From: skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Free gifts? NOT!
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 21:02:43 GMT

Since Mr. Graham will not let this drop, I will present for his
benefit the point-by-point refutation I sent Mr. Butler.

dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:

>Mr Skinner, in my opinion, Dave Butler is *the* most logical and coolheaded
>individual posting to this group.

I do not accuse Mr. Butler of being illogical.  Mr. Butler's command
of logic and rhetoric is impressive.  I also have no doubt that he is
coolheaded.

I remind everyone that I stated my thesis clearly in my first posting
on the subject of Free Gifts,

#Now, on the subject of the gift, the analogy holds fine when you
#realize that a gift can be accepted or rejected.

Mr. Butler's post began,

>  First, here is a quote from Gregg where he not only
>claimed to have evidence the existence of the free gift of Salvation and he
>also concludes that he even his god:

>> In light of this, we have evidence for the concluding that God, Jesus
>> Christ, and this free gift we are discussing exist.  Most (perhaps
>> all) of the evidence we have is in the form of testimony.  Much of it
>> appears in the Bible, though there are other literary sources.  Some
>> of the testimony comes from Christians living today.

These words were not intended to address a thesis that salvation is
free.  In fact, they come from a discussion with Jim Perry on the
subject of "Evidence."  It was my intention that the "we are
discussing" serve as a reminder to the reader of the dispute on
whether the gift can be free.  For added clarity, perhaps I should
have put "free gift" in quotation marks, or left out the "free."  I
intended no attempt to prove the gift free with those words.  That
would have been an extremely weak argument for such a thesis.

At any rate, I also included these words,

>>Whether this evidence is trustworthy or conclusive is perhaps another
>>(long) discussion.

which served as something of a disclaimer.

The post continued,

>Further Gregg did at several points explicitly recognize and defend the point
>the Salvation was truly free.  When I reject his thesis that salvation was
>truly free he said says unequivocably that salvation is free:

>> The second reason I reject your argument [for free salvation] Greg, is that 
>> mere recognition it is not sufficient for salvation.  Simple recognition 
>> and acceptance of the gift of salvation is not sufficient to gain salvation.
>
> I disagree.  If one must do more, then it is certainly NOT free.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

In attempting to prove that I was talking about free salvation, Mr.
Butler added "[for free salvation]" to the quotation.  This is
circular.  Free salvation was not my argument.  Rather, for me
"argument" referred to my argument about accepting/receiving.  I
responded accordingly.  I can see now that I missed Mr. Butler's
point.  But that is not the issue.  The issue is whether Mr. Butler
can see that he also missed my point.

The post continued,

>Gregg even clarified:

>>> Greg Skinner makes a truly remarkable and incredible statement that one may
>>> accept Jesus as your savior without also accepting him as your lord:
>> 
>> Yes.  Though I wouldn't say it in exactly this way, this is an
>> acceptable paraphrase of what I would say.
>> 
>>> But Gregg, that's the point which both Christian and non-Christian are 
>>> arguing: that Christian salvation requires accepting Jesus as your Lord. 
>>	    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
>> If this is true, then the folks who say the gift isn't free are quite
>> correct.  I do not believe this is true.  
	    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is a misrepresentation of my words, as the quotation ends too
soon.  I directly continued,

#I think it is possible that
#accepting Jesus as Lord is a natural, but not required, response to
#accepting (in the "receive" sense) the gift of salvation.  As I have
#said, I do not know for sure, as I am not the ultimate judge of these
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
#things.
 ^^^^^^

I openly state that I do not know whether salvation requires accepting
Jesus as Lord.  Now, how can I be presenting a thesis that salvation
is free and in the same moment say that I don't know whether salvation
is free?

That Mr. Butler and I have had some confusion and that I have
contributed to it I have no doubt.  We are unable to clear the
confusion, though, as he refuses to accept my observation that very
early on, perhaps from square one, we were not discussing the same
issue.  Mr. Butler's post only makes that fact all the more clear.
For additional support that we were discussing two different things, I
present an early exchange:

#>  If you did
#>could mention a sect that held your beliefs you could at least claim to base
#>your assertions on their exegesis.  As is you have nothing at all on which to
#>base your assertions, except a biblical mention of "free gift" which Michael
#>Siemon has shown is more properly translated as "gift of grace".  Nor do your
#>assertions jive with other parts of the Bible (eg: 1 Cor 6:10). 
#
#I think you've missed the point of what was being discussed.  Neither
#of the things you mention above (translation, other parts of the
#Bible) relate to the discussion of whether the gift of salvation is
#free if it must be accepted.  I suspect you ascribe to my posts a
#purpose (promoting the gift of salvation) I do not have and are
#reacting to that purpose.
#
#> So while
#>being in the minority should not in itself, convince you that you're wrong, it
#>should at least wave a red flag that you should have a very strong
#>justification for your position. 
#
#This is what I mean.  In this instance, I left the theology to Paul
#and his translators.  I have only been discussing whether their
#theological construct makes sense, not whether it is correct.  The
#theology itself may also be of interest, but I have not been speaking
#to that subject.

I accused Mr. Butler of missing the point of the discussion.  In fact
we were each missing each other entirely as we discussed orthogonal
subjects.  It is not a sign of weakness for Mr. Butler to recognize
that we were not addressing the same issue.  I ask him to do that.
--
Gregg Skinner  g-skinner@uiuc.edu   I do not speak for any organization.