Evidence for God from Science

I can put it even more clearly: everyone who is saved does good works; you don't do good works; therefore, you aren't saved.

Nope.
Everyone that is saved knows they should try to do good works, not to be saved but because they are saved.
Though I tend to not like to refer to them as good "works" but redemptive actions.
Redemption is part of the process IMO and that process of redemption means doing what the HS tells us to do.
What does Christ tell us to do?
To love each other, to forgive each other, to look after each other, etc.
He warns us that divorce outside of the reason of adultery is unacceptable and marriage after divorce for any reason other than adultery IS committing adultery.
And so forth.
Christ does give us guidelines of how to behave, what to do to each other and so forth and we are told that by their fruits we will know.
So there is a place for good actions.
These actions do NOT save us, our faith does BUT I say this to you:
I KNOW that me saying that I believe in Christ and then going out and doing the opposite of what it MEANS to believe and proclaim Christ means that I do NOT truly believe in Christ, that my proclamation of Christ is NOT of the HS and is mere words.
And if it is MERE words then I am not saved am I?

PaulS wrote:
These actions do NOT save us, our faith does BUT I say this to you:
I KNOW that me saying that I believe in Christ and then going out and doing the opposite of what it MEANS to believe and proclaim Christ means that I do NOT truly believe in Christ, that my proclamation of Christ is NOT of the HS and is mere words.

What?

Apparently you don't know what it means to believe in Christ.
The opposite of someone who has believed/trusted Christ for salvation, is someone who has never trusted Christ for salvation. How does someone do the opposite of having trusted Christ. Are you saying our actions, or what we do, proves we are saved?

RickD wrote:

PaulS wrote:
These actions do NOT save us, our faith does BUT I say this to you:
I KNOW that me saying that I believe in Christ and then going out and doing the opposite of what it MEANS to believe and proclaim Christ means that I do NOT truly believe in Christ, that my proclamation of Christ is NOT of the HS and is mere words.

What?

Apparently you don't know what it means to believe in Christ.
The opposite of someone who has believed/trusted Christ for salvation, is someone who has never trusted Christ for salvation. How does someone do the opposite of having trusted Christ. Are you saying our actions, or what we do, proves we are saved?

No, they are EVIDENCE of our faith in Christ.

Here:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defender ... ipt/s11-10


See the two contrasting points between Saunders and Gundry:

So Sanders distinguishes between getting in and staying in. You get into the covenant by God’s grace. That is how you get into the saving covenant with God – you get in by God’s grace. But the way you stay in is by doing the good works that are required to stay in that covenant. Those works don’t earn your salvation but nevertheless they are the means by which you stay in this saving relationship with God.

And:

Gundry recognizes that Paul does require, of course, that faith be attended by good works. If you have genuine saving faith then you will do good works. But he distinguishes Paul’s view from Judaism’s view in that these good works are not the means of staying in but rather they are evidence of genuine faith. That’s the difference. Paul also emphasizes the importance of good works but not as the means of staying in the covenant. Rather, they are evidence that your faith is truly genuine.

I agree with Gundry.
Good actions. redemptive actions, are evidence of out Faith in Christ.

As it says here:

Do you get what Gundry is saying? He’s saying that for Paul good works are necessary but they are necessary as evidence of the genuineness of your faith. They are not necessary as the instruments by which you stay in the covenant. They are not the instrumental means by which you stay in the covenant; rather, they are evidential in showing that you really are in a saving relationship with God through faith.

Let me ask you this Rick:
Do you believe that you can believe in Christ without the HS?

Good works, whatever you want to call them, are not evidence that one has believed in Christ. To say they are is to create a necessary connection between faith and works that, at best, undermines the gospel and denies assurance (thereby denying the power of the HS in our lives), or, at worst, creates a false gospel.

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:

PaulS wrote:
These actions do NOT save us, our faith does BUT I say this to you:
I KNOW that me saying that I believe in Christ and then going out and doing the opposite of what it MEANS to believe and proclaim Christ means that I do NOT truly believe in Christ, that my proclamation of Christ is NOT of the HS and is mere words.

What?

Apparently you don't know what it means to believe in Christ.
The opposite of someone who has believed/trusted Christ for salvation, is someone who has never trusted Christ for salvation. How does someone do the opposite of having trusted Christ. Are you saying our actions, or what we do, proves we are saved?

No, they are EVIDENCE of our faith in Christ.

Here:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defender ... ipt/s11-10


See the two contrasting points between Saunders and Gundry:

So Sanders distinguishes between getting in and staying in. You get into the covenant by God’s grace. That is how you get into the saving covenant with God – you get in by God’s grace. But the way you stay in is by doing the good works that are required to stay in that covenant. Those works don’t earn your salvation but nevertheless they are the means by which you stay in this saving relationship with God.

And:

Gundry recognizes that Paul does require, of course, that faith be attended by good works. If you have genuine saving faith then you will do good works. But he distinguishes Paul’s view from Judaism’s view in that these good works are not the means of staying in but rather they are evidence of genuine faith. That’s the difference. Paul also emphasizes the importance of good works but not as the means of staying in the covenant. Rather, they are evidence that your faith is truly genuine.

I agree with Gundry.
Good actions. redemptive actions, are evidence of out Faith in Christ.

As it says here:

Do you get what Gundry is saying? He’s saying that for Paul good works are necessary but they are necessary as evidence of the genuineness of your faith. They are not necessary as the instruments by which you stay in the covenant. They are not the instrumental means by which you stay in the covenant; rather, they are evidential in showing that you really are in a saving relationship with God through faith.

Gundry is saying that evidence of good works is necessary to show the genuineness of ones faith. In other words, if one doesn't have good works, then one doesn't have genuine faith.

He's adding evidence of good works, to the simple gospel of faith alone.

John 3:16 says when I trust Christ I have eternal life. Gundry says John 3:16 is wrong, and belief is not enough. He says evidence of that "genuine" faith, is necessary. No matter who says it, it's still adding something to faith alone.

PaulS wrote:
Let me ask you this Rick:
Do you believe that you can believe in Christ without the HS?

I'm not sure I understand exactly what you're getting at, but see if this is what you mean. While I came to faith in Christ because I was a witness to the work of the Holy Spirit in my mom, I don't presume that God can't use simple logic to bring someone to the point of trusting Christ. For example, someone could study the historical facts about Christ, and decide he wants to trust Christ for salvation.

So, I guess I'm saying that what brought me to Christ was spiritual(the work of the HS), logic can bring someone to Christ too.

Romans 10:10
10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

If one does not truly believe in his heart but nevertheless say he believes, then what?

Now Rick, time for a good deed - go give PaulS a Big hug... instead of


-
-
-

Hi there. Sorry to interrupt the thread but the question I would like a clear answer with is that if a person is now 'saved', is there any way that the same person can become 'unsaved' ?





Some relevant quotes from my grace thread http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 22&t=39629


"For it is by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not of yourselves; it is the gift of God. It is not by works, so that no one can boast.” , (Ephesians 2:8-9)

"Even our greatest works are like filthy rags to God", (Isa. 64:6).

"Your freedom in Christ through Grace is not a license to keep sinning. The more Grace you receive however, the more power you have over sin. Grace gives you the desire and ability to do God’s will. Apart from God’s Grace you don’t even desire to do His will, (Phil. 2:13). With Grace the higher law of love operates". “Love is the fulfillment of the law”, (Rom. 13:10). “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments”, (John 14:15), (ref.).

B. W. wrote:Now Rick, time for a good deed - go give PaulS a Big hug... instead of


-
-
-

It's a bit of a paradox here - no doubt salvation is by faith alone but I think the key is in Phil 2:13, 'Grace gives you the desire and ability to do God's will' (sorry, I'm just copying from the quote above) - after all James says faith without works is dead and another scripture says 'This is love for God, to obey his commands - and his commands are not burdensome.' I'm sure I'm not alone in wanting to obey God because he loves me, I love him and he's in charge - not that I get it right all the time. As for wondering whether others are saved based on their behaviour, I don't think we can and it's not up to us to do. If someone we care about says they believe but has questionable patterns of behaviour that they don't seem to think there's anything wrong with, all we can do is say what we think, be a good example and leave it up to God.

Nicki wrote:It's a bit of a paradox here - no doubt salvation is by faith alone but I think the key is in Phil 2:13, 'Grace gives you the desire and ability to do God's will' (sorry, I'm just copying from the quote above) - after all James says faith without works is dead and another scripture says 'This is love for God, to obey his commands - and his commands are not burdensome.' I'm sure I'm not alone in wanting to obey God because he loves me, I love him and he's in charge - not that I get it right all the time. As for wondering whether others are saved based on their behavior, I don't think we can and it's not up to us to do. If someone we care about says they believe but has questionable patterns of behavior that they don't seem to think there's anything wrong with, all we can do is say what we think, be a good example and leave it up to God.

This is true Nicki and you explained it very well. In regards to those who show questionable patterns of behavior, they will change in due time that is if they live in this life for a period of time. God knows the heart and if one dies seconds after coming to Christ, praise God, he knows what he is doing. Using point of mortal departure to heaven is moot, so let' us please avoid this form of equivalency argument as it gets no where fast.

So, In regards to those who show questionable patterns of behavior, they will change in due time that is if they live in this life for a period of time. Their lives will become progressively more miserable and God's hand's of chastisement will be upon them. If there is no way that shows one is a christian then why would God bother to chastise any of us at all? After all, it's all grace - so no need for Hebrews 12:5-11 to even be written or anyone smitten down as recorded in Acts 5:1-15. If those two in Acts 5 were truly Christians, then what of grace for them?

The real point in this debate is the extreme positions of legalism of works i.e. the forced compulsion to do right, and the extreme grace position which promotes licence for sin. It is much liken unto the Calvin - Arminian debates in which both side just react like Pavlov's dog when they hear the words FREE WILL, WORKS and GRACE. Neither side thinks clearly but simply reacts and they both only hear what their respective teachings have taught them which is this: there are only two ways, theirs is right, and that settles it. To either side, it is an either or kind of thing. For the works crowd - grace is licence to sin but to the Grace crowd, it is not.

The grace side teaches that God working in you for his good pleasure is an option. In other words, the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit within a Christian is a second work of grace - a option that is clouded over as not really necessary. However, the truth is, when one is born again, the Holy Spirit indwells a Christian and begins to clean house. This is not an option to salvation by Grace as a second work of grace. Ask yourself, how could there be a second work of grace if their is only one initial work of Grace - would not a second work of grace be implying adding works to grace? Such teachings have come from a variety of human sources of biblical expositions and these are used primarily to buttress their positions on.

As much as I admire Thomas Aquinas' contribution to Christian Theology, the Thomist form of logic is not the sole arbitrator of truth. The Holy Spirit is. Neither is Augustine the sole arbitrator of truth. The Holy Spirit is. Neither is Calvin and neither is Wesley. The Holy Spirit can use these men's writings to uncover truth but when these forms of theology become the sole arbitrator of truth, they become an obsession - an idol. The Holy Spirit proves Himself, the Godhead Trinity true on matters. He is not about proving man true but rather Jesus Christ as truth. Think on this a bit more... If this makes anyone angry, one may have a idol in the heart and may God's grace will relieve you of it soon.

The other side teaches a compulsionary must do's list to prove one is saved, or maintain salvation. This is indeed error and continues to lead many folks to shipwreck their faith because they cannot do their laundry list well enough. This is the strength of the other side arguments against works and they interpret any hearing of works, in that light. Both these side fight each other so that neither side gets anywhere. The compulsionary must do's list crowd point of view is not Niki's nor mine, yet, the extremist Grace crowd will accuse us of so being. In fact, I have discovered it is pointless to continue such discussions as this with both side because they both are like Pavlov's Dog well trained to salivate at the sound of a bell.

A real discussion should center n the Holy Spirit's work within a believer who lives awhile upon this earth. Most often, folks assign the Holy Spirit in the deepest recess of their heart's basement and do whatever to keep him in line, in check, and not influencing them. The result is personal misery. However, God's grace is at work in this way that the Holy Spirit will not remain in their dark corner. No, He is light and begins to shine and soon begins house cleaning. Such house cleaning is a person's own business and in that, we cannot judge them as saved or not. Instead, we, who been through the same processes, learning how overcome, need to help them get through the process because we are called the body of Christ, 2 Co 1:3,4 and 1 Co 12:1-31. If only we would get it - saved by God's grace - we will do well as such God's grace is designed to change our lives in a progressive day by day change into what Rom 8:29,30 states.

So a Christian can visit the pornography shop, drink in excess, be vindictive, holier than thou but their life will be miserable and life will begin to fall apart. Why? Their faith is valuable to God and His grace is more than able to teach them to say No to ungodliness in ever repeating lessens of chastisement until they get it - Grace to Change, Titus 2:11-15 NIV and 1 John 1:5,6,7,8,9,10 and 1 John 2:1,6.

So would the Holy Spirit approve of where we all take him? Approve of what we watch on TV, our pride, anger, intellectualism, compulsionary must do's lists, treatment of His own grace? Such answers are ours alone to know. As Christians we will not lose salvation bought to us by God's Grace alone when the Lord reveals the hidden things in our hearts. Instead God's grace strengthens our faith as we learn to be more like him and less like ourselves. Each of us as Christians are God's work in progress as that is the purpose of Grace. God's mercy and grace is not stagnate but rather life altering. To teach otherwise is not wise to a neophyte believer. Sanctification is not a second work of grace - it is inseparable from grace. His grace will change you and I so we should be taught to expect it, not dread it, not hide from our life's owies. One day we will awaken in His Likeness and come to realize what all the trials in life were really for: grace manifested. Such Grace from God that leads us to simply surrender and let him do the change in us, after we give up all trying. That takes faith - you know...
-
-
-

The "real debate" is not between two "extreme" positions. The real debate is between free grace theology and either a front-loaded gospel on the one hand or a back-loaded gospel on the other. None of these positions are extreme. They are reasoned positions based on a particular understanding of the necessary conditions for salvation and secondarily as to the role of the holy spirit in salvation and in the progressive sanctification of the Christian.

Free Grace theology simply says that a person believes in Christ and is saved. Their works are no indicator of their salvation (cf Matt 7:21ff). The only indicator of salvation is what a person believes. Therefore, a person may trust Christ and go on to live in grave sin. That sin has absolutely no bearing on whether or not a person is saved.

A front-loaded gospel (aka, Lordship Salvation) says that in order to be saved, a person must not only believe but must also repent of their sins. For the, the word "believe" really means "to give your life to Jesus/submit to His Lordship." Therefore, a person who lives in grave sin is not saved because they have not submitted their lives to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

A back-loaded gospel reaches the same conclusion as a front-loaded gospel, only from a different perspective. This is what WLC is advocating. The idea here is that all you have to do to be saved is belief, but if you really believe then you will behave in a certain way. They can say that because they claim that, necessarily faith produces good works. Therefore, a person who is not producing good works is not a person of faith, and therefore they are not "really saved."

The latter two are neither Calvinist nor Arminian positions. There are Calvinists in the former camp and Calvinists in the latter. There are Arminians in the former camp and Arminians in the latter. What both views have in common is the belief that living in sin somehow disqualifies a person from getting to heaven. Of course, "how much" sin you are allowed to live in before you get disqualified is debated. Assurance is impossible. No one, contrary to Scripture, can really "know" if they have eternal life. And both camps have this in common, too: they like to call Free Grace advocates "extreme" and claim that the Gospel, as understood by FG advocates, creates a "license to sin." That, of course, is just disingenuous and is little more than a veiled personal attack in an attempt to poison the well. But that doesn't stop them from making the ridiculous claim over and over again. It shows a weak and deceptive approach to theological discussion, one more rooted in rhetoric than reason. Anyone with any training and integrity knows that the honest theologian takes on his opponents strongest positions rather than creating straw men and taking on weaker arguments. At worst, the tactic is a sin against charity and a move to divide the Church.

Anyway, so much for all that. Let's just not get caught up in silly rhetoric about extreme positions or Calvinism v. Arminianism. All that serves only to obfuscate the real issue, which is simply this: what is the relationship between salvation by grace through faith and works? Is there no relationship (as in Free Grace theology), are works a prerequisite (as in a front-loaded gospel) or are they a necessary result (as in a back-loaded gospel)? Anything else is beside the point entirely.

I'm not sure I understand exactly what you're getting at, but see if this is what you mean. While I came to faith in Christ because I was a witness to the work of the Holy Spirit in my mom, I don't presume that God can't use simple logic to bring someone to the point of trusting Christ. For example, someone could study the historical facts about Christ, and decide he wants to trust Christ for salvation.

So, I guess I'm saying that what brought me to Christ was spiritual(the work of the HS), logic can bring someone to Christ too.

Paul states that only through the HS can one proclaim that Jesus is Lord.
1 Corinthians 12:3
Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus is accursed"; and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.

What I am asking is if you believe that someone can believe ( and by that I mean belief AND proclaim) that Jesus is Lord and Saviour without the HS?

We are using words to describe God's grace, which is always tricky of course.
I do NOT think that anyone here is advocating a gospel other than the gospel that is THE Gospel and no one is advocating that there are things that one can do to be saved.
That James made this issue the focus of his letter means that this is NOT a new issue or one that is easily addressed.
IMO, to be saved one must be sealed by the HS and that process, that Anointing, starts the process of renewal in Christ.
Is that process the same for all? of course not.
Is that process visible to all? of course not.
BUT there is a process, there is SOMETHING that happens to believers ( even if it is simply the understanding that we NEED Grace to be saved).

No, there is nothing that we can do to deserve salvation and His Grace, NO there are no works worthy of such a gift.
BUT, if the HS is in US and the process of renewal is working in us because the HS is in Us, then, IMO, there is evidence of that ( if to no one else, at least to the believer the knows that He is under God's grace).

Can one truly believe in Christ as Lord and Saviour and deny Him? deny the HS?
And isn't denying what the HS pushes us to do, denying Him?