Next, let's talk about frontloading. I find a certain logical issue with how people go about defining a works-based salvation. You will hear from preachers that if a person believes they have to, for instance, get baptized to be saved, they will say that person does not believe the gospel. The implication being, that if this person has always believed in baptismal regeneration, then they are unsaved.

The ultimate implication of this being, that people who believe that baptism is required for salvation actually believe that the act of baptism is a part of the salvation itself rather than a trigger of it. In an effort not to make this confusing, below is the dilemma:

Position 1: I am saved by Jesus Christ alone, but he won't save me unless I get baptized.
Position 2: I am NOT saved by Jesus Christ alone, rather, my baptism completes the salvation.

Many will say that 1 and 2 are the same, but are they really?

We in free grace, and nifb will also attest to this, that we are saved by Christ alone, but he won't save us unless we believe in him. We know that our belief in him is not actually what takes away our sins, rather, it is the trigger which causes Christ to apply the payment he made to our account.

If we openly admit this, how could we regard someone who takes Position 1 in the previous message as necessarily not believing the gospel? I myself strongly disagree with the nifb that asking or confessing is required to be saved, but is that enough for me to declare them as not believing the gospel? We are disagreeing over the trigger, not the object of our salvation.

The beginning of the recent thread of messages starts here:

https://t.iss.one/ChristianSpreadsheetCamp/131

An Arminian will claim to believe in Jesus alone for salvation, but if he then says that he needs to persevere in the faith to be saved, many will say that this person is lying when he says he believes in Jesus alone for salvation, and that he actually believes that Jesus is not enough. But is this even a reasonable accusation? He differs in the trigger rather than the object of salvation. We in free grace would never say that our one-time faith makes us co-saviors with Christ.

If we are to take this to an illogical extreme and say that it is only Jesus Christ that saves us in the sense that no faith is required nor anything on our end at all whatsoever, then that would mean no one is going to hell. If we have no trigger at all, then this illogical extreme is the result. Therefore, there must be a trigger, which means that we can conclude that the trigger has no bearing on the object, the object being the payment of Jesus Christ. With this understanding, it would be reasonable to conclude that any group or "denomination" that recognizes Jesus as the only and sufficient payment of sin indeed are a saved congregation regardless of their differences in the trigger to receive the payment.

I have a serious problem with the NIFB doctrine of asking or calling to be saved. I would consider prayer of any kind to be a work. But they would attest that the payment of Christ alone is enough to take away our sins, they just differ with Free Grace on the trigger to receive it. For this issue, I partially accused an NIFB Telegram group of lying when they say they believe in Jesus. I will say this now, it was foolish of me and I regret making the accusation. I think NIFB churches are not only 100% saved, but also in fellowship with God according to 1 John.

Building off this, if I am to say that the NIFB "ask to be saved" doctrine is apart of the trigger to receive the full payment of Christ and not apart of the payment itself, and that they are 100% saved no problem, this would mean that those who believe in getting baptized to be saved, repenting of sins to be saved, continual belief to be saved, etc, if in the trigger and not treated as apart of the payment itself, would not prevent eternal life from being received.

Stopping here for now. I hope the moral of this whole thing is clear. Childlike faith, just trust Jesus.

The beginning of the recent thread of messages starts here:

https://t.iss.one/ChristianSpreadsheetCamp/131

Subject: Who are saved outside of Free Grace? What are the implications of the NIFB "ask to be saved" doctrine? Can someone be saved without assurance?

Going to explore the implications of the button analogy later.

Here are the models based on this analogy.

1. If you push the button, you get $100

2. If you push the button, you get $100 only if you believe you will get $100

3. If you push the button, you get $100 but you lose it if you stop pushing the button

4. If you keep pushing the button, you will eventually get $100

5. If you push the button, you get $100, but if you did push the button, you'll keep pushing the button

6. If you keep pushing the button, you will eventually get $100, but those who do push the button won't stop pushing the button.

7. Pushing the button is not how you get $100, it instead must be earned some other way.

If we are to say that the only condition to get $100 is to push the button, then 6 out of the 7 have $100.

The only way around this to preserve a rigid and strict Free Grace is to hold the position that the others are pushing a different button. I do not see this as very compelling.

Let's expand this to another set of models.

1. If you push the button, you get $100 only if you believe the button is made out of plastic
2. If you push the button, you get $100 only if you believe the button is made of out metal
3. If you push the button, you get $100 only if you believe the wiring is soldered in the back
4. If you push the button, you get $100 only if you believe the money is in quarters
5. If you push the button, you get $100 only if you don't believe the first 4 on this list

I hope you can see how absurd this is. All of them pushed the button regardless of what they think the button or the machine is. All 5 of them have $100.

I'll come back later and expand on this.

So again the refute to this is that they are all actually pushing different buttons. But that's not how people tend to argue about Christ. We typically say "Christ is ____" or "Christ taught ____". Clearly the implication is that we are analyzing the same thing and some of us are wrong. If we are to say that someone is wrong about Christ, we are conceding that we are analyzing the same thing rather than two different things, which means that signing the contract without reading it is possible (ie, believing in Jesus without realizing it seals a person's destiny).

Let's put this into an example:

Position A — Push the button to get $100
Position B — Push the button to get $100, but you'll lose the $100 if you stop pushing the button

We have two possible scenarios here. Either these positions imply they are referring to two different buttons, or they are analyzing the same button and coming up with different conclusions.

1. If A and B are referring to different buttons, only the correct position gets $100
2. If A and B are referring to the same button, and A is correct, both get $100
3. If A and B are referring to the same button, and B is correct, B gets $100 and A does as well only if he kept pushing the button afterwards

Notice how in number 2, Position B gets $100 despite being wrong. That is because he still pushed the button. He just didn't realize the $100 wouldn't be taken away.