Jac3510 wrote:Ok, regarding the first issue ("ontological faith"):
Perhaps it is better to speak of your view as the continuum of faith rather that continuance of faith?
Yes, I only thought of "continuum" in my last post to you to describe it
and I think it is the better terminology. At the same time is can be understood as a "continual faith" but not in the sense one must continue in their faith, rather that faith is a continual property which can change as a person changes. It is perhaps misleading to say "a continuing faith" insomuch as it can be misunderstood as "a faith one must continue in". I mean it to describe the ontological nature of faith, and not as a predicate of a person.
Jac3510 wrote:It is not actually the faith of the person in question, but the person themselves in question. Do they have "faith" (which is a continuum) or not? It seems to be impossible to have a "once-off" faith in your view, because such a faith is excluded in your definition.
I'm pretty sure I follow your line of thought. I am just trying to get the semantics down.
Yes, I think you are understanding me correctly.
Jac3510 wrote:I do have one specific request for clarification here. Let's consider your example of Anthony being always saved. Do you mean he was always saved from the point of acceptance of Christ at 10, or do you mean that He was "born saved" because . . . why . . . maybe God knew he would develop into a person of faith?
Let me change the time line just a LITTLE bit. Let's move everything back ten years. Anthony accepts at 20, becomes an atheist at 30. He returns at 55. You say he was "always saved". I just want to find out how you meant that.
This could get tricky, especially as what lays beneath is the great controversy of the Reformed idea of election and predestination versus the priority Arminianism places on our freedom to choose. I will attempt to avoid this for now, unless or until it becomes necessary.
To be as clear as possible I believe Anthony in the given example was saved based on his free decision to accept Christ period. I believe it is wrong to dissect the person Anthony was at age 10, and separate this person from the fully developed Anthony who died at 50 who is an outgrowth of the person at age 10. Yet, I see that God could have justified Anthony at age 10 upon his acceptance of Christ, due to God knowing who the true Anthony is and/or foreseeing the the completely developed Anthony accepts Christ.
Allow me to provide an illustration which however inadequate it might be will serve my illustrative purposes well enough. Consider a fig tree which Christ also used as analogous to us. A fig tree develops from seed into a fully grown tree. Whether it has fruit will only be known by seeing it mature into the fig tree it will become. Now consider our own lives. We develop from the very start of our existence into who we ultimately are. Likewise, whether we have faith in Christ can only be known by seeing us fully mature into who we are. I do not know whether such an analogy is really adequate, but I guess it will do.
Now while I believe God could have, and perhaps would have, justified Anthony at age 10, this is only because God knew Anthony better than Anthony knew himself. God does not need to wait to see who we become, nor do I think God necessarily needs to foresee who we become, because I think God knows our heart and who we are so entirely and intimately that he knows the real us even while we are developing into the person we will ultimately become. And so I think God would give us the chance to become this person if it is beneficial to a relationship with Him.
Jac wrote:Let's move everything back ten years. Anthony accepts at 20, becomes an atheist at 30. He returns at 55.... What if he had died at 19? Or what if he had died at 54?
My belief is that is depends on who the true Anthony was. We ourselves I guess can only tell who a person is by what we perceive about them through their actions, stated beliefs and so on. We even judge who we are according to what we do and our interactions in the world. It could be we don't really know who we are. Perhaps we have been so abused or troubled in life that we do not know where we begin or end to know who we are. I believe God knows however, and as mentioned I am inclined to think God gives us the opportunity to fully develop into our self.
Taking your scenario, let us say Anthony dies at 19 before he came to accept Christ but that he would have had he lived a year longer. My response is not decisive, but consists of one of two options.
1) Perhaps God knows the Anthony who would have been, and so gives Anthony the opportunity to develop into who he is, and thus Anthony will choose Christ.
2) If Anthony is not given a chance to develop further, then as sad as it might be, Anthony is the person who died at 19 years. Thus, Anthony is not saved.
Given God desires all to come to Him I am inclined to accept option (1), that is, God somehow allows Anthony to develop further. Scripture on the other hand does not hint whether such an opportunity exists beyond this life (at least I am not aware to any passages). And factoring that God would be entirely just in condemning us all if He so desired, I must remain open to the possibility that God does not provide Anthony an opportunity to develop further. Yet, I think if it is a real outcome someone will accept Christ, God would more than likely do all He can (I mean He incarnated Himself in the form of man to die for our sake!) to extend the opportunity for such a person to come to Himself.
Jac wrote:Calvinists believe that a person cannot lose their salvation. If a person professes belief and later dies in unbelief, then it proves they never genuinely believed in the first place. Arminians believe that we can lose our salvation--that a person can genuinely be saved and have everlasting life, but a relapse into sin can cause us to lose that salvation. Thus, in Arminian theology, in the timeline I suggested for Anthony, if he dies at 29 he goes to heaven. At 31-54 he goes to hell. At 55 plus he goes to heaven.
And I am neither, although I by no means think they should simply be disregarded without any respect or special attention. They go a long way to framing the boundaries of discussions such as this. I think people on both sides and inbetween however, will more often than not admit to some sort of grey area where they feel more comfortable saying whatever God does with a person is what God does.
Jac wrote:Here's my point: from a practical level, these two systems teach exactly the same thing. It is six and one half a dozen. It is little comfort for a person to die and say, "Well, I may be in Hell, but at least I didn't lose my salvation. I guess I just never had it!" The end result for both systems is that for a person to be saved, their faith must still be in Christ at the time of their . . . ah . . . expiration. in short form, they both believe that perseverene is necessary for salvation. Arminians say we have to do it. Calvinists say that God does it for us. But the doctrine is the same.
I never thought of that and actually appreciate the insight.
My experience has been though (however limited it may be) that those who align themselves with Calvin theology are not necessarily cut and dry Calvinists. Some will often swallow the bullet to say such a person is still saved. And I am sure the Arminians may lax the rules to say they really don't know whether someone was saved even though they did not persevere with works or what have you. What I am saying, is that while the two are black and white in strict doctrine (or our perception of such doctrines), you will rarely find someone who is black and white in such a manner. Then again perhaps I am wrong on this, however from what I have seen many people tend to shy away from both extremes and prefer to leave it up to God when really pushed.
Jac wrote:OK, so let's apply that same thinking to your view. For you, the issue may not be the perseverence of faith, but the end result of your system and that of Arminianism/Calvinism is exactly the same, is it not? If a person professes faith and later rejects that faith, i.e., Dan Barker, then regardless of if they lost their salvation, or if they proved they never had it because 1) God didn't elect them (Calvinism) or 2) they weren't the type of person who truly believed (Kism
), the end result is just the same. So, while I recognize the differences in each of your systems (we could even throw Catholicism in there for further comparison!), the final doctrine is agreed on--that to be saved, a person must have faith in some form of fashion until they die. Your reasons for this are different, but practically speaking, you are all saying the same thing. Am I right on this?
Yes, strictly speaking of a black and white Calvinism and Arminianism as you put it, you would be correct. In general the end result would appear to be the same, my own beliefs included, except I think my position allows the greater flexibility with God's judgement as detailed with my explanation regarding Anthony who died before accepting Christ. I will add I believe such is the exception however, rather than the rule. Mainly because Scripture sheds no light on such possibilities and I believe tends to stress the importance of our decision in life here.
Jac wrote:Regarding the second issue ("exclusivity of the belief systems"):
You have my view right, I think. Do you agree that what we are suggesting are mutually exclusive ideas? Obviously, I believe you are wrong, but can you see that in my view, like YLT pointed out, a person who rejects "once-off faith" as you call it is actually rejecting the Gospel in view of the fact that, in my understanding of things, "faith" is absolutely nothing more than believing a propositio to be true?
I am seeing disagreements, but at the same I think we agree on a great many things, or at least have an understanding of why each other would want to believe what they do (which is also perhaps why we have been able to be quite civil in our discussions so far). Maybe this will change, but I am eager to understand your position and any challenges more, as this will I am sure help me to refine my own position.
Regarding your belief that "faith" is absolutely nothing more than believing a proposition to be true (unless I misunderstood your comment?), I would diverge. Rather than go into why however, I just want to clarify whether such is an
explicit acceptance of some proposition, and if so what this exact proposition is? Or is it a more of an
implicit trust in Christ regardless of know the details of how Christ makes everything good between us and God?
Jac wrote:On the third and final issue ("doctrine of assurance"):
I can certainly understand you not being able to fathom disbelieving Christ. I am in the same boat. But I can accept the logical possibility that I may fall from the faith at some point in the future. Of course, in my view, that doesn't change the fact that I still know I am going to be in heaven. Thus, I can say I have 100% assurance of my salvation.
I accept the logical possibility that "I" actually do not care about accepting Christ and this will become evident later in my life, but I am certain such will not really happen. Likewise I accept the logical possibility that God could create a world where everyone freely came to Christ, yet out of every world that can be actualised such an option may not exist.
Jac wrote:Can you recognize the fact that, while it may be foreign to you, that it is possible that you could prove to be a person, through development, who does not in fact believe? Is it a logical possibility that you are, in fact, not saved, and that you may yet still end up in Hell? How sure would you say you are that you are going to heaven? 50%? 75%? 99.995%?
Yes, I do recognise that it is a logical possibility that I could turn out to not believe. In my previous I actually developed an example with myself in as such, but removed it when revising my own words and what I thought important to write.
However, I did still attempt to capture this possibility where I wrote:
- I said previously a person can not lose their salvation. The Anthony illustration above should answer "why", as I see "the person" as the whole of their life. However, what about from a purely temporal perspective of a person who accepts Christ and then later on walks away from Christ and dies. Now from my own perspective I see that they did not ever lose or walk away from their salvation because they never had it. Yet, looking at it from a purely temporal perspective it was not like they "lost" salvation either. I do not know who began using the term "lost", but someone who turns away from Christ does not just lose salvation as though it fell out of their pocket. Rather they gave salvation up by knowingly walking away from Christ. And I would say their decision to walk away strikes at the heart of "who" they really are more so than the person who accepted Christ.
Without getting into a discussion of epistemology and how one can be justified in believing something, and whether complete certainty of anything is possible, I will answer clearly that
it is logically possible according to my view that I am not saved. Yet, I am as certain as certain can be that I my faith in Christ will remain true. But, anything is possible. For example, I may be deceived about who I really am. Now even if I could be 100% certain my faith in Christ would not change, the most I can do is hope in Christ's promise. Complete assurance is not possible, since
hope is less than being 100% certain. And as Paul himself writes in 1 Cor 15:17-19: "
if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men."
So a question I would put to you is whether you are actually hoping in something, namely the belief that once a person accepts the Gospel they are always saved, in order to try grasp a holy grail (?) of complete assurance of salvation without any logical possibility of losing it? But is this really assurance? Is complete assurance possible when there is hope? It is logically possible you could be wrong right? And if so, how can you have complete assurance of being saved? I have here just reversed the issue. Do you think it is legitimate of me to do so, or is this unfair? As far as I see, the most we can do is hope in, put our faith in, Christ? Am I missing something?
If you were to ask me whether someone who comes to Christ and believes they are saved regardless of what they do thereafter has more assurance of being saved than I do with what I believe, then I would disagree. Perhaps this can be understood by the fact we only know ourselves in the present. If someone knows their faith in Christ, then they are assured they are saved. Yet, if they walk away from Christ, "assurance" does not even matter any longer to such a person. It is true I can not logically rule out I will change according to my position, however such a logical possibility does not mean it is really feasible to me, and as such it has no impact upon my doubting whether I am saved.
Jac wrote:If I can understand exactly where you are coming from on these issues, we can move on to discuss which view is biblically supported, I think. But obviously I need to know where your mind is first.
I look forward to discussing Scripture. As far as I am aware my view is compatible with Scripture, although I am sure it would run against certain interpretations. I do not want to believe my position, however reasonable it seems to me or sounds, if it is not actually how it all works.
I look forward to your response.
Is this the difference between heart belief and head belief?