Evidence for God from Science

So Rick, you are saying- there is such a thing as false believers, false believers are those who those who don't actually believe. And from that we conclude that there are "true" believers, who are actually just believers. So you start with the term false believer and from that you infer that there are (true) believers, not the other way around.

I appreciate the point here, the reason being that labeling yourself as a Christian has been a cultural norm and a political identification for a long time rather than a description of actual beliefs. In a not-too-distant future a person calling himself Catholic may be just as likely to be an agnostic/atheist as he is a practicing Catholic. 80% of Swedes are members of the Church of Sweden (Lutheran), while some estimates hold that as many as 85% of Swedes don't believe in God. So if someone is a devout Lutheran, I would understand if he wants to differentiate between political/nominal identity and actual beliefs by throwing an adjective like "devout" or "true" in there.

I don't really use either term (false or true believers) anyway so its not really any skin off my nose, but I think the point is more using terms in a way that will most clearly show what your position actually is, linguistic rather than theological. That's why happy people don't necessarily call each other gay anymore too, right?

So Rick, you are saying- there is such a thing as false believers, false believers are those who those who don't actually believe.

Narnia, I'm saying that some false believers appear to be the same as those who have faith in Christ, without actually placing their faith in Christ.

And from that we conclude that there are "true" believers, who are actually just believers.

Yes

So you start with the term false believer and from that you infer that there are (true) believers, not the other way around.

No. I'm just saying that a true believer is one who places his faith in Christ, and is saved, and has the indwelling Holy Spirit, and is eternally secure. I don't think I ever started with a false believer. There is a real dollar bill, and there are counterfeits. We can know what a counterfeit is, by knowing what a real dollar is.

I appreciate the point here, the reason being that labeling yourself as a Christian has been a cultural norm and a political identification for a long time rather than a description of actual beliefs. In a not-too-distant future a person calling himself Catholic may be just as likely to be an agnostic/atheist as he is a practicing Catholic. 80% of Swedes are members of the Church of Sweden (Lutheran), while some estimates hold that as many as 85% of Swedes don't believe in God. So if someone is a devout Lutheran, I would understand if he wants to differentiate between political/nominal identity and actual beliefs by throwing an adjective like "devout" or "true" in there.

I agree. That's why I make the distinction. If we are be a witness to unbelievers, we need to make sure they understand that just because one says he is a Christian, that doesn't mean he is.

I don't really use either term (false or true believers) anyway so its not really any skin off my nose, but I think the point is more using terms in a way that will most clearly show what your position actually is, linguistic rather than theological. That's why happy people don't necessarily call each other gay anymore too, right?

What do you mean? Gay doesn't mean "happy"? When did that change? Nobody told me.

RickD wrote:B.W., could you define apostasy, for the sake of clarity?
Do you mean it in terms of renouncing Christ, to the point of losing ones salvation? Or maybe, renouncing Christ, not to the point of losing one's salvation, but perhaps losing one's heavenly rewards?

What I wrote on Page one thrid frame...

What of Apostates – who are they that Fall away? How do you identify them?

Apostates: apostasia; from; defection, revolt: - apostasy, forsake - 3. Among physicians, the throwing off of exfoliated or fractured bone, or the various solution of disease. 4. An abscess.

Iinternation Standard Bible Dictionay defines -- In classical Greek, apostasy signified revolt from a military commander. In the roman catholic church it denotes abandonment of religious orders; renunciation of ecclesiastical authority; defection from the faith.

“Forsaking Yahweh” was the characteristic and oft-recurring sin of the chosen people, especially in their contact with idolatrous nations. It constituted their supreme national peril. The tendency appeared in their earliest history, as abundantly seen in the warnings and prohibitions of the laws of Moses (Exo 20:3, Exo 20:4, Exo 20:23; Deut 6:14; Deut 11:16).

I am interested in what other people think on this matter and exploring these rather than be the expert and with everyone else - learn from the bible...
-
-
-

RickD wrote:

So you start with the term false believer and from that you infer that there are (true) believers, not the other way around.

No. I'm just saying that a true believer is one who places his faith in Christ, and is saved, and has the indwelling Holy Spirit, and is eternally secure. I don't think I ever started with a false believer. There is a real dollar bill, and there are counterfeits. We can know what a counterfeit is, by knowing what a real dollar is.

What I mean is, someone might call a dollar bill "real American money" (I don't know that they do, but they might). Were it not for counterfeits, there would be no reason to refer to a dollar bill as "real American money", it would be obvious.

Take this conversation.

Person A- I believe in Christ.
Person B- No you don't! You're just after people's money and attention.
Person A- That's not true. I really believe in Christ.

From that conversation it should be very obvious that Person A is not differentiating between "really believe" and "believe", he's differentiating between "believe" and whatever Person B's accusation is.

narnia4 wrote:

RickD wrote:

So you start with the term false believer and from that you infer that there are (true) believers, not the other way around.

No. I'm just saying that a true believer is one who places his faith in Christ, and is saved, and has the indwelling Holy Spirit, and is eternally secure. I don't think I ever started with a false believer. There is a real dollar bill, and there are counterfeits. We can know what a counterfeit is, by knowing what a real dollar is.

What I mean is, someone might call a dollar bill "real American money" (I don't know that they do, but they might). Were it not for counterfeits, there would be no reason to refer to a dollar bill as "real American money", it would be obvious.

Bingo! That's what I'm saying.

Take this conversation.

Person A- I believe in Christ.
Person B- No you don't! You're just after people's money and attention.
Person A- That's not true. I really believe in Christ.

From that conversation it should be very obvious that Person A is not differentiating between "really believe" and "believe", he's differentiating between "believe" and whatever Person B's accusation is.

Wow, you DO understand why I make the distinction by using the term "true believer". That is precisely why I make the distinction. I'm glad someone understands me.

What makes a true believer in Christ?

Is it works of goodness, or persevere'n in faith, or what the bible says?

John 10:5 Yet they will by no means follow a stranger, but will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers." NKJV

John 10:11 "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep. NKJV

John 10:14 I am the good shepherd; and I know My sheep, and am known by My own. NKJV

John 10:25-30 Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father's name, they bear witness of Me. But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you.My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand. I and My Father are one." NKJV

I think the bible is quiet clear on this matter… Those that are His know they are and that knowing cannot be shaken, it can be tested, tried, refined, come into crisis but the final result is the same

John 10:14 "I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me… NASB

Rom 8:29-30 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; 30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

Romans 8:37-39 But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us. 38 For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

So who are true Believers in Christ?

Look at what Romans 8:16 says on this matter: The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God… NASB

How does the Holy Spirit testify that one really belongs to the Lord should be the focus of learning-discussing.
-
-
-

Jac, you just posted this in another thread:

Calvinists say that those people were not true believers (against Jesus' own words, I would add), and they proved that by not persevering until the end. That means that even though they believed for a time, they were not really elect. So they would deny that all believers are elect. They would say that all true believers are elect, and then they would qualify "true" as those who persevere in faith and good works until the end. So the fact that you believe is no guarantee that you are a true believer. You may be deceived and have spurious faith, which you will eventually prove by falling away.

Now I understand why you have a problem with my using the term, "true" believers. I certainly don't see a "true" believer in the same way that you described above. We don't persevere. The Holy Spirit preserves us.

RickD wrote:

narnia4 wrote:

RickD wrote:

So you start with the term false believer and from that you infer that there are (true) believers, not the other way around.

No. I'm just saying that a true believer is one who places his faith in Christ, and is saved, and has the indwelling Holy Spirit, and is eternally secure. I don't think I ever started with a false believer. There is a real dollar bill, and there are counterfeits. We can know what a counterfeit is, by knowing what a real dollar is.

What I mean is, someone might call a dollar bill "real American money" (I don't know that they do, but they might). Were it not for counterfeits, there would be no reason to refer to a dollar bill as "real American money", it would be obvious.

Bingo! That's what I'm saying.

Take this conversation.

Person A- I believe in Christ.
Person B- No you don't! You're just after people's money and attention.
Person A- That's not true. I really believe in Christ.

From that conversation it should be very obvious that Person A is not differentiating between "really believe" and "believe", he's differentiating between "believe" and whatever Person B's accusation is.

Wow, you DO understand why I make the distinction by using the term "true believer". That is precisely why I make the distinction. I'm glad someone understands me.

But here's the problem with this Rick and what I and Jac have been trying to get you to see all along. Once you've opened the door to making a distinction between a false believer and a believer then you have negated absolute assurance simply because you have no way of predicting the future to know you yourself will not prove to be a false believer. I know the standard response you give is that you do know because you have the indwelling of the HS, to which I would reply so what? Some of the best false believers believed they too had the indwelling of the HS and yet they turned out to be false believers. Do you see the difference here? If you allow for belief to turn out to be a false belief you've effectively negated absolute assurance by default. The only way you can have absolute, unconditional assurance is if there is no room for false belief. If one believes, they are saved, EVEN IF that belief turned out to be a false belief. That's what absolute assurance entails (and demands).

Byblos, as we have had this conversation before, I'm not sure this one will turn out any different. Nonetheless...

But here's the problem with this Rick and what I and Jac have been trying to get you to see all along. Once you've opened the door to making a distinction between a false believer and a believer then you have negated absolute assurance simply because you have no way of predicting the future to know you yourself will not prove to be a false believer.

But Byblos, Jac and I both have absolute assurance, because we have placed our faith in Christ. Once I have placed my faith in Christ, I have God's assurance of salvation. If I sin, or even fall away, I still have God's assurance. Even though I might not be assured of God's assurance, I still have it.

I know the standard response you give is that you do know because you have the indwelling of the HS, to which I would reply so what?

Byblos, the indwelling Holy Spirit is part of God's assurance. He is the seal God has put in us, guaranteeing what God has promised. The indwelling HS, may be a reason why i know I have God's assurance, as well.

Some of the best false believers believed they too had the indwelling of the HS and yet they turned out to be false believers.

This is a point I have been trying to make, and I can't seem to get people to understand it: How do you know they are false believers, and aren't saved? How can you say certain people have turned out to be false believers? We wouldn't be able to know that until we are in heaven. They may have the indwelling HS, have fallen away, appear to be false believers, but are still saved. Or, they may never have had the indwelling HS, and were always false believers. I just don't presume to know which.

If you allow for belief to turn out to be a false belief you've effectively negated absolute assurance by default.

True belief can never turn out to be false belief. Anyone who has faith in Christ(true belief), has God's assurance of salvation.

If one believes, they are saved, EVEN IF that belief turned out to be a false belief. That's what absolute assurance entails (and demands).

As I see it, if one believes, he is saved, and if one is saved, that true belief can't turn into a false belief, because Jesus is the author, and finisher of our faith.
Hebrews 12:1-2 12 Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, 2 [a]fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.
God only gives absolute assurance to those who put their faith in Christ. Absolute assurance is NOT a feeling of assurance we may or may not have.

I don't always need to have a feeling of assurance, to have God's assurance.

RickD wrote:This is a point I have been trying to make, and I can't seem to get people to understand it: How do you know they are false believers, and aren't saved? How can you say certain people have turned out to be false believers? We wouldn't be able to know that until we are in heaven. They may have the indwelling HS, have fallen away, appear to be false believers, but are still saved. Or, they may never have had the indwelling HS, and were always false believers. I just don't presume to know which.

Then I'll restate my suggestion that you change your language, because the way this is written, you cannot have the logical assurance you claim to have. The reason is that you don't know whether or not you are a false believer. How can you be sure that YOU aren't one of the ones who look like they have the indwelling of the HS?

Earlier, you suggested that by "true believer" all you were trying to was to distinguish between a nominal Christian and what I propose is a real Christian. I would say that such language is completely unnecessary, because the Bible does not say that every Christian has eternal life. It says that every believer has eternal life. I can be a Christian and still go to Hell (cf. Matt 7:14ff) if I never believe the Gospel. Or I could be a believer and not become a Christian (John 12:42).

So our membership in a religion doesn't have anything to do with whether or not we are saved. So when someone starts talking about nominal Christians, you can just shrug your shoulders and say, "Then maybe they should take their religion more seriously. In any case, that has nothing to do with my point. I didn't say all Christians--dedicated or nominal--are saved. I said all believers are saved."

See, I can say whether or not someone believes the Gospel. I just ask them plainly what they believe. Then I compare what they believe to the words of Scripture. Obviously, they could be lying to me, but that's neither here nor there. If someone says, "I have trusted Jesus Christ, the Son of God, to save me from my sins--that by His death and resurrection He paid the price for my sins" then they believe the Gospel. If, on the other hand, someone says, "I have trusted Jesus Christ to save me from my sins because I have completely committed my life to His service" then, no matter how pious they are, they don't believe the Gospel. I'm not going to continue from there and say that they are going to Hell. For all I know they believed the Gospel at some point in their lives. But right now, I can say that they don't believe. I don't need to say that they are true or false believers. Either you believe or you don't. The qualifier "true" and "false" introduces a factors that necessarily mean that YOU cannot know that YOU are in one or the other category.

Again, we have either believed or we have not. There are no qualifications to that. ANY qualification is inconsistent with the logical assurance you say you believe we can have.

edit:

As I see it, if one believes, he is saved, and if one is saved, that true belief can't turn into a false belief, because Jesus is the author, and finisher of our faith.

Again, statements like this bother me a lot. It sounds like you are saying that if I have believed the Gospel then I can't later on fall away and adopt a false, deficient view of the Gospel. But if that is true, then you cannot have logical, absolute assurance!. For plenty of people have been convinced that they had "true" belief and later on adopted a "false" belief.

AGAIN, perhaps your difficulty is your language. I would strongly, strongly advise you to reconsider your wording, because what you are saying is not only unclear, it is deeply misleading and, in fact, is the language employed by the very doctrines you say you disagree with.

Then I'll restate my suggestion that you change your language, because the way this is written, you cannot have the logical assurance you claim to have. The reason is that you don't know whether or not you are a false believer. How can you be sure that YOU aren't one of the ones who look like they have the indwelling of the HS?

Jac, If someone has faith in Christ for salvation, he is a believer. Period. I have faith in Christ for my salvation. So, I'm a believer.

Earlier, you suggested that by "true believer" all you were trying to was to distinguish between a nominal Christian and what I propose is a real Christian

No. I said I started using the term "true believer", or "true Christian", because of the confusion in another thread.

I would say that such language is completely unnecessary, because the Bible does not say that every Christian has eternal life.

That was my point, to those that didn't understand that, Jac.

It says that every believer has eternal life.

Since you are the one who opened this door, the bible doesn't say that. Those that believe in Christ, have eternal life. We need to make the distinction to unbelievers who don't know the difference.

I can be a Christian and still go to Hell (cf. Matt 7:14ff).

Not if you're a true Christian.

Or I could be a believer and not become a Christian

How is that possible, Jac. Are we arguing semantics? A Christian is one who believes in Christ.

So our membership in a religion doesn't have anything to do with whether or not we are saved. So when someone starts talking about nominal Christians, you can just shrug your shoulders and say, "Then maybe they should take their religion more seriously. In any case, that has nothing to do with my point. I didn't say all Christians--dedicated or nominal--are saved. I said all believers are saved."

I never said that you said that. I'm going on the normal definition for Christian. One who believes in Christ. Nominal Christian from Wikipedia:

Christian definition: A nominal Christian is one who says he/she is a Christian, but does not possess a trusting, faithful, dependent relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ; relationship made possible by Christ's propitiation on the cross and the gift of the Holy Spirit to those predestined by God the Father. The church attendance of a nominal Christian is not relevant to whether they are nominal or not; a nominal Christian can attend church weekly or rarely. A nominal Christian may undertake religious activities (especially at Christmas/Easter), and proclaim fellowship with followers of Jesus (for example, through being a "member" of a church), but in their heart they will possess apathy or even unbelief toward the sovereignty of Jesus Christ.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_a_nom ... z20oUsPmL3

If, on the other hand, someone says, "I have trusted Jesus Christ to save me from my sins because I have completely committed my life to His service" then, no matter how pious they are, they don't believe the Gospel. I'm not going to continue from there and say that they are going to Hell. For all I know they believed the Gospel at some point in their lives. But right now, I can say that they don't believe. I don't need to say that they are true or false believers.

That's my point, as well, Jac. I don't know if that person is a believer or not. Maybe they believed the gospel at one point, maybe they didn't. I don't presume to know. If they believed at one point, then they are a true believer in my book. If they didn't believe the gospel, then they're a false believer, in my book. In your book, they may be a believer, or not. Same thing, different way to say it.

The qualifier "true" and "false" introduces a factors that necessarily mean that YOU cannot know that YOU are in one or the other category.

Maybe you feel that way, but I certainly don't.

Again, statements like this bother me a lot. It sounds like you are saying that if I have believed the Gospel then I can't later on fall away and adopt a false, deficient view of the Gospel. But if that is true, then you cannot have logical, absolute assurance!. For plenty of people have been convinced that they had "true" belief and later on adopted a "false" belief.

Jac, I said that someone can believe in the gospel, be saved, and then fall away. That doesn't mean they are not saved anymore. God's assurance isn't subject to whether we "feel" like we have assurance, or whether we're "convinced" we have assurance.

Take Byblos, for example. He believes on Christ for salvation, but he doesn't believe in absolute assurance. He still has absolute assurance, because he has placed his faith in Christ. Not because he feels like he has assurance.

AGAIN, perhaps your difficulty is your language. I would strongly, strongly advise you to reconsider your wording, because what you are saying is not only unclear, it is deeply misleading and, in fact, is the language employed by the very doctrines you say you disagree with.

I understand that Jac. But, you have to admit, that if someone doesn't word something as you do, you tend to assume they disagree with you. We can use different wording to mean the same thing. jac, I use words, the best I can to describe what I mean. Do they always make sense to everyone? Certainly not. But, I'm not you, and I'm not going to say things the same way you do. That goes for anyone else. I say what I say, and if anyone has question about what i mean, I would hope they would ask, and not assume I mean something. That's part of why a lot of the time people here are saying the same thing, in different ways, from a different perspective, and it turns into a disagreement, when it shouldn't.

Then you will continue to be misunderstood, Rick. Not only by people like me, but by people you are trying to explain the Gospel to.

Jac3510 wrote:Then you will continue to be misunderstood, Rick. Not only by people like me, but by people you are trying to explain the Gospel to.

jac, there are plenty of people here that have thanked me for things I have helped them with. So, apparently not everyone here misunderstands me. That's pretty presumptuous of you to think that I'm misunderstood, because i don't speak like you do. Actually, that's downright arrogant. I don't speak like you want me to, so God can't use me. That's arrogant, even for you, Jac. There are other ways to say things, besides your way, Jac.

RickD wrote: I've heard this 13 In [a]Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in [c]Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is [d] given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory., Gman. I have a few questions for you about this. When God says He will never leave us, nor forsake us, does He leave us and forsake us if we don't want Him? When we have passed from death to life, do we pass back to death? When God gives us everlasting life, and we give up that eternal security, did we only have "temporary" everlasting life?

Yes... It's true that G-d will never leave us. But, what if we want to leave Him? I would take into consideration the story of Esau who despises and sells his birth-right by his own free will Genesis 25:32. Now consider anyone who receives the mark in the tribulation Revelation 14:9-11. If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives its mark on their forehead or on their hand, 10 they, too, will drink the wine of God’s fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. Again it comes down to freedom of will.

RickD wrote:And Gman, what about Ephesians 1:13-14:
13 In [a]Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in [c]Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is [d] given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory.

God has given us the Holy Spirit, as His pledge to us of our inheritance. So, if we "give up our security" as you said, then God breaks His promise?

Yes I'm familiar with these verses. And yes we are sealed unless we choose to break these seals of security and live the life of sin. G-d can't control us, but He will pursue us like a loving Father.

Gmn wrote:

Yes I'm familiar with these verses. And yes we are sealed unless we choose to break these seals of security and live the life of sin. G-d can't control us, but He will pursue us like a loving Father.

Gman, would you say that you believe the Holy Spirit will leave us then, if we " live the life of sin"? And then, after God pursues us, and wins us back, the Holy Spirit returns inside of us?

2 Corinthians 1:21-22 21Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us, 22set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.

So, if we then live the life of sin, as you say, and God allows us to break His seal of ownership, God's guarantee becomes null and void?