Atheists are hard to convert

[Byblos]

Neo, predestination means you were predestined. Assurance is the natural flow from predestination.

The only absolute assurance that is truly absolute and is logically consistent is the one that states once you are saved, you are always saved NO MATTER WHAT. There is no such thing as proving one was never saved, no matter how heinous the deeds.

Exactly. Thank you, John. Hence I have no contradiction.

Then we are in agreement brother (I think).

[DannyM]

[Danny, it is simply logically contradictory to state that one can have absolute assurance and in the same sentence state that one can prove they were never saved. If one can prove they were never saved then by definition absolute assurance is negated since no one can be sure what the future holds and if at some point they will prove they never were saved. It is inescapable.

John, it seems you are willing to take the apostate’s word over Jesus’ word. Are you saying you are willing to accept as truth if somebody says they were once saved and then walked away? Are you willing to accept they ‘had’ assurance and now do not? It is simply biblically impossible for somebody to be saved and then unsaved. So we have two choices:

1. Accept Christ’s word.
2. Accept some apostate’s word.

Which is it, brother?

John 6:37-40
37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.

38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.

39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.

40 For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day

Here’s a good lesson from our Saviour:

John 6:43
Stop grumbling among yourselves, Jesus answered.

Why is it so difficult for us to trust Christ's words? How many times will I have to underline Christ's words?

John 6:44-47
44 No-one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

45 It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.' Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me.

46 No-one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.

47 I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life.

[Byblos]

[Danny, it is simply logically contradictory to state that one can have absolute assurance and in the same sentence state that one can prove they were never saved. If one can prove they were never saved then by definition absolute assurance is negated since no one can be sure what the future holds and if at some point they will prove they never were saved. It is inescapable.

John, it seems you are willing to take the apostate’s word over Jesus’ word. Are you saying you are willing to accept as truth if somebody says they were once saved and then walked away? Are you willing to accept they ‘had’ assurance and now do not? It is simply biblically impossible for somebody to be saved and then unsaved. So we have two choices:

1. Accept Christ’s word.
2. Accept some apostate’s word.

Which is it, brother?

Danny, you're responding to a straw-man brother, that is not what I'm saying at all. Ultimately I do not believe in absolute assurance but that is utterly besides the point I'm making so no, I most certainly do not take an apostate's word over Jesus'.
I am precisely talking about those who profess to have been saved (not necessarily that they in fact were) and later, by their actions prove that they never were. Those people, at the time they thought they were saved, they also thought they had absolute assurance. It turned out they had no assurance at all since they proved they were never saved to begin with.

I know you and Rick will jump at the word 'thought' and say ah ha, see they thought they were saved but weren't so that doesn't count. But that doesn't make any sense because if you had asked these folks at the time they thought they were saved, they will emphatically tell you they are saved and are indwelt by the HS. But that turned out to be false, they were deluded into thinking they were. And to that you will say: but I'm not deluded, I am indwelt by the HS so I am saved. And to that I answer, that person at the time said exactly the same thing so how do you know you're not being deluded as well? Please Danny, this is not directed towards you or anyone else, I am most certainly not suggesting you or anyone else is deluded about their faith. I am merely illustrating a point to say one cannot be sure they are deluded because others thought exactly the same thing, they thought they had a saving faith, thought they were saved, and it turned out they weren't. As long as there is this possibility that one can find out they were deluded into thinking they were saved, then absolute assurance is meaningless because once a deluded person discovers his delusion, they remain in need of being saved and their initial absolute assurance was no assurance at all.

[DannyM]

I am precisely talking about those who profess to have been saved (not necessarily that they in fact were) and later, by their actions prove that they never were. Those people, at the time they thought they were saved, they also thought they had absolute assurance. It turned out they had no assurance at all since they proved they were never saved to begin with.

I know you and Rick will jump at the word 'thought' and say ah ha, see they thought they were saved but weren't so that doesn't count. But that doesn't make any sense because if you had asked these folks at the time they thought they were saved, they will emphatically tell you they are saved and are indwelt by the HS. But that turned out to be false, they were deluded into thinking they were. And to that you will say: but I'm not deluded, I am indwelt by the HS so I am saved. And to that I answer, that person at the time said exactly the same thing so how do you know you're not being deluded as well? Please Danny, this is not directed towards you or anyone else, I am most certainly not suggesting you or anyone else is deluded about their faith. I am merely illustrating a point to say one cannot be sure they are deluded because others thought exactly the same thing, they thought they had a saving faith, thought they were saved, and it turned out they weren't. As long as there is this possibility that one can find out they were deluded into thinking they were saved, then absolute assurance is meaningless because once a deluded person discovers his delusion, they remain in need of being saved and their initial absolute assurance was no assurance at all.

Sorry to misread you, brother. Well, from what I can glean from the above, this is some special state of mental confusion/delusion. Or else it is an outright lie. A good read of the bible would help clear up any confusion.

Sorry, bro, but this just won’t negate the fact of absolute assurance. Why should the biblical doctrine be thrown out on a mentally-confused technicality?

Again I must tentatively suggest that any person who says they “once had the Holy Spirit” in them “but now do not” ought to be dismissed as deluded or a liar. Either way, Christ’s words remain, unsullied by such confusion/deceit.

[DannyM]

Ultimately I do not believe in absolute assurance

Brother, would it be over simplistic of me to say here that basically you do not believe that Christ will keep all who are His and not lose any?

[Byblos]

Ultimately I do not believe in absolute assurance

Brother, would it be over simplistic of me to say here that basically you do not believe that Christ will keep all who are His and not lose any?

Not only over simplistic, it is false. Of course I believe Christ will keep all who are his. In the end, he knows who they are but we don't.

[DannyM]

Ultimately I do not believe in absolute assurance

Brother, would it be over simplistic of me to say here that basically you do not believe that Christ will keep all who are His and not lose any?

Not only over simplistic, it is false. Of course I believe Christ will keep all who are his. In the end, he knows who they are but we don't.

Sorry, John, but this is just gobbledegook. Is this what you think of the gospel message, that no one can know they are saved, and only Christ knows?

[jlay]

I am precisely talking about those who profess to have been saved (not necessarily that they in fact were) and later, by their actions prove that they never were.

There is the straw man.

I'll give an example. True story. Man was having multiple affairs on his wife. He is confonted by a friend. Obviously his 'deeds' appear as though he isn't saved. Does that determine his salvation? No. But there is no fruit, so examination is in order. If he is saved, he has the Holy Spirit and God WILL chasten whom He loves. If there is no chastening, then the person is NOT a son. Never was. In the confrontation the issue of salvation comes up. His response, "I KNOW I'm saved, because I prayed a prayer on... this date." Where is his faith? On reciting a prayer. What was his faith in on that date? The prayer, and praying it.

That is not salvation. Not in any biblical sense. There is no reason to believe that person is a son. If they are, then the HS will NOT fail. Do we trust God's word, or this person's testimony which contradicts the word. Are his actions the reason he isn't saved? No. They are a reason to examine. If he was a son, chastening is a certainty. He isn't not saved because of his actions. His actions are reason to examine the root. Upon further exam, there is no root.

Regarding baptism. This is always an issue of hermanuetics. Taking what Christ said to Jewish disciples for their economy is the error.
If we are to model what Christ said to the 12, then why do we need an apostle Paul? There is no logical consistency here. If what we need today is modeled in the disciples commission, then Paul has to be the biggest farce in the Bible. Why would he need NEW revelation? If one proof text verses, which nearly everyone does, you can claim consistency, but contextually there is contradiction. Either Christ's plans failed, and he had to go with Paul as plan B. Or, as Paul says, there is a interruption, a mystery (secret) which was hidden, and is now revealed. Paul says he received this by direct revelation, NOT from the 12 or the program they were operating under. This imposes OT regulations on body of Christ beleivers. And if you follow those 'commands' then see where that will lead you in regards to security. Matt 24-25 You are left with religion. And nothing embodies it better than the RCC. With that, I will agree.

Not only over simplistic, it is false. Of course I believe Christ will keep all who are his. In the end, he knows who they are but we don't.

This just attempts to dilute assurance. We do know. That doesn't mean I know a persons heart. But I know, 100% who will be saved, and who won't. Those who rightly trust Christ as savior will be saved. Those who don't will not. (John 1:12) (Eph 1:13,14)

[Byblos]

I am precisely talking about those who profess to have been saved (not necessarily that they in fact were) and later, by their actions prove that they never were.

There is the straw man.

Huh? I am stating what MY argument is J, not attacking anyone else's false argument. Please do explain how that is a straw man.

I'll give an example. True story. Man was having multiple affairs on his wife. He is confonted by a friend. Obviously his 'deeds' appear as though he isn't saved. Does that determine his salvation? No. But there is no fruit, so examination is in order. If he is saved, he has the Holy Spirit and God WILL chasten whom He loves. If there is no chastening, then the person is NOT a son. Never was. In the confrontation the issue of salvation comes up. His response, "I KNOW I'm saved, because I prayed a prayer on... this date." Where is his faith? On reciting a prayer. What was his faith in on that date? The prayer, and praying it.

That is not salvation. Not in any biblical sense. There is no reason to believe that person is a son. If they are, then the HS will NOT fail. Do we trust God's word, or this person's testimony which contradicts the word. Are his actions the reason he isn't saved? No. They are a reason to examine. If he was a son, chastening is a certainty. He isn't not saved because of his actions. His actions are reason to examine the root. Upon further exam, there is no root.

Talk about a straw man, that is precisely what I said and what you quoted J. And yet you claim it was a straw man. I agree that the man had no fruit. So a saving faith requires fruit, right? So that mean if there is no fruit or if this fruit stops at some point, there is no salvation (as in there never was). It further means that in order for one to know they are saved, they must keep displaying the fruit of that saving faith. If they stop displaying it, then they did not have salvation in the biblical sense according to you. So where does that leave absolute assurance? Nowhere.

Regarding baptism. This is always an issue of hermanuetics. Taking what Christ said to Jewish disciples for their economy is the error.
If we are to model what Christ said to the 12, then why do we need an apostle Paul? There is no logical consistency here. If what we need today is modeled in the disciples commission, then Paul has to be the biggest farce in the Bible. Why would he need NEW revelation? If one proof text verses, which nearly everyone does, you can claim consistency, but contextually there is contradiction. Either Christ's plans failed, and he had to go with Paul as plan B. Or, as Paul says, there is a interruption, a mystery (secret) which was hidden, and is now revealed. Paul says he received this by direct revelation, NOT from the 12 or the program they were operating under. This imposes OT regulations on body of Christ beleivers. And if you follow those 'commands' then see where that will lead you in regards to security. Matt 24-25 You are left with religion. And nothing embodies it better than the RCC. With that, I will agree.

The roles of the disciples, including Paul, are not that clearly delineated as you are making them out to be. They all preached to both Jews and gentiles, some more to one side than the other. Some more to the specific audience, but they preached the same message and the same Gospel. And yeah, ok, the RCC is a religion because it is an organized religion and Protestantism is not a religion because it is fragmented and a church of one? Actually with that I do agree.

Not only over simplistic, it is false. Of course I believe Christ will keep all who are his. In the end, he knows who they are but we don't.

This just attempts to dilute assurance. We do know. That doesn't mean I know a persons heart. But I know, 100% who will be saved, and who won't. Those who rightly trust Christ as savior will be saved. Those who don't will not. (John 1:12) (Eph 1:13,14)

If you're referring to absolute assurance then it is not only diluted, it doesn't exist. We can go back and forth with quoting scripture that say we must stay the course but then we've done that so many times before so what's the point.

[jlay]

The roles of the disciples, including Paul, are not that clearly delineated as you are making them out to be. They all preached to both Jews and gentiles, some more to one side than the other. Some more to the specific audience, but they preached the same message and the same Gospel.

Yes, of course Paul preached to both. That was part of his Gospel. No difference. Rom. 10:12, Gal. 3:28, Col. 3:11
But is it the same Gospel?

Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, 26But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: (Romans 16:25,26)

Ephesians 3:8,9,10 and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things.
Colossians 1:26 the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints.

Talk about a straw man, that is precisely what I said and what you quoted J. And yet you claim it was a straw man. I agree that the man had no fruit. So a saving faith requires fruit, right? So that mean if there is no fruit or if this fruit stops at some point, there is no salvation (as in there never was).

No, you are seeking to twist this towards your own means. What is fruit and where does it come from? "Apart from me you can do nothing."
What you are stating is PLAINLY something different. If you can't understand my example then I can't help you. I couldn't have stated any plainer than, "Are his actions the reason he isn't saved? No." They are a reason to examine.If there is no evidence (in our eyes) that there is fruit, then it is a reason to examine. Examine what? To see if there is a root. The root is not the fruit. The root is salvation. His root was not faith in Christ, but faith in a religious substitute. "I prayed the prayer." I never said, for someone to be saved they must be displaying fruit. It is obvious why there is no fruit. There was never a root to begin with. You are adding to my words, and thus you are doomed to come to false conclusions. Your analogy only distorts something we often overlook, and that is, "what consititutes REAL salvation."

If I stop displaying fruit does that mean I lose salvation. No. I was either saved in the first place or I am not. If I am, then God WILL chasten those He loves. If I am not chastened then I was never a son to begin with. (Heb 12:6)

[Byblos]

The roles of the disciples, including Paul, are not that clearly delineated as you are making them out to be. They all preached to both Jews and gentiles, some more to one side than the other. Some more to the specific audience, but they preached the same message and the same Gospel.

Yes, of course Paul preached to both. That was part of his Gospel. No difference. Rom. 10:12, Gal. 3:28, Col. 3:11
But is it the same Gospel?

Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, 26But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: (Romans 16:25,26)

Ephesians 3:8,9,10 and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things.
Colossians 1:26 the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints.

And that mystery IS the Gospel, the whole Gospel, and nothing but the Gospel.

Talk about a straw man, that is precisely what I said and what you quoted J. And yet you claim it was a straw man. I agree that the man had no fruit. So a saving faith requires fruit, right? So that mean if there is no fruit or if this fruit stops at some point, there is no salvation (as in there never was).

No, you are seeking to twist this towards your own means. What is fruit and where does it come from? "Apart from me you can do nothing."
What you are stating is PLAINLY something different. If you can't understand my example then I can't help you. I couldn't have stated any plainer than, "Are his actions the reason he isn't saved? No." They are a reason to examine.If there is no evidence (in our eyes) that there is fruit, then it is a reason to examine. Examine what? To see if there is a root. The root is not the fruit. The root is salvation. His root was not faith in Christ, but faith in a religious substitute. "I prayed the prayer." I never said, for someone to be saved they must be displaying fruit. It is obvious why there is no fruit. There was never a root to begin with. You are adding to my words, and thus you are doomed to come to false conclusions. Your analogy only distorts something we often overlook, and that is, "what consititutes REAL salvation."

If I stop displaying fruit does that mean I lose salvation. No. I was either saved in the first place or I am not. If I am, then God WILL chasten those He loves. If I am not chastened then I was never a son to begin with. (Heb 12:6)

Evidently you are the one who are misunderstanding what I'm saying, misquoting me, and making false assumptions. Where did I say one can lose their salvation in the context of what we're discussing here? All along my entire argument was NEVER about losing salvation but about absolute assurance when one proves they were never saved to begin with, so please get your facts straight.

[jlay]

And that mystery IS the Gospel, the whole Gospel, and nothing but the Gospel.

Obviously this is where we disagree,...kind of. Obviously today, there is one gospel, and it is for Jew and Gentile, no differnce. The gospel of grace, that He was buried, that He was raised on the 3rd day, according to the scriptures. And it is received by faith in Christ. This is not what JTB or Jesus preached during their earthly ministry. They preached the gospel of the Kingdom. And Kingdom has specific meanings for a specific people. God made promises to Israel about the Davidic Kingdom. THIS WAS NO SECRET. The word mystery is not some strange thing. It simply means hidden or secret. It was prophesied, then how can something known to prophets be a secret? In fact it was so well known, that Eastern magi were able to discern the time for the Kingly Messiah to be born, and look for His star. Big secret there.

I understand how the RCC sees that as playing out. Replacement theology also permeates much of Protestantism.

Evidently you are the one who are misunderstanding what I'm saying, misquoting me, and making false assumptions. Where did I say one can lose their salvation in the context of what we're discussing here? All along my entire argument was NEVER about losing salvation but about absolute assurance when one proves they were never saved to begin with, so please get your facts straight.

Byb, maybe we are having some communication breakdown. If there is no assurance that God has saved and will keep, then I see no other possibility than that one can lose salvation. You are welcome to clarify. What do you mean, specificially, when you say absolute assurance when one PROVES they were never saved to begin with?

[DannyM]

Thus conversation is going as similar conversations have gone for ages. There are texts that when isolated and used with others can build a case for either a hyper-grace position or a hyper-works position and number of other positions along the spectrum.

I don't know that I can resolve this to everyone's satisfaction but I think when we step back a lot of thus has to do with how we view the character of God. I'll expand mire later but I just wanted to throw that out to prompt some thought.

I disagree. Either we have assurance or we do not have assurance. Nothing "hyper" about it.

[RickD]

Thus conversation is going as similar conversations have gone for ages. There are texts that when isolated and used with others can build a case for either a hyper-grace position or a hyper-works position and number of other positions along the spectrum.

I don't know that I can resolve this to everyone's satisfaction but I think when we step back a lot of thus has to do with how we view the character of God. I'll expand mire later but I just wanted to throw that out to prompt some thought.

I disagree. Either we have assurance or we do not have assurance. Nothing "hyper" about it.

I'm not sure that's what Bart is saying, Danny. I believe Bart is saying that someone can take certain verses in scripture, isolate them, and make a case for one extreme or the other, or anything in between. Danny, you and I and jlay, certainly have differing views about predestination, but the three of us all believe in absolute assurance for the true child of God. There are also others, that believe in predestination, closer to what jlay and I believe, but, they don't believe in absolute assurance. I think, maybe Bart is going to try to show us how our beliefs are affected by our view of God's character.

[Byblos]

And that mystery IS the Gospel, the whole Gospel, and nothing but the Gospel.

Obviously this is where we disagree,...kind of. Obviously today, there is one gospel, and it is for Jew and Gentile, no differnce. The gospel of grace, that He was buried, that He was raised on the 3rd day, according to the scriptures. And it is received by faith in Christ. This is not what JTB or Jesus preached during their earthly ministry. They preached the gospel of the Kingdom. And Kingdom has specific meanings for a specific people. God made promises to Israel about the Davidic Kingdom. THIS WAS NO SECRET. The word mystery is not some strange thing. It simply means hidden or secret. It was prophesied, then how can something known to prophets be a secret? In fact it was so well known, that Eastern magi were able to discern the time for the Kingly Messiah to be born, and look for His star. Big secret there.

I understand how the RCC sees that as playing out. Replacement theology also permeates much of Protestantism.

I honestly have no idea what all that means or what it has to do with the discussion at hand but ok, whatever.

Evidently you are the one who are misunderstanding what I'm saying, misquoting me, and making false assumptions. Where did I say one can lose their salvation in the context of what we're discussing here? All along my entire argument was NEVER about losing salvation but about absolute assurance when one proves they were never saved to begin with, so please get your facts straight.

Byb, maybe we are having some communication breakdown. If there is no assurance that God has saved and will keep, then I see no other possibility than that one can lose salvation. You are welcome to clarify. What do you mean, specificially, when you say absolute assurance when one PROVES they were never saved to begin with?

Let's try this one more time. And may I remind you J, before you accuse me, yet again, of twisting things as if I had some sinister agenda, that this argument I am using is the EXACT same argument Jac uses in defense of what he calls NPOS-OSAS (Non Perseverance of the Saints - Once Saved Always Saved), which, in my (and his) opinion, is the true representation of OSAS.

There are basically 3 types of OSAS beliefs:

1. Those who do not believe in it (I am in this camp but NOT for the sake of this discussion, so let's get that out of the way first)
2. OSAS with perseverance, and here Jac lumps Calvinists as well as Arminians (and THIS is the one I am arguing against)
3. NPOS-OSAS

We can dismiss 1 as it is not the subject of this discussion.
3, is very simple, it is OSAS with absolute, unconditional, irrevocable assurance NO MATTER WHAT. If a person is sincere in believing he was saved, there ain't no amount of nothin' that can prove he actually wasn't. He could go on to profess satanism and commit unspeakable atrocities and he still would be saved. In this camp, there is no proving he wasn't saved or testing anything, period, done.

2, On the other hand, is where everyone around here seems to belong and what I am arguing against. On the one hand you say one can have absolute, unconditional, irrevocable assurance. On the other, you say one can prove they were never saved (notice, again, they can prove they were never saved, not that they lost their salvation.) Once the element of doubt is introduced that anyone at any time can prove they actually were never saved to begin with, then absolute assurance is negated by definition. It is simply logically contradictory to state that doubt and absolute assurance can co-exist in the same idea.

I hope this clears it up.