part of God; rather, it points to the continued need to entrust one’s person to the gentle care of God.

McGrath, Alister E. Historical Theology: An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought (p. 158).