Faith and works

[PaulSacramento]

PaulS wrote:

Did Hitler not blasphemy the HS?
Is that not a sin from which there is no being saved?

RickD wrote:I have no idea if Hitler blasphemed the HS. Why do you say that?

PaulS wrote:
To blasphemy the HS is to reject Christ, to reject Christ and persecute those that believe is to blasphemy the HS.
For that to happen one must know Christ or at least be aware/accept His existence AND then reject/turn on Christ.
He even tried to pass off his regime as a Christian one at one point, even trying to justify his genocide of the jews because of it.

Paul,

I don't think that's what blaspheming the Holy Spirit is. I could be wrong, but I would think blaspheming the Holy Spirit is constant unbelief. Always rejecting Christ. Never having trusted him. I think this link makes sense:
http://www.gotquestions.org/blasphemy-Holy-Spirit.html

The blasphemy of the Spirit today, which is the same as the unpardonable sin, is the state of continued unbelief. There is no pardon for a person who dies in unbelief. Continual rejection of the Holy Spirit’s promptings to trust in Jesus Christ is the unpardonable blasphemy against Him. Remember what is stated in John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” Further on in the same chapter is the verse “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him” (John 3:36). The only condition wherein someone would have no forgiveness is if he is not among the “whoever believes in Him,” for it is he who “rejects the Son.”

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/blasphemy-H ... z3LaM8caOM

And since the hypothetical argument is that if someone such as Hitler believed on Christ and has eternal life, could he do anything to lose eternal life? I would say no. Or it wouldn't be eternal. And also, that would make God's promise subject to our performance.

IMO, we can NOT reject something that we do NOT know.
I mean, we can in a superficial sense based on ignorance and I do not think that is blasphemy of the HS.
I think for something to be THAT serious one must have a clear understanding and conscience of WHO He is rejecting.
I know a few militant atheist that used to be believers ( JW's to be exact) and they now go out of their way to hate on and turn people away from Christ.
They KNEW Christ ( at least more than one that has never been a believer) and they CHOSE to reject Him and now CHOOSE to try to take others away from Christ.

[RickD]

PaulS wrote:
IMO, we can NOT reject something that we do NOT know.
I mean, we can in a superficial sense based on ignorance and I do not think that is blasphemy of the HS.
I think for something to be THAT serious one must have a clear understanding and conscience of WHO He is rejecting.
I know a few militant atheist that used to be believers ( JW's to be exact) and they now go out of their way to hate on and turn people away from Christ.
They KNEW Christ ( at least more than one that has never been a believer) and they CHOSE to reject Him and now CHOOSE to try to take others away from Christ.

Are you saying they're militant atheists that used to be Jehovahs witnesses? So you're comparing someone who believes in a false Christ and a false gospel, to believers? Jehovah's witnesses know the real Christ as much as someone who is a militant atheist.

[PaulSacramento]

PaulS wrote:
IMO, we can NOT reject something that we do NOT know.
I mean, we can in a superficial sense based on ignorance and I do not think that is blasphemy of the HS.
I think for something to be THAT serious one must have a clear understanding and conscience of WHO He is rejecting.
I know a few militant atheist that used to be believers ( JW's to be exact) and they now go out of their way to hate on and turn people away from Christ.
They KNEW Christ ( at least more than one that has never been a believer) and they CHOSE to reject Him and now CHOOSE to try to take others away from Christ.

Are you saying they're militant atheists that used to be Jehovahs witnesses? So you're comparing someone who believes in a false Christ and a false gospel, to believers? Jehovah's witnesses know the real Christ as much as someone who is a militant atheist.

Dude, I could have just as easily pointed out former Evangelicals or Protestants or Catholics, the denomination doesn't matter, what matters was that at one point they believed.

[RickD]

PaulS wrote:
IMO, we can NOT reject something that we do NOT know.
I mean, we can in a superficial sense based on ignorance and I do not think that is blasphemy of the HS.
I think for something to be THAT serious one must have a clear understanding and conscience of WHO He is rejecting.
I know a few militant atheist that used to be believers ( JW's to be exact) and they now go out of their way to hate on and turn people away from Christ.
They KNEW Christ ( at least more than one that has never been a believer) and they CHOSE to reject Him and now CHOOSE to try to take others away from Christ.

Are you saying they're militant atheists that used to be Jehovahs witnesses? So you're comparing someone who believes in a false Christ and a false gospel, to believers? Jehovah's witnesses know the real Christ as much as someone who is a militant atheist.

Dude, I could have just as easily pointed out former Evangelicals or Protestants or Catholics, the denomination doesn't matter, what matters was that at one point they believed.

Since when is Jehovah's Witness a Christian denomination? Someone who has never trusted the real Jesus Christ, has never been a believer.
You're losing me Paul. At least if you knew former Protestants or Catholics who you knew believed and trusted Christ, and claimed to now be atheists, it would have real relevance to what we're discussing.

[PaulSacramento]

PaulS wrote:
IMO, we can NOT reject something that we do NOT know.
I mean, we can in a superficial sense based on ignorance and I do not think that is blasphemy of the HS.
I think for something to be THAT serious one must have a clear understanding and conscience of WHO He is rejecting.
I know a few militant atheist that used to be believers ( JW's to be exact) and they now go out of their way to hate on and turn people away from Christ.
They KNEW Christ ( at least more than one that has never been a believer) and they CHOSE to reject Him and now CHOOSE to try to take others away from Christ.

Are you saying they're militant atheists that used to be Jehovahs witnesses? So you're comparing someone who believes in a false Christ and a false gospel, to believers? Jehovah's witnesses know the real Christ as much as someone who is a militant atheist.

Dude, I could have just as easily pointed out former Evangelicals or Protestants or Catholics, the denomination doesn't matter, what matters was that at one point they believed.

Since when is Jehovah's Witness a Christian denomination? Someone who has never trusted the real Jesus Christ, has never been a believer.
You're losing me Paul. At least if you knew former Protestants or Catholics who you knew believed and trusted Christ, and claimed to now be atheists, it would have real relevance to what we're discussing.

Fine, looks at the likes of Ehrman (former Evangelical) or Bill Maher (former Catholic) or Dawkins, who was a anglican, or any other you choose.

You aren't gonna pull a "no true Christian" on me are you?

[Kurieuo]

K wrote:
Those who have died, cannot stand heaven or God.
My take from it, and other apologists like Geisler have suggested it, is that if one rejects Christ, then to be in the presence of God would be an absolute hell.
So far from it being loving of God to force someone who rejects Him to be with Him, it could actually be considered an act of hate -- a divine rape that doesn't respect our freedom.
Therefore, Hell is a necessity. It allows God to withdraw Himself in some sense, allow people their freedom to keep their distance from God.

I agree if one has always rejected Christ. But if one has eternal life after trusting Christ, then it's not the same. Unless you don't hold to assurance. Then I think you'd have much bigger problems.

I see it this way. We don't gain or lose salvation because of our sin. So once we have eternal life, we can't lose it because of our sin. And if a believer goes through something that causes him to reject God, that would be a sin. But sinning can't cause us to lose eternal life.
Unless you're trying to make the argument like PaulS is, that a believer rejecting Christ is the unpardonable sin.

I think the Scriptural passage that PaulS is referring to actually quite vague...
But, it does fit in with what I see many doing when they throw the gift back in God's face, insulting Christ.

My main line of reasoning would be that I don't believe "the self" is static. Not in this life.
There is a reason why our choice is different from that of angels.
We are dynamic. We develop over time. We can reject and come back.
Unlike angels who reject God and that's it -- their decision is cemented in.

Two questions I'd ask you are:
What makes you think a person when they come to Christ is the same person who rejects Christ?
Which is our "true self" -- the later or earlier self?

Certainly, we are the same conscious entity throughout life, but I'm very different to who I was as a child or even a decade ago.
And then the day I die, I'm sure I'll be a very different person to who I am now (God willing a better person in Christ).

It isn't "sin" therefore, or "works" if you will, that would separate an ex-Christian from God. Rather it is their own true "self".
God respects the culmination of who we are and our choices in life, including our free choice to deny Him.
He respects our choices so much that God allows much evil in the world to go unchecked... for a time.

So does a person therefore "lose their salvation" if they stop being Christian?
No. They never had it because God has full insight into who they are.
Christ knows every head who belongs to Him even before time.
Time just reveals who they really are.

What of assurance. Can we know that we belong to Him?
In answering this question, we can only speak for ourselves since we only have private access to who we are.
But, I'm as certain as the Sun will rise tomorrow that I love God, want and believe in Christ.
This forms an intrinsic part of me and I'm 100% certain my knowledge of myself here is correct.

If assurance is important to you, then I'd argue that one can be more fully assured of their salvation via knowing who they are in response to Christ than trusting "once saved, always saved" to be correct. We just need to know who we are, rather than look for support for a doctrine via Scripture and reason which unless we become dogmatic seems obscure at best (if all the heated exchanges that often happen are anything to go by).

The conundrum I see with Jac's theology, is that God is forces to essentially "rape" people into being with Him.
This is why I can't accept his "free grace" because it denies people their free choices. So much for "grace".

On the flip side, you are rejecting assurance of a believer. And you're saying our keeping salvation is based on our performance, or our lack of committing sins.

And I'd much rather trust that God will keep me secure, than I will keep myself saved.

No, I'm not rejecting the assurance of a believer.
You have the same assurance that I do as a Christian or ex-Christian.

[RickD]

PaulS wrote:
Fine, looks at the likes of Ehrman (former Evangelical) or Bill Maher (former Catholic) or Dawkins, who was a anglican, or any other you choose.

You aren't gonna pull a "no true Christian" on me are you?

Paul, you naughty boy! Santa is watching you, and you haven't been paying attention. My argument is actually the opposite of "No true Christian".

Shame on you!!!

What I've been saying, is that it's possible for someone who trusted Christ, and therefore has eternal life, to curse God and even claim to be an atheist, without losing eternal life!!!!

If we don't abide in Christ, we don't grow as Christians. That has no affect on salvation.

[PaulSacramento]

PaulS wrote:
Fine, looks at the likes of Ehrman (former Evangelical) or Bill Maher (former Catholic) or Dawkins, who was a anglican, or any other you choose.

You aren't gonna pull a "no true Christian" on me are you?

Paul, you naughty boy! Santa is watching you, and you haven't been paying attention. My argument is actually the opposite of "No true Christian".

Shame on you!!!

What I've been saying, is that it's possible for someone who trusted Christ, and therefore has eternal life, to curse God and even claim to be an atheist, without losing eternal life!!!!

If we don't abide in Christ, we don't grow as Christians. That has no affect on salvation.

I know that is what you have been saying and what I am saying is that cursing Christ, rejecting Him is rejecting the HS and that is, IMO, blasphemy of the HS and as such, it is THE sin that kills everlasting.
If we don't abide in Christ and we do NOT believe, then we are not saved.
Not sure how you are reconciling NON belief in Christ with being saved...

[RickD]

PaulS wrote:
Fine, looks at the likes of Ehrman (former Evangelical) or Bill Maher (former Catholic) or Dawkins, who was a anglican, or any other you choose.

You aren't gonna pull a "no true Christian" on me are you?

Paul, you naughty boy! Santa is watching you, and you haven't been paying attention. My argument is actually the opposite of "No true Christian".

Shame on you!!!

What I've been saying, is that it's possible for someone who trusted Christ, and therefore has eternal life, to curse God and even claim to be an atheist, without losing eternal life!!!!

If we don't abide in Christ, we don't grow as Christians. That has no affect on salvation.

I know that is what you have been saying and what I am saying is that cursing Christ, rejecting Him is rejecting the HS and that is, IMO, blasphemy of the HS and as such, it is THE sin that kills everlasting.
If we don't abide in Christ and we do NOT believe, then we are not saved.
Not sure how you are reconciling NON belief in Christ with being saved...

Again, john 3:16 and other verses say if one believes in Christ, one has eternal life. At that moment of belief, one has eternal life. And if it's eternal, it means it won't end.
Now you're saying that if one who has eternal life stops believing in Christ, then one is then not saved. That would mean eternal life is not eternal, but temporary.

Or you're saying that if one doesn't continue believing in Christ, one was never saved to begin with. Which means john 3:16 is wrong, and anyone who believes on Christ doesn't have eternal life.

So which is it?

[Philip]

Rick: What I've been saying, is that it's possible for someone who trusted Christ, and therefore has eternal life, to curse God and even claim to be an atheist, without losing eternal life!!!!

I'll say this, discussing theoreticals are interesting, but I'd say this belief is very much theoretical. I can say that I've never seen such a person, with God's Spirit inside, deny Him. And, if possible, one could never know that this person is actually a Christian. So it's a pointless conjecture. It would also seem to conflict with Scriptures such as Luke 6 and the type of tree and its fruit. Yes, the initial context is about teachers, but it seems to be applicable beyond that. And what of Matthew 10:33 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=ESV)?

Rick addressing Paul: Now you're saying that if one who has eternal life stops believing in Christ, then one is then not saved. That would mean eternal life is not eternal, but temporary.

Perhaps this is not so much of a COULD this be possible, but WOULD this ever happen.

[PaulSacramento]

PaulS wrote:
Fine, looks at the likes of Ehrman (former Evangelical) or Bill Maher (former Catholic) or Dawkins, who was a anglican, or any other you choose.

You aren't gonna pull a "no true Christian" on me are you?

Paul, you naughty boy! Santa is watching you, and you haven't been paying attention. My argument is actually the opposite of "No true Christian".

Shame on you!!!

What I've been saying, is that it's possible for someone who trusted Christ, and therefore has eternal life, to curse God and even claim to be an atheist, without losing eternal life!!!!

If we don't abide in Christ, we don't grow as Christians. That has no affect on salvation.

I know that is what you have been saying and what I am saying is that cursing Christ, rejecting Him is rejecting the HS and that is, IMO, blasphemy of the HS and as such, it is THE sin that kills everlasting.
If we don't abide in Christ and we do NOT believe, then we are not saved.
Not sure how you are reconciling NON belief in Christ with being saved...

Again, john 3:16 and other verses say if one believes in Christ, one has eternal life. At that moment of belief, one has eternal life. And if it's eternal, it means it won't end.
Now you're saying that if one who has eternal life stops believing in Christ, then one is then not saved. That would mean eternal life is not eternal, but temporary.

Or you're saying that if one doesn't continue believing in Christ, one was never saved to begin with. Which means john 3:16 is wrong, and anyone who believes on Christ doesn't have eternal life.

So which is it?

I just wanna be clear but you believe that the moment a person believes in Christ and ALL that means of course ( not just in Him but ALL He has done, including the resurrection and so forth), they are saved REGARDLESS if they then CHOOSE to NOT believe and even actively go against Christ?

[jlay]

This particular point is why I've always made a distinction in carnal Christianity and apostasy. I see nothing fruitful in arguing that someone who now rejects God, and even curses the thought, is, or ever was saved. Even if such a person might actually be saved. As a Free Grace theologian i have to consider the reality of this, but I just don't see the point in arguing it.

I can think of my own life as an example. There are times of my life, post conversion, that you'd be hard pressed to consider me a Christian. I can remember at one point in college my friends and I had stayed up all night partying. The sun was coming and people were arriving at the church across the street. I began yelling across the street, mocking these folks. Yet, there is little doubt in my mind, today, that I was saved. I was certainly out of fellowship, deceived and prodigal. But I was still a son. And I returned home. I suppose I could have been killed that very day, and never had the opportunity to come to my senses.
One thing I didn't have at this time was assurance. Experientially, that is. It wasn't that i was not assured salvation, only that I was not experiencing this assurance in my inner man. And that was because of my choices.

If someone says they 'used to be a Christian,' then we have every right to ask, "What do you mean by that?"
I can't recall anyone I've personally asked this question whose testimony passed the scriptural measure. I'm not saying there isn't, only that I've never met one.

As a prodigal it took me a while to realize the pig pen i was in. There were times that I was perfectly content and happy and thought I had no need for God. But that was because I wasn't in my right mind. If a person is a believer, then they are indwelled by the Holy Spirit. When we die, we will see Him with unveiled faces, which will bring all of this into proper perspective. It says that God will wipe away every tear. I think the reason for this is that this awakening will be a grievous time when we see all our shortcomings, missed opportunities, and failures. Think what it's going to be like when we realize that some part of our theology was totally off target. Think about it. Do you really think we are going to be debating these matters in heaven? Hell no. We won't be wondering who goes to heaven, what day of the week to worship, whether gay marriage is OK, etc., etc. We will be made like Him. And it isn't going to be a matter of us 'figuring it out.' His glory will be manifest. There won't be any spiritual rape because we (believers) have all tasted what is good, even if the cares of this world caused us to forget the taste while on this earth. That flavor, revealed in His presence, will instantly clear away any of this nonsense.
After all, are we so arrogant to think that we aren't still prodigal in some part of our life?

[Philip]

Jlay: If someone says they 'used to be a Christian,' then we have every right to ask, "What do you mean by that?"
I can't recall anyone I've personally asked this question whose testimony passed the scriptural measure. I'm not saying there isn't, only that I've never met one.

My thought exactly. This theoretical believer/denier that curses God - he's irrelevant conjecture, as: 1) it is uncertain that such a fellow can exist, and 2) we will never be able to discern the accurate status of shuch a person, as he would be indistinguishable from an unbeliever.

[RickD]

PaulS wrote:
I just wanna be clear but you believe that the moment a person believes in Christ and ALL that means of course ( not just in Him but ALL He has done, including the resurrection and so forth), they are saved REGARDLESS if they then CHOOSE to NOT believe and even actively go against Christ?

Hypothetically, yes. Is it ever going to happen that way? I don't know. But like I said, if I believe something, I need to take it to its logical conclusion. So again, it's a hypothetical.

I believe God woos or calls us back to Him when we stray from Him. My life is an example of that. There are things that I have gone through in the past, that have caused me to "turn my back on God", so to speak.

And I think what jlay said is important too. If someone says they used to be a Christian, we can ask them some simple questions to see if they really trusted Christ. Or if they were a carnal Christian, like someone who claimed to follow Christ, but never actually trusted Christ for salvation.

Do you see what I'm saying?

[RickD]

Jlay: If someone says they 'used to be a Christian,' then we have every right to ask, "What do you mean by that?"
I can't recall anyone I've personally asked this question whose testimony passed the scriptural measure. I'm not saying there isn't, only that I've never met one.

My thought exactly. This theoretical believer/denier that curses God - he's irrelevant conjecture, as: 1) it is uncertain that such a fellow can exist, and 2) we will never be able to discern the accurate status of shuch a person, as he would be indistinguishable from an unbeliever.

I would agree. Only with the addition that if that person ever trusted Christ, he is saved. But would we ever know if he did or didn't trust Christ?