Evidence for God from Science

People often mistake this passage as meaning that the wealthy can't go to heaven, or that we must give up everything we have in order to gain salvation; people often pull the "camel through the eye of a needle" verse out of context.

I apologize, I didn't mean that the rich can' get to heaven, simply the fact that when God asks you to do something you best be prepared. And it is his will whether he asks the person standing right next to you to do the same thing or not. But here is the beauty, you both get the same reward. so no worries.

I think the confusion here is that, once someone accepts Jesus Christ, he is saved and sealed by the HS. but I think seal of HS is no predestined guarantee to a comeback if the believer slips out of a Godly life. It worked for Jilay cuz he kept at it, I know i have been like what Jilay said, so yeah, it works. But as you say, it might not work for all.

I would disagree here. First of all, the scriptures say so. "who is the guarantee of our inheritance" Eph 1:14
I think there is a fundemental difference in how we are both viewing assurance of salvation. In my explanation I had expounded on works, and how the lack of evidence may be reason to examine whether there was genuine faith to begin with. Not whether lack of works in itself would lose someone their salvation. If faith is what saves, then a person should be able to testify about that faith. So, someone might say, 'well i grew up in the church,' or, 'I prayed the sinner's prayer,' or "I walked the ilse.' Well none of those things are a biblical example of saving faith. Not to say that someone who did those things wasn't genuinely saved. If they rightly placed their faith in the work of Christ, then they received Christ and they were sealed with the HS. Now, I have no doubt that when i became a believer, I became one because I genuinely responded to the gospel. And in doing so, I was sealed with the spirit. No matter how far I got in my walk, that testimony is as real today, as it was when it happened. In contrast, no matter how you paint it, you are saying that the gaurantee is that we maintain our walk in some sort of way, but which you can't specifiy. It could be different for everyone.

I think you may be confusing backsliding for apostasy. What I hear you saying is that a genuine believer can sin himself out of salvation. If I am misunderstanding you here, please feel welcome to clarify. If so, I vehemently disagree.

now it plainly tells me, combined with Rom 9: 15 that the terms may differ, not always but they can and not because of man but because of the reason that alone God decides, which is exactly told in,..............
........The bare fact is that salvation is not objective.

This is the main problem I have with your position. There is no assurance. God may save one person by grace. The other he may require to sell all his goods. The other to restore all the wrongs. At least that is how you seem to present it.
And the reason I see there being no assurance is there is a fundamental difference in how we read and apply the scriptures. Should I take Zacheaus' method as mine? Grace alone? RYR? Follow the law as was told to the expert in the law?

My only conclusion, God can surprise us, always.

Yes, He could surprise by revealing a Gospel by which all can be saved and there is no difference. I believe He did, and the scriptures confirm it.
There is little question that Ephesians is written as a letter to the gentile church. (Specifically the gentiles in Ephesus.) But it is without question the best guide we have to advise the Gentile believer on such things.

In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation-- having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise Eph 1:13

The first three chapters of Ephesians explain how YOUR Gospel program was revealed through Paul. And it is objective.

Romans 3:22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference,

Jlay, I would appreciate it if you answered some of the questions on my post
But, if your time is short, dont worry about it,

@Jilay

"who is the guarantee of our inheritance"

Yes but does that guarantee stands even if I choose to opt out of religion? but even continuous backsliding in the long run can result in the loss of salvation. Why do i say continous, cuz else there is no way to draw a line how much is God's threshold for bearing anyone, it may be a lot, it is not infinite though.

my post was, in its context

once someone accepts Jesus Christ, he is saved and sealed by the HS. but I think seal of HS is no predestined guarantee to a comeback if the believer slips out of a Godly life. It worked for Jilay cuz he kept at it, I know i have been like what Jilay said, so yeah, it works.

So it is only a guarantee as long as you are in faith, for without faith it would mean nothing.

This is the main problem I have with your position. There is no assurance. God may save one person by grace. The other he may require to sell all his goods. The other to restore all the wrongs. At least that is how you seem to present it.
And the reason I see there being no assurance is there is a fundamental difference in how we read and apply the scriptures. Should I take Zacheaus' method as mine? Grace alone? RYR? Follow the law as was told to the expert in the law?

Sorry Jilay, i do not think you got my point. What I meant that there is complete assurance, you know that when you come to Christ. How God wants you deal with you is another issue entirely. Both are different things. You get salvation either way if you are Zacheues or Mary Magdalene. But the fact that they all had to do something more or less than the other only shows me how the master wants to do with his servant. I maintain, the reward is the same.

should I take Zacheaus' method as mine? Grace alone? RYR? Follow the law as was told to the expert in the law?

Yes, if like Zacheaus, you have done corruption, committed fraud, took bribes, why not. But here is my point, do what God motivates you to do, what God asks you to do. I am not questioning the objectivity of the Gospel, merely saying that salvation comes by faith but sometimes the Lord would like a demonstration of that faith as well. You don't have to prove anything but the Lord sees the hearts and decides what you need to do, like he told the rich man. It was not the price of salvation, but it was the price of faith.

Please, can you explain otherwise why for everlasting life the rich man was asked to give away everything. both you and I know what Jesus meant when he asked him to do what he asked him to do. My question is, why then? why there? why didn't he say? you are saved, you have everlasting life. then afterwards you can go and give away everything. ??? Why did he ask him to do something BEFORE he claims everlasting life, to do something to have that salvation. And what if someone still comes to God, in the same stance like the rich man?

Please shed some light on it.

Well, I beg to ask You Jlay, in that case, what is the right interpretation of that scripture. I mean, yes, i could be wrong, but at the least, show me WHY?

I think Paul laid out the best way to interpret scripture. And that is to rightly divide the Word of truth. We need to understand that all of Jesus' teachings during His earthly ministry were to Jewish people. And His message in His earthly ministry was very much a Jewish message. If we assume that everything delivered by Christ to Israel is also to us, then we will find contradiction and confusion in the scriptures. Which will result in us redefining terms to better suit this hermanuetic. Such as redefining disciple and carrying ones cross. That doesn't mean that I am suggesting we reject what Jesus said. Heaven forbid. However, if what Jesus taught in His earthly ministry was for everyone, then why is there an apostle Paul? It simply doesn't make sense. The Gospel that is revealed while Christ was on the earth is different. Keep in mind that when Jesus reveals this gospel He has not died and resurrected. Yet He tells Nicodemus that whoever believes in Him will have eternal life. And in John 5:24 he says that whoever hears His message and believers He who sent Him has eternal life. In the Gospels Jesus speaks to Israel about its salvation and restoration as the earthly Kingdom. This is different in many respects to what Paul is called to deliver. Paul even refers to it as 'my gospel.'

Paul explains in Ephesians that there was a mystery hidden to ALL the prophets, that was now being revealed. That Christ was directly available to all nations without going through God's chosen people. And that this salvation was by grace through faith.

When Jesus taught first century Jewish disciples about taking up one's cross, they understood fully what that meant. It was all or nothing. If you recall, not all of the people who believed and supported Jesus' in His earthly ministry were called to be disciples. So, if we take disciple to mean the same thing as saint, or believer, or Christian, I think we've taken innapropriate liberty with the scripture and distorted out Gospel.

neo-x wrote:Yes but does that guarantee stands even if I choose to opt out of religion? but even continuous backsliding in the long run can result in the loss of salvation. Why do i say continous, cuz else there is no way to draw a line how much is God's threshold for bearing anyone, it may be a lot, it is not infinite though.

You are speaking of apostasy, which is really a different issue. We can address that, but for the time being let us remained focused. If you can't draw a threshold then there is no assurance.

Yes, if like Zacheaus, you have done corruption, committed fraud, took bribes, why not. But here is my point, do what God motivates you to do, what God asks you to do.

Yes, the believer should always do what the HS motivates us to do. And Zaccheus did. He was already saved. Jesus didn't ask him to do any of that.

Please, can you explain otherwise why for everlasting life the rich man was asked to give away everything. both you and I know what Jesus meant when he asked him to do what he asked him to do. My question is, why then? why there? why didn't he say? you are saved, you have everlasting life. then afterwards you can go and give away everything. ??? Why did he ask him to do something BEFORE he claims everlasting life, to do something to have that salvation. And what if someone still comes to God, in the same stance like the rich man?

In regards to the RYR. Was Jesus really teaching that one must sell all their wealth to inherit eternal life? Or was He tearing down the very premise of that? The RYR lied to Christ when he said he had kept all the commands. No one has. And therefore Christ could not offer him the grace he needed to be saved. As Peter said, "God resist the proud, and gives grace to the humble." If Jesus offered him the gospel, then He would be violating His own standard. And so, Jesus never gave Him the gospel as He did to Nicodemus. He showed him that following that path of earning ones own righteousness is hopeless and impossible. He exposed the fact that he hadn't kept those commands he just claimed. You can never do enough to earn salvation. You have to receive it through faith. The RYR left discouraged. Which is exactly what needed to be done. We could learn a lot from Jesus' handling of this. Instead we often twist the gospel to get decisions from people who are proud, and have not been humbled by their own condition. "Just pray this prayer," we tell them. Or, "Jesus is better than ____________." (fill in the blank) Or, "marriage problems? Financial problems? Just try Jesus!!" Then we wonder why there is no fruit, and start saying people can lose their salvation, when in fact, they weren't saved to begin with.
Jesus even offered the RYR a clue. He said, "no one is good but God." So, even after Jesus questions his understanding of good, he claims to be good. Now, let us suppose the the RYR said, I am not good, I haven't kept the commands. I don't deserve eternal life. Would Jesus have told him to sell all his goods?
-Even his question is suspect. "How can I inherit eternal life?" In his mind, eternal life is just another thing to add to his estate.

Zaccheus on the other hand had trusted the Messiah. He 'received' Him into His own home and heart. And yes, He exhibited fruit of salvation. But the fruit didn't save Him, no matter how much we want to read that into the account. Did Jesus tell Zaccheus to do this? No. Zaccheus showed how desperate he was to meet Jesus. He wasn't interested in adding to his worldly wealth.

I believe all works are completely disregarded when it comes to salvation. Romans 3:22 The righteousnes of God is by faith of Jesus Christ to all that believe. Romans 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ. Romans 3:27 Boasting excluded not by law of works but by the law of faith. This is important. We are all sinners and our works fall short. Christ made works null and void. He replaced the insurmountable with his own law. Once we realise this wonderful liberation, then what I call the Christian walk becomes so much clearer.

Amen brother Danny!!

@Jilay, I never said, salvation is earned. I said, faith requires demonstration sometimes. And without faith there is no salvation. salvation is free indeed and can never be achieved by works but faith without works/act is dead as well.

Zaccheus fruit didn't save him but his faith did and it was by his acting on his faith that he needed Jesus ,that he was sinner and undo what he had taken falsely, and while Jesus didn't ask him to do anything, it was obvious, he had something he had to let go and he knew it, had he asked Jesus? Jesus would have told him just like he told the rich man too. the problem isn't wealth, it is - are you ready to to let go the one thing might be stopping you from having eternal life.

Neo,

I'll just be candid. It sounds like you are trying to have your cake and eat it to. That being that salvation is by grace through faith. But there better be some works with it.

Example: You said,

I think the confusion here is that, once someone accepts Jesus Christ, he is saved and sealed by the HS. but I think seal of HS is no predestined guarantee to a comeback if the believer slips out of a Godly life.

What exactly do you mean by 'slips out of a Godly life?'
I don't know any other way to take what you are saying except that a believer can sin his way out of salvation. Or, not do enough 'godly' things to maintain it. As best as I can discern you are putting works as a requirement to perhaps not obtain, but maintain. This would seem to say a believer must meet some sort of works quota. So, what is the quota?

are you ready to to let go the one thing might be stopping you from having eternal life.

So, what is the one thing stopping someone from having eternal life? I'll just lay my cards on the table here. Unbelief is what prevents us from having eternal life. Do you really think the RYR was being prevented from eternal life because he wouldn't sell his possessions? Is a believer to sell something, or risk losing their salvation?

Jesus would have told him just like he told the rich man too.

So, do all rich Christians need to sell all they have and give to the poor?

There is clear enough evidence for what I am saying, you obviously haven't either read my posts carefully or you are just stuck to your point, that is fine by me. But when did i say we have to sell something to get salvation?. You seem to think I make it sound like this, NO. For the last time I said, the gospel is one, salvation is free, faith requires action and if the lack of that action stops you from having eternal life than one should be vigilant enough to do it. I said in my original posts that this doesn't happen with everyone too. but i think you are of the idea that the way Lord deals with every one, the same way, well I have seen otherwise. And the Bible tels this too. It is not objective, the message of the Gospel is and will always be the same for everyone. You are clearly taking out action from faith and steering clear from my question about faith requiring action. Whether they are saved before that action or after is irrelevant.

Unbelief is what prevents us from having eternal life.

Nops, every other sin too, and that can steal your salvation if you continue to indulge in it. Of course the door to repentance is always open, but one should always remember, there were also people in the Bible that God never gave a second chance too, so a believer should always be more than careful. And I am not talking about apostasy. Continuous backsliding has its problems, there is no threshold for us to know, and Samson didn't knew it either, look what happened to him. Yes, he was not saved by the cross, he is O.T, he under law, i agree, but it is a lesson, God's spirit and power resided in him too. He came back and God chose to have mercy on him, Rom 9:15-18 holds very true here.

I don't know any other way to take what you are saying except that a believer can sin his way out of salvation. Or, not do enough 'godly' things to maintain it. As best as I can discern you are putting works as a requirement to perhaps not obtain, but maintain. This would seem to say a believer must meet some sort of works quota. So, what is the quota?

Yes a believer can sin his way out of salvation.Some people God just didn't forgive, And some of those examples I even quoted in my previous posts including Annais and saphira, they were Christians and they were believers, they lied (which is not something exclusive to non-Christians ). Well, they lied to the Lord, don't Christians today do that? do you think the penalty should have been death? because by what you are saying clearly implies that they had salvation and they should have been pardoned, at best they could have been given a chance to repent. Doesn't their salvation has any bearing on the way they were punished? Why didn't salvation saved themn?

the salvation didn't do any good to them. did it? i am not putting works to obtain salvation. but salvation is dependent on your daily walk with God. Salvation is not a certificate, stamped your guarantee to heaven. Faith without works is dead and works without faith have no favor in the eyes of God.

For most of everything (except your thinking of my stance) I do agree with you.

I am not putting a barrier on repentance, just saying that salvation is given to us for free, and if we have to leave everything just to stick to it, we better be ready (this was my stance in the previous' posts as well)

I have no problem with - being proven wrong. but your arguments are based on one side, you are not looking at the other.

neo, I'm reading you just as Jlay is reading you. If I'm wrong I ask for your forgiveness. Romans 8:1 Paul says there is no condemnation to them which are in Christ. Romans 4:2-5 Paul explicitly rejects any kind of works - even mentioning Abraham who was justified by faith and not works - but the law of Moses did not yet exist! Genesis 15:6 . All works, it is repeatedly made clear, are dead when it comes to salvation.

Danny, I too can be wrong but please

Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

the verse is in regard to O.T LAW, the law makes no condemnation on us, sin can. How else can you explain what I wrote about Annanias and saphira in my last post.

even mentioning Abraham who was justified by faith and not works

James make it clear what faith means. James 2: 20-25

...do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.

In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

How clearer I need to be?

Neo, James is talking of an outward showing of faith. The fact of your faith is never in question. Abraham is even mentioned in HIS outward showing of faith Genesis 22 - after he'd be justified! Genesis 15:6 . James makes clear that a lack of outward showing of faith in this world is useless...for this world! Faith is 'alone' or 'by itself' in the world without an outward showing of it TO the world. James 2:17 .

NO. For the last time I said, the gospel is one, salvation is free, faith requires action and if the lack of that action stops you from having eternal life than one should be vigilant enough to do it.

Lack of action? please define.
You are saying actions are required to maintain salvation. Surely the bible gives us the actions we need to be saved.

"You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone."
James teaches of the outward expression of faith as considered by man. Not that it saves. Otherwise James is in conflict with the apostle Paul. Otherwise man can claim credit for his salvation. There is no way around it. Faith without deeds is a dead faith. It doesn't say that faith without deeds is lost, or that salvation is taken away. You are reading your theology into the texts.

Yes a believer can sin his way out of salvation.

Please describe the details of this. Are you secure in your salvation?

i am not putting works to obtain salvation. but salvation is dependent on your daily walk with God.

I'm sorry, but you are. Those are two contradictory sentences.

being proven wrong. but your arguments are based on one side, you are not looking at the other.

Based on one side? Please explain. Which side?

the verse is in regard to O.T LAW, the law makes no condemnation on us, sin can.

The bible says sin is transgression of the law. I think you have a real conflict in what you are saying here.

When anyone speaks of Faith "requiring" something in terms of salvation other than grace and the work that the Holy Spirit does alone based upon the atonement of Christ alone, moves into the realm of works.

There's a very strong contrast between James and the epistles of Paul. I believe the differences there in large part have to to do with the intended audience. Paul for the most part was addressing gentiles and he was very jealous to hold to the decisions that were made in the Council at Jerusalem described in Acts 15. Paul (suprisingly from a human perspective, given that Paul was a Pharisee earlier in life) wanted no yokes placed upon believers whom God had already placed the seal of the presence of the Holy Spirit upon.

James was writing to Jewish believers. The context of their community still tied to the synagogue and they saw themselves not as "Christian" but as Jews who were following Christ. I don't believe the two books contradict each other, but the perspective is very different and needs to be understood in that context.

Greeks very easily divided man into components such as body, soul and spirit and speaks of things in those realms. That flavors Pauls writing as he was writing mostly to greeks and Paul too was trained classicly in greek rhetoric and philosophy and knew his audience. Hebraic thinking doesn't make the distinctions that strongly. It's a somewhat foreign concept to a Jew (and those whom James was writing to) to try and divide things that clearly. They see man as a whole entity and speaking of separating parts is a metaphor at most.

The arguments of that time between Greek and Jewish believers continue today in part through those who emphasize Paul's approach (which is dominant in terms of the amount of text in the NT and in the west because we tend to follow that Greek type of mindset in western culture) and those who resist the idea of separating elements of our lives out and who pick up on the language of James. The difference, in my opinion, is that those who do that in the west today tend to use the words of James but retain the mindset of those Paul was addressing and in doing that it's a very easy slide into a form of legalism that confuses faith and works.

Each has to look to their own hearts and understandings to see where than might be happening.