Am I a Christian?

[Kurieuo]

You know what the biggest stumbling block is for me to accept OSAS (and make no mistake about it, it is exactly what this topic is all about)? Believe it or not, it is not a Catholic thing for I firmly believe that I do not believe in a works-based salvation for everything I do is not of me but by God's sanctifying grace.

No, my issue with it is one of free will. I simply cannot reconcile that by a free choice I can accept Christ (drawn by the HS of course, we wouldn't want to fall into pelagianism) to then be denied the same free choice to reject him. I've read the theological and philosophical arguments for such a position and find them to be lacking.

Byblos,

You are secure in Christ. Once you become a child of God, He won't let you go. Even for a sin such as rejecting Him. If we come to Christ being drawn through the Holy Spirit, why can't you believe the same Holy Spirit who dwells within us will keep us as God promised?

Stop holding on to your ability to keep from rejecting Him, and just trust that God will do as He promises.

And you know what a great thing about assurance(God's promise) is? That even if you don't believe in it, if you're saved, God will still keep you secure in Him.

We need to keep our focus on trusting in Him, not ourselves. If I had to rely on myself to keep my salvation, I'd be screwed.

Such a topic has been discussed many times, but from past discussions, I thought you were firmly in the OSAS Byblos due to thinking that assurance in Christ couldn't be had without such...?

I'm wondering what people here think of my following thoughts on the matter at present.

A person who accepts Christ would not and could not turn away from Him. Therefore, if one rejects Christ after "accepting" Him then indeed they never had Christ to begin with. Let me provide an example to illustrate what I mean.

I'd liken it to God being the biggest damn magnet that exists, like consider a magnet of an infinite scale that is much larger than our universe. We're a speck by comparison, consider how small we are by comparison to our whole universe with all its planets, stars, galaxies and what-not, we're so small that we're not even visible.

Now I think we're all drawn to God by God's "magnetic" pull, yet for the sake of our freedom in choosing God has somehow allowed many to resist His magnetic pull. This universe in the way it has been setup, for those who have been drawn in and see, God is evident. Yet, to those who freely resist and turn from God, their eyes are blinded. And the further away people move from God, indeed even run from God and try to bury God, the less the pull of God will be felt.

Oppositely, if someone truly embraces God consider some very small not even visible speck of metal being joined to the biggest infinitely sized magnet that exists. How in the world could they ever tare themselves away from God and His love? I agree with Paul here in regard to any true Christian (Romans 8:38-39) -- and I only say "true Christian" because I see there are in fact many pseudo-Christians who are merely nominal and going through the motions as a matter of taste.

So then, the only logical conclusion I see that we can draw in relation to a person who turns their back on Christ is that they never in fact came into contact with Christ.

This is where I think it is important to make a distinction between rational assent (mind) and the heart. Belief follows from the heart, anything else I see is really a nominal stance without any substance. No better than Agnosticism with a personal preference for leaning this way or that way, and indeed personal preference is how many treat their spiritual beliefs. Muslims like strawberry icecream, but I like chocolate icecream because my parents did and that's what I was raised with, right?

There are many nominal Christians who say the talk and walk the talk, yet there hearts are far from Christ. Indeed if Christ talks of false prophets who looked to have performed miracles "in His name", then certainly this allows space for false Christians. And while such will not inherit eternal life with God, I cannot pin down in Scripture anywhere that a true believer is ever cast out from God's presence.

[SoCalExile]

A person who accepts Christ would not and could not turn away from Him

So Peter wasn't saved when he denied Christ three times? What about Thomas? John the Baptist? Solomon?

I cannot pin down in Scripture anywhere that a true believer is ever cast out from God's presence.

You can't find any scripture where someone who is born-again is cast-out, nor is there anyone in the Bible that became un-born-again, because it doesn't exist.

And it's tiring to see people pull Matthew 7:21-23 out of context and co-text nearly everyday. Read the passage in context, which many (to include preachers) do not do:

15 "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? 17 So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 So then, you will know them by their fruits.

21 "Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’

24 "Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock. 26 Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell—and great was its fall.”

28 When Jesus had finished these words, the crowds were amazed at His teaching; 29 for He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as their scribes.

So this passage is a warning about avoiding false prophets and teachers, and building your foundation on Christ. It is also a warning to those false teachers in v.21-23.

Now as to the warning, pay attention to what is going on. What is the will of the Father? The clearest answer on this is in John 6:40:
“For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”

So the will of the Father is that you believe in Christ. Those in v.22 where trying to persuade Christ on the basis of their rather impressive works of prophecy and demon-casting (which, if true, would actually be the work of God through them, and not their work). Jesus doesn't deny their works, He denies them on the basis of "I never KNEW you", because they were not born-again (Galatians 2:20).

"Those who practice lawlessness" is a reference to the default state of man, as no one is justified (which means "declared innocent before a judge") before God by the Law (Romans 3:28, Galatians 2:16), and no one is justified by their works (Romans 4:2-8). We are only justified by grace through faith, that justification is not of ourselves, and not of works (Ephesians 2:8-9). So these false teachers believed and presumably (by the context) taught another gospel, which is not another (Galatians 1), which centered around their works and not Christ's work.

And Christ is saying in v.24-27 that we shouldn't be placing our faith in men anyway, who shift doctrines with the latest fads, but instead be building our foundation on Christ, who never changes.

[SoCalExile]

And since it always gets cited out-of-context in a argument against OSAS, I'll post my explanation of Hebrews 10:26-27:

Hebrews 10, the author is contrasting the old sacrifices and the New Sacrifice (Christ). as for v.26, it's already been explained by v.18:

17 “And their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” 18 Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin.

There is no offering for sin if we sin, because the sacrifice for our sin has been pain once and for all, as stated earlier in the context:

"11 Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet. 14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified"

As for v.27 and after, it's talking about those Jews who were persecuting the original recipients, who no longer had a viable sacrifice for their sin, and were in fact persecuting the One and only Sacrifice left.

[Kurieuo]

I never once mentioned deeds, but Peter's emotional turmoil showed something of his heart didn't it?

[Kurieuo]

I cannot pin down in Scripture anywhere that a true believer is ever cast out from God's presence.

You can't find any scripture where someone who is born-again is cast-out, nor is there anyone in the Bible that became un-born-again, because it doesn't exist.

Of course, that was kind of my point.

[SoCalExile]

I never once mentioned deeds, but Peter's emotional turmoil showed something of his heart didn't it?

So he wasn't saved?

And you did mention deeds, because you are essentially saying that if we don't persevere, we aren't saved, which means that we must reach a goal to be saved, which is the Greek definition of "works" (ergon).

[Kurieuo]

I never once mentioned deeds, but Peter's emotional turmoil showed something of his heart didn't it?

So he wasn't saved?

Why wouldn't Peter be saved?

I think a more interesting question to ask is whether Judas was saved?

[Byblos]

Byblos wrote:

What's there to follow? I make a freely conscious decision to be separated from God and yet my decision is negated. Where's the free will in that?

Just let me answer your question with a question. Could one make a free will decision to accept Christ, without the Holy Spirit's leading?

No. That, however, does not preclude the ability to exercise one's free will to separate from God.

Byblos wrote:

Your son will always be your son, that's a fact. But your son is free to elect to leave home, never come back, and cut you off entirely. If he's not free to do so then you're negating his free will by forcing him to stay with you.

I don't disagree with any of that.

But he's still going to be my son. Always. Once born as my son, he can't be unborn.

I already affirmed that. So what? He still chose to separate himself.

To one whom has TRULY placed their faith in Christ, the assurance IS absolute! But what is not absolute or certain is whether or not they have actually done this.

Byblos wrote:

On the emphasized part, how can one be absolutely certain one has done this? More to the point, however, if they had lived their entire life assuming they were absolutely certain they had done this but discover, before their last dying breath, that they hadn't, what does that do to that assurance they supposedly had all along?

1 John 5:13
13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.

Where does that say anything about the rejection of such? I presume your answer will be along the lines of etrenal life would not be eternal if it can be rejected. To which I go back to my main point of negating free will. In any case that would highly depend on what one believes what 'believe in the name of the Son of God' means. But then we will end up arguing about interpretation and authority (which is where Socal's last post is heading but I will get to it at some point tomorrow)

[SoCalExile]

I never once mentioned deeds, but Peter's emotional turmoil showed something of his heart didn't it?

So he wasn't saved?

Why wouldn't Peter be saved?

Because he denied Christ, thrice. Thus by your definition, he wasn't saved.

I think a more interesting question to ask is whether Judas was saved?

[/quote]

John 6:64.

[Kurieuo]

And you did mention deeds, because you are essentially saying that if we don't persevere, we aren't saved, which means that we must reach a goal to be saved, which is the Greek definition of "works" (ergon).

Not at all. Persevere has nothing to do with anything I said.

[SoCalExile]

And you did mention deeds, because you are essentially saying that if we don't persevere, we aren't saved, which means that we must reach a goal to be saved, which is the Greek definition of "works" (ergon).

Not at all. Persevere has nothing to do with anything I said.

You said:

A person who accepts Christ would not and could not turn away from Him. Therefore, if one rejects Christ after "accepting" Him then indeed they never had Christ to begin with.

That's textbook Calvinist "perseverance" doctrine.

[Kurieuo]

I never once mentioned deeds, but Peter's emotional turmoil showed something of his heart didn't it?

So he wasn't saved?

Why wouldn't Peter be saved?

Because he denied Christ, thrice. Thus by your definition, he wasn't saved.

I think a more interesting question to ask is whether Judas was saved?

John 6:64.

Thanks SoCal for answering my question.

I think perhaps we got off to the wrong foot, and I apologise for nit picking previous posts of yours because I agree with them a lot. Although, perhaps with reason, you now suspect me because I was questioning some things, but that's just something I do to push thought deeper even if I hold to the position I'm raising questions on. People are often left confused about what I believe because I do this.

With regards to your response on Judas, which I take to mean he was not saved... I could push back with your own accusation towards me re: perseverance. Due to Judas' deeds, it could be said that because he didn't persevere, then he wasn't saved, etc.

Now you might respond back to me here re: Judas that he didn't really believe in Christ. This would be the exact same one I'd make back to you re: what I stated above which you suspect is some perseverance doctrine.

[Kurieuo]

And you did mention deeds, because you are essentially saying that if we don't persevere, we aren't saved, which means that we must reach a goal to be saved, which is the Greek definition of "works" (ergon).

Not at all. Persevere has nothing to do with anything I said.

You said:

A person who accepts Christ would not and could not turn away from Him. Therefore, if one rejects Christ after "accepting" Him then indeed they never had Christ to begin with.

That's textbook Calvinist "perseverance" doctrine.

Is it? Notice "accepting" is in quotes. In other words these people were not really believers like Judas, they never truly accepted Christ. Therefore, given they're not believers, perseverance has nothing to do with it.

Reject this, then how would you pair Scripture regarding false prophets? (Matt 7:15; 7:21-23) Surely these people believed. They're even surprised. No, I'd say they never believed in Christ, and so never had Christ. What say you?

[SoCalExile]

Is it? Notice "accepting" is in quotes. In other words these people were not really believers like Judas, they never truly accepted Christ. Therefore, given they're not believers, perseverance has nothing to do with it.

Reject this, then how would you pair Scripture regarding false prophets? (Matt 7:15; 7:21-23) Surely these people believed. They're even surprised. No, I'd say they never believed in Christ, and so never had Christ. What say you?

Like I said, they trusted in their works, evidenced by their appeals on that basis. Yet if they trusted in Christ's work, then they would have been born again.

There's a parallel teaching in Luke 18:9-14:

9 Also He spoke this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: 10 “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.
11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other men—extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.’
13 And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner!’ 14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

What's the difference? The Pharisee's faith was actually in himself; as evidenced with, "I...I...I...I...I...", just like the false teachers of Matthew 7:21-23, and very much like starchaser's false view of salvation.

The Tax Collector (who is still one when he left), simply placed his faith in God's mercy, rather than his performance.

[Kurieuo]

Is it? Notice "accepting" is in quotes. In other words these people were not really believers like Judas, they never truly accepted Christ. Therefore, given they're not believers, perseverance has nothing to do with it.

Reject this, then how would you pair Scripture regarding false prophets? (Matt 7:15; 7:21-23) Surely these people believed. They're even surprised. No, I'd say they never believed in Christ, and so never had Christ. What say you?

Like I said, they trusted in their works, evidenced by their appeals on that basis. Yet if they trusted in Christ's work, then they would have been born again.

There's a parallel teaching in Luke 18:9-14:

9 Also He spoke this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: 10 “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.
11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other men—extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.’
13 And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner!’ 14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

What's the difference? The Pharisee's faith was actually in himself; as evidenced with, "I...I...I...I...I...", just like the false teachers of Matthew 7:21-23, and very much like starchaser's false view of salvation.

The Tax Collector (who is still one when he left), simply placed his faith in God's mercy, rather than his performance.

Which all boils down to that they did not really believe in Christ, right?