From: daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Free gifts? NOT!
Date: 23 Jul 92 00:31:51 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville,  OR.

Paul Hudson gives his interpretation of "free gift":

> Perhaps if salvation refers only to salvation from hell, then you have a 
> very valid point.  I don't think from reading Romans 5 that we can say that
> the free gift is simply refering to heaven or salvation from hell.  
> Perhaps this gift involves power to conquer sin and be set free from it,
> then whether or not one is required to live righteously to enter heaven has 
> no bearing on the freeness of the gift.

Sorry to take so long to respond Paul, but I've been away a couple of days,
and I'm just catching up.  Your interpretation of "free gift" is very similar
to the "free grace" described by Charles Hedrick:

> The model of grace that most Protestants hold today provides a bit
> more space for human response.  It says that God acts first.  His
> grace is free.  But people are expected to respond.  I think it's
> still correct to characterize his grace as a free gift, without
> preconditions.  However we're expected to respond to it.  If we don't,
> it doesn't nullify the grace.  We still received it, and it's still
> free.  But it doesn't do us much good.  Under this model there's a
> distinction between grace and salvation.  
 
And so Paul, I will repeat to you what I said to Charles:

> I would agree by that description, the grace is free, but that does not 
> nullify my statement that salvation is not; salvation is generally seen to 
> be tied to the specific response of accepting Jesus as one's Lord, whether 
> that choice is taken by choice or thrust upon by grace.

Thus Paul, since you are not interpreting the "gift" in Romans to
specifically be salvation, we have essentially agreed on the subject.
 
				Later,

				Dave Butler

    In starting any thesis, it seems to me, one should put forward as one's
    point of departure something incontrovertible; the expression should be
    simple and dignified.
				Diogenes

    PS. Perhaps I should elaborate why I was accusing someone (who now wishes 
    to left out of the argument) of Red Herring, as he (and perhaps
    others), obviously did not understand my criticism.  He claimed that 
    he needn't respond to my criticism because he wasn't interested in 
    the issue I was bringing up.  The problem with this claim is that 
    this person's main thesis was that salvation was truly free.  His thesis
    was not merely centered on the one issue he was actively promoting (ie:
    that a free gift was no less free if one must actively accept it).
    I had already ceded to his point, and responded with a different and 
    valid point against the idea of free salvation: that a gift is not free, 
    if something is demanded of those who accept that gift.  I also gave a 
    Bible verse showing such demands being made.  It was Red Herring to 
    respond to my argument by returning to the now moot argument about 
    "accepting a free gift".  One cannot simply ignore a valid issue raised 
    against one's main thesis, simply because one isn't interested in it.  If 
    one is determined to claim that salvation is a "free gift", then one must 
    defend one's thesis against all valid criticism against "free salvation" 
    and not merely the criticisms which catch one's interest.