Evidence for God from Science

I think the problem you two are having is somewhere between language and perhaps not clearly making an important distinction. Obviously, absolute assurance is absolutely integral to OSAS. I've said it a million times--if we can say a person can prove they were never saved to begin with by their acts--be they acts of sin or even just the act of failing to continue in faith--then because we do not know the future, we cannot claim to believe OSAS in its true form. I think both of you--Rick and Byblos--are affirming that.

I think, though, it is fair to distinguish between the fact of our salvation and our knowledge of the fact of our salvation. And we may further distinguish between our knowledge of the fact of our own salvation and our knowledge of the fact of someone else's salvation. All theologies have to make these distinctions, but how they approach them would be different. OSAS, as I see it, would approach these questions in the followng ways:

1. The fact of our salvation -- salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. It is the object (Christ) that saves, and not our faith. As such, faith is not in faith but in Christ. Moreover, it is not our knowledge of our salvation that saves, but Christ that saves. It is, therefore, possible for a person to be saved and not know it. It is also person for a person to believe a false gospel, think they are saved, and be wrong about that (and so Matt 7). But the fact remains, that if a person places their faith in Jesus Christ alone, then they have eternal life, which by definition cannot be lost or forfeited.

2. The knowledge of our own salvation -- this doctrine is commonly called assurance. The implications of OSAS as defined just above should be obvious. I have often talked about having absolue certainty of my salvation (as opposed to moral certainty), and I have charged that any view that does not permit absolute certainty contradicts the OSAS gospel. I still hold that as true. The reasoning behind the argument is as follows:

• 1. If true, OSAS necessarily entails that absolute assurance is possible;
  2. OSAS is true;
  3. Therefore, absolute assurance is possible

Therefore, if someone denies, either explicitly or implicitly the possibility of absolute assurance, then via a modus tollens we may demonstrate that OSAS is not true:

• 1. If true, OSAS necessarily entails that absolute assurance is possible;
  2. Absolute assurance is not possible;
  3. Therefore, OSAS is not true

BUT notice the way I have phrased this. I have said that OSAS makes absolute assurance POSSIBLE. OSAS does not necessarily, I don't think anyway, demand that any given person have absolute assurance. How could it? That seems self-refuting. Because if believe the gospel and am absolutely assured of my salvation but become later confused and lose that assurance of my salvation, is OSAS therefore false? No. Thus, it is important (as we all know--this is nothing new) to note that absolute assurance is really better termed logical assurance. If I understand the logic, I can say IF . . . THEN and come to a proper conclusion. But if I do not understand the logic and come to a false conclusion, that epistemological error has no bearing on the ontological reality of my own salvation.

Also, it is important to note that the OSAS argument itself only follows if a person has met the conditions of the OSAS gospel, namely, that they have trusted Christ. This is important, too, because OSAS freely admits that there are some people who think that they are saved who are not. For OSAS does not equate conviction that you are saved with believing the gospel. Put directly, OSAS does NOT say this:

• 1. All who are convinced they are saved are, in fact, saved;
  2. I am convinced I am saved;
  3. Therefore I am saved

Anyone can see that argument fails and that no OSAS advocate would hold to it. Such an argument confuses the epistemological issue (assurance that is available) with the ontological issue (salvation that either is or is not actually present).

Bottom line here: the logic of OSAS makes absolute or logical assurance possible. If any position makes that assurance impossible, then it is inconsistent with the OSAS gospel.

3. The fact of someone else's salvation -- I think we have to be very careful here. No OSAS advocate can make an assessment on whether or not a person actually possesses eternal life. All the OSAS advocate may say--and I have actually said this in the clinical setting--is something like this, "Mr X, Jesus says that everyone who believes in Him has everlasting life. You say you[r loved one] have [has] believed in Him, correct? Therefore, on the authority of Jesus Christ, I am telling you that if what you say is true, if you[r loved one] have [has] trusted Christ, then you have eternal life, right this second. That life cannot be lost. I will see you in eternity!"

Some might object that I am robbing the man of absolute, logical assurance with my qualifer "if you are telling the truth." But I am not. OSAS does not say, "If anyone states they believe in Christ . . ." It is, "If anyone believes in Christ." This goes to a point K made some time back. I do not have access to anyone's internal life. I can only go on what they tell me. There is, then, a special epistemological problem when talking about my assurance of someone else's salvation. I can look back in my own life and know fore sure whether or not I do or did believe in Christ, and from that, I can run out the logic and know whether or not I do or do not have eternal life (per the OSAS claim). I cannot do that with anyone else. What I can do is assess their reasoning based on their own words.

Let me give you a real example from my own life. I had a professor once with whom I argued for about two years about this issue. I always assumed he was saved and just deeply confused. I mean, sure, he believed a false gospel now, but the thought never crossed my mind that he hadn't at some point in the past just trusted Jesus. He was saved even if he wasn't sure of it.

But one day, he dropped this bomb on me: "Chris, I have never believed what you are saying. Never in all my years have I thought it was that simple." He went on to explain that he had never believed that because it is not that simple and continued to press with his false gospel. It dawned on me then that he might not have been saved at all! If he had never trusted Christ, then he wasn't really saved in the first place!

Does that deny OSAS? I don't think so. It just takes the "if" seriously in the major premise of the OSAS gospel: "If a person trusts Christ alone for their salvation, then they have eternal life." Just because a person claims to have trusted Christ, it does not so follow that the did. They could have believed a false gospel (so, again, cf Matt 7:21-23).

That, however, does not negate the logical possibility of absolute, logical assurance. For I can still say, "I know I have believed the gospel. And I have good reason for thinking that so and so has believed the gospel, despite what they affirmnow. Therefore, I know that both of us are really saved, even if we disagree on this matter."

All of this is why it is so important that we define what the gospel is and is not. It's also important why we distinguish between salvation itself, the assurance of our own salvation, and our assurance of other people's salvation. One issue is ontological, the other two are epistemological. And I think that both of you would agree with every word I've written. I just think that in the midst of all this, we've gotten the proverbial epistemological and ontological wires crossed.

Yes, no?

Thanks Jac.

I think I can see why there's confusion now. You and Byblos seem to be using the term "assurance" in the same way. I'm using it in a different way.

Otherwise, I'm on the same page with everything else you said.

RickD wrote:Thanks Jac.

I think I can see why there's confusion now. You and Byblos seem to be using the term "assurance" in the same way. I'm using it in a different way.

Otherwise, I'm on the same page with everything else you said.

Jac's post certainly clarifies the issue greatly and I think we're getting much closer to understanding one another's positions. First let me clarify that when I refer to OSAS it is always from the perspective of the person him or herself, never towards someone else. For the sake of the argument let us also assume that OSAS is objectively truly so what my argument boils down to is epistemologically self-centered (in the truest sense of the term). I.e., how does one know that they are saved. It just seems to me that once the notion of looking back and saying one was never saved is introduced then that person's (internal) assurance is no longer absolute because no one will ever be sure that at some point in their lives will not look back and say they really didn't believe. Note that this says nothing about OSAS being true or not. It is a statement on one's own perception of their salvation. Hence, all one can have is a moral assurance, not an absolute one (unless the notion of never was saved is eliminated).

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote:Thanks Jac.

I think I can see why there's confusion now. You and Byblos seem to be using the term "assurance" in the same way. I'm using it in a different way.

Otherwise, I'm on the same page with everything else you said.

Jac's post certainly clarifies the issue greatly and I think we're getting much closer to understanding one another's positions. First let me clarify that when I refer to OSAS it is always from the perspective of the person him or herself, never towards someone else. For the sake of the argument let us also assume that OSAS is objectively truly so what my argument boils down to is epistemologically self-centered (in the truest sense of the term). I.e., how does one know that they are saved. It just seems to me that once the notion of looking back and saying one was never saved is introduced then that person's (internal) assurance is no longer absolute because no one will ever be sure that at some point in their lives will not look back and say they really didn't believe. Note that this says nothing about OSAS being true or not. It is a statement on one's own perception of their salvation. Hence, all one can have is a moral assurance, not an absolute one (unless the notion of never was saved is eliminated).

And I'm not sure I'd really disagree with the idea that one may only be able to have a moral assurance when it comes to the feelings of assurance.
But it really doesn't change my position, because when I talk about absolute assurance, I'm not referring to an "internal" or feeling of assurance. I never claimed that a believer would always have a feeling of assurance that he is saved. I think it's important to understand on whom we place our trust. I sin. I'm not perfect. So obviously my feelings aren't always reliable. But God is perfect. He cannot lie. Absolute assurance as I'm referring to it, is a promise or guarantee from God.

Again,

1) God promised that those who have believed on Christ, have eternal life.

2) I have believed on Christ.

3) I have God's absolute assurance that I have eternal life.

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote:Thanks Jac.

I think I can see why there's confusion now. You and Byblos seem to be using the term "assurance" in the same way. I'm using it in a different way.

Otherwise, I'm on the same page with everything else you said.

Jac's post certainly clarifies the issue greatly and I think we're getting much closer to understanding one another's positions. First let me clarify that when I refer to OSAS it is always from the perspective of the person him or herself, never towards someone else. For the sake of the argument let us also assume that OSAS is objectively truly so what my argument boils down to is epistemologically self-centered (in the truest sense of the term). I.e., how does one know that they are saved. It just seems to me that once the notion of looking back and saying one was never saved is introduced then that person's (internal) assurance is no longer absolute because no one will ever be sure that at some point in their lives will not look back and say they really didn't believe. Note that this says nothing about OSAS being true or not. It is a statement on one's own perception of their salvation. Hence, all one can have is a moral assurance, not an absolute one (unless the notion of never was saved is eliminated).

And I'm not sure I'd really disagree with the idea that one may only be able to have a moral assurance when it comes to the feelings of assurance.
But it really doesn't change my position, because when I talk about absolute assurance, I'm not referring to an "internal" or feeling of assurance. I never claimed that a believer would always have a feeling of assurance that he is saved. I think it's important to understand on whom we place our trust. I sin. I'm not perfect. So obviously my feelings aren't always reliable. But God is perfect. He cannot lie. Absolute assurance as I'm referring to it, is a promise or guarantee from God.

Again,

1) God promised that those who have believed on Christ, have eternal life.

2) I have believed on Christ.

3) I have God's absolute assurance that I have eternal life.

I think our respective positions are clear (at least for me) and I certainly don't disagree with you vis-a-vis the absolute assurance of God's promise. In fact, it is central to my own belief system. I simply wanted to make a distinction, as far as one's own personal beliefs are concerned looking inwardly, between on the one hand saying one can prove they were never saved, thereby reducing assurance to a moral one, and on the other hand having absolute assurance no matter what.

Byblos wrote:
I think our respective positions are clear (at least for me) and I certainly don't disagree with you vis-a-vis the absolute assurance of God's promise. In fact, it is central to my own belief system. I simply wanted to make a distinction, as far as one's own personal beliefs are concerned looking inwardly, between on the one hand saying one can prove they were never saved, thereby reducing assurance to a moral one, and on the other hand having absolute assurance no matter what.

Glad to see you've finally come around and now admit that you believe in Absolute Assurance. I knew you were reasonable.

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:
I think our respective positions are clear (at least for me) and I certainly don't disagree with you vis-a-vis the absolute assurance of God's promise. In fact, it is central to my own belief system. I simply wanted to make a distinction, as far as one's own personal beliefs are concerned looking inwardly, between on the one hand saying one can prove they were never saved, thereby reducing assurance to a moral one, and on the other hand having absolute assurance no matter what.

Glad to see you've finally come around and now admit that you believe in Absolute Assurance. I knew you were reasonable.

Oh Rick, my position of God's assurance always was and always will be absolute. But it's good to know you've softened a bit regarding personal moral assurance. I knew you were a reasonable man too, despite appearances to the contrary.

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:
I think our respective positions are clear (at least for me) and I certainly don't disagree with you vis-a-vis the absolute assurance of God's promise. In fact, it is central to my own belief system. I simply wanted to make a distinction, as far as one's own personal beliefs are concerned looking inwardly, between on the one hand saying one can prove they were never saved, thereby reducing assurance to a moral one, and on the other hand having absolute assurance no matter what.

Glad to see you've finally come around and now admit that you believe in Absolute Assurance. I knew you were reasonable.

Oh Rick, my position of God's assurance always was and always will be absolute. But it's good to know you've softened a bit regarding personal moral assurance. I knew you were a reasonable man too, despite appearances to the contrary.

Softened? No. My position hasn't changed.

I'm sure Jac will chime in and correct both of us, because you and I aren't supposed to agree.

To further emphasize my own position I will quote from the Joint (Catholic and Lutheran) Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification found in its entirety here:

36.Catholics can share the concern of the Reformers to ground faith in the objective reality of Christ's promise, to look away from one's own experience, and to trust in Christ's forgiving word alone (cf. Mt 16:19; 18:18). With the Second Vatican Council, Catholics state: to have faith is to entrust oneself totally to God,[19] who liberates us from the darkness of sin and death and awakens us to eternal life.[20] In this sense, one cannot believe in God and at the same time consider the divine promise untrustworthy. No one may doubt God's mercy and Christ's merit. Every person, however, may be concerned about his salvation when he looks upon his own weaknesses and shortcomings. Recognizing his own failures, however, the believer may yet be certain that God intends his salvation.

Note the underlined pretty much summarizes where I'm coming from.

Byblos wrote:To further emphasize my own position I will quote from the Joint (Catholic and Lutheran) Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification found in its entirety here:

36.Catholics can share the concern of the Reformers to ground faith in the objective reality of Christ's promise, to look away from one's own experience, and to trust in Christ's forgiving word alone (cf. Mt 16:19; 18:18). With the Second Vatican Council, Catholics state: to have faith is to entrust oneself totally to God,[19] who liberates us from the darkness of sin and death and awakens us to eternal life.[20] In this sense, one cannot believe in God and at the same time consider the divine promise untrustworthy. No one may doubt God's mercy and Christ's merit. Every person, however, may be concerned about his salvation when he looks upon his own weaknesses and shortcomings. Recognizing his own failures, however, the believer may yet be certain that God intends his salvation.

Note the underlined pretty much summarizes where I'm coming from.

So, do you believe in eternal security? OSAS?
Now it's sounding like you do. You seem to be saying that as a believer, you or I may not always have assurance(feeling) of salvation. But since God promised we are secure in Him, we believe God, not our feelings.

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:To further emphasize my own position I will quote from the Joint (Catholic and Lutheran) Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification found in its entirety here:

36.Catholics can share the concern of the Reformers to ground faith in the objective reality of Christ's promise, to look away from one's own experience, and to trust in Christ's forgiving word alone (cf. Mt 16:19; 18:18). With the Second Vatican Council, Catholics state: to have faith is to entrust oneself totally to God,[19] who liberates us from the darkness of sin and death and awakens us to eternal life.[20] In this sense, one cannot believe in God and at the same time consider the divine promise untrustworthy. No one may doubt God's mercy and Christ's merit. Every person, however, may be concerned about his salvation when he looks upon his own weaknesses and shortcomings. Recognizing his own failures, however, the believer may yet be certain that God intends his salvation.

Note the underlined pretty much summarizes where I'm coming from.

So, do you believe in eternal security? OSAS?
Now it's sounding like you do. You seem to be saying that as a believer, you or I may not always have assurance(feeling) of salvation. But since God promised we are secure in Him, we believe God, not our feelings.

Without hesitation or reservation. You want to call that OSAS fine with me.

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:To further emphasize my own position I will quote from the Joint (Catholic and Lutheran) Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification found in its entirety here:

36.Catholics can share the concern of the Reformers to ground faith in the objective reality of Christ's promise, to look away from one's own experience, and to trust in Christ's forgiving word alone (cf. Mt 16:19; 18:18). With the Second Vatican Council, Catholics state: to have faith is to entrust oneself totally to God,[19] who liberates us from the darkness of sin and death and awakens us to eternal life.[20] In this sense, one cannot believe in God and at the same time consider the divine promise untrustworthy. No one may doubt God's mercy and Christ's merit. Every person, however, may be concerned about his salvation when he looks upon his own weaknesses and shortcomings. Recognizing his own failures, however, the believer may yet be certain that God intends his salvation.

Note the underlined pretty much summarizes where I'm coming from.

So, do you believe in eternal security? OSAS?
Now it's sounding like you do. You seem to be saying that as a believer, you or I may not always have assurance(feeling) of salvation. But since God promised we are secure in Him, we believe God, not our feelings.

Without hesitation or reservation. You want to call that OSAS fine with me.

Yes, that's OSAS.

And unless I'm misreading you, it seems like you've changed your belief on this. It was only back in October, that you said this:

Byblos wrote:
My father died when I was 15 years old and this man has not only been my father-in-law but the only father I've known for almost 30 years. Although we didn't see eye-to-eye on theological issues (he teetered between atheism and agnosticism) he did accept Jesus some 15 years ago. I don't know how sincere he was, only he and God know that. What I do know is that this is one of those times that I hope, I wish, I pray that you guys (yes, I mean you Jac) are right, even though I do not consciously accept OSAS.

Did I see a change, or am I just misreading your belief?

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:To further emphasize my own position I will quote from the Joint (Catholic and Lutheran) Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification found in its entirety here:

36.Catholics can share the concern of the Reformers to ground faith in the objective reality of Christ's promise, to look away from one's own experience, and to trust in Christ's forgiving word alone (cf. Mt 16:19; 18:18). With the Second Vatican Council, Catholics state: to have faith is to entrust oneself totally to God,[19] who liberates us from the darkness of sin and death and awakens us to eternal life.[20] In this sense, one cannot believe in God and at the same time consider the divine promise untrustworthy. No one may doubt God's mercy and Christ's merit. Every person, however, may be concerned about his salvation when he looks upon his own weaknesses and shortcomings. Recognizing his own failures, however, the believer may yet be certain that God intends his salvation.

Note the underlined pretty much summarizes where I'm coming from.

So, do you believe in eternal security? OSAS?
Now it's sounding like you do. You seem to be saying that as a believer, you or I may not always have assurance(feeling) of salvation. But since God promised we are secure in Him, we believe God, not our feelings.

Without hesitation or reservation. You want to call that OSAS fine with me.

Yes, that's OSAS.

And unless I'm misreading you, it seems like you've changed your belief on this. It was only back in October, that you said this:

Byblos wrote:
My father died when I was 15 years old and this man has not only been my father-in-law but the only father I've known for almost 30 years. Although we didn't see eye-to-eye on theological issues (he teetered between atheism and agnosticism) he did accept Jesus some 15 years ago. I don't know how sincere he was, only he and God know that. What I do know is that this is one of those times that I hope, I wish, I pray that you guys (yes, I mean you Jac) are right, even though I do not consciously accept OSAS.

Did I see a change, or am I just misreading your belief?

I don't see it as a change of position but more like articulating it properly. That I positively and absolutely trust God over my own feelings was never, ever in doubt. Neither was the fact that I can only muster a moral assurance when looking inwardly. Make of that as you wish.

Byblos wrote:
I don't see it as a change of position but more like articulating it properly. That I positively and absolutely trust God over my own feelings was never, ever in doubt. Neither was the fact that I can only muster a moral assurance when looking inwardly. Make of that as you wish.

I'm glad you said that. And it seems our views aren't really different after all. I just feel like I wasted a lot of time arguing against you with this, when a lot of time and confusion could've been saved if I was able to understand your position better. But, I guess it's better late than never for me.

Honestly, this is one issue that really stumps me as one who trusts God, and takes His promises seriously. I can't understand how a believer, who is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, wouldn't believe God will keep us. And how despite our failings, that God would ever forsake us. As I know how unreliable my heart is, I can only trust in Him. I just see the contrast of how unfaithful I am to Him, and yet He remains true to His promises.

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:
I don't see it as a change of position but more like articulating it properly. That I positively and absolutely trust God over my own feelings was never, ever in doubt. Neither was the fact that I can only muster a moral assurance when looking inwardly. Make of that as you wish.

I'm glad you said that. And it seems our views aren't really different after all. I just feel like I wasted a lot of time arguing against you with this, when a lot of time and confusion could've been saved if I was able to understand your position better. But, I guess it's better late than never for me.

Honestly, this is one issue that really stumps me as one who trusts God, and takes His promises seriously. I can't understand how a believer, who is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, wouldn't believe God will keep us. And how despite our failings, that God would ever forsake us. As I know how unreliable my heart is, I can only trust in Him. I just see the contrast of how unfaithful I am to Him, and yet He remains true to His promises.

It's never a waste of time when it's done in love and respect. And as our mutual good friend is fond of saying, let iron sharpen iron.