Evidence for God from Science

FFC wrote:Was he a child of God when he was living at home?

Yes. And then he died. He was alive again when he repented and came back home. Had he not done so he'd still be dead.

Byblos, are you saying that the son lost his salvation?

zoegirl wrote:Byblos, are you saying that the son lost his salvation?

Yes, Byblos, answer us that.

FFC wrote:

zoegirl wrote:Byblos, are you saying that the son lost his salvation?

Yes, Byblos, answer us that.

That's how I would read the parable of the prodigal son, yes.

Look, I know I'm going to get a lot of heat for this (from both sides, Jac and everyone else), but if one subscribes to Once Saved Always Saved or absolute assurance, then one cannot escape Jac's logic. It is the inescapable logical conclusion of OSAS, i.e. no matter what evidence of faith one displays, or more importantly, the lack thereof, one CANNOT lose their salvation. This business of someone proving they were never saved makes no sense whatsoever. Call it antinomianism or whatever you want but the logic is clear. If you believe in OSAS then you could be Hitler or Stalin and still be saved. While it's an abhorring idea to most, the stance dictates it; there simply is no escaping that.

I am Catholic (is there really anyone who doesn't know that by now?) and as such, I ultimately submit to the authority of the church EVEN IF I DISAGREE with it. In this instance, while I see meritorious evidence on both sides, I must defer to the church on that because when taking scripture in its totality, the preponderance of the evidence leans towards moral assurance, not absolute assurance. I know Jac will pounce on me with John 3:16 here but that's beside the point. My point is that insofar as OSAS, I cannot but agree with Jac's logic.

Byblos wrote:

FFC wrote:

zoegirl wrote:Byblos, are you saying that the son lost his salvation?

Yes, Byblos, answer us that.

That's how I would read the parable of the prodigal son, yes.

I know Jac will pounce on me with John 3:16 here but that's beside the point. My point is that insofar as OSAS, I cannot but agree with Jac's logic.

I would agree with you. The problem with Jac coming and pouncing on you with John 3:16 is that Jac seems to fail to realize that the wording is active and not passive. It states "that whosoever believes..." similar if not exactly like the passage that states, "...all have sinned and fall short..." I believe it is present-continuous. That's not to say that I believe we continually lose and gain our salvation minute by minute.
.
.

BavarianWheels wrote:

Byblos wrote:

FFC wrote:

zoegirl wrote:Byblos, are you saying that the son lost his salvation?

Yes, Byblos, answer us that.

That's how I would read the parable of the prodigal son, yes.

I know Jac will pounce on me with John 3:16 here but that's beside the point. My point is that insofar as OSAS, I cannot but agree with Jac's logic.

I would agree with you. The problem with Jac coming and pouncing on you with John 3:16 is that Jac seems to fail to realize that the wording is active and not passive. It states "that whosoever believes..." similar if not exactly like the passage that states, "...all have sinned and fall short..." I believe it is present-continuous. That's not to say that I believe we continually lose and gain our salvation minute by minute.
.
.

But Who keeps us saved ourselves or God? Or would you say it is a joint effort?

FFC wrote:But Who keeps us saved ourselves or God? Or would you say it is a joint effort?

God gives us the free grace of salvation as well as the free tools (repentance, acts of love and charity poured into our hearts) to keep us from falling away. It is not through our own efforts that we are saved or are kept saved. Our cooperation is not an effort and is nothing to boast about since those gifts are from God alone. Our will to cooperate is much like belief is an exercise of the will (unless one subscribes to total depravity, in which case all of this is a moot point anyway). When we are declared God's children, nothing or no one can take us away from Him; that I believe. We can, however, exercise our own free will to reject Him and He will honor that choice; otherwise, free will is meaningless.

FFC wrote:But Who keeps us saved ourselves or God? Or would you say it is a joint effort?

Christ keeps us as long as we're willing to be kept.
.
.

I was wondering about something. When someone (who at least in some point in his or her life was born again christian) is backsliding, does that person blaspheme? Or should i say is there still some kind of respect for God even in those time of backsliding? Because it is said that the Holy Spirit never leave us. I just can't imagine cursing God while having Holy Spirit in me. I may be wrong because i'm new to faith ( 7 months)

Zoe wrote:No, I say that Christ will sustain those that are NEW CREATIONS, those that He has redeemed, those that believe. The fact that I believe that these are the elect is really a separate issue, iow, you could still believe that GOd is fathful to those who believe without believeing in election. I believe...I am a new creation in Christ.....Christ will sustain me...Christ is faithful

So how do you know you REALLY believe? After all: "there are plenty who consider themselves believers who then discover later on that they were wrong, when the going gets tough, they realize that they didn't believe before. Theirs is a token belief. They didn't believe, even though they thought they did, they were deceived."

Isn't it possible, Zoe, that you are wrong about your belief, about the fact that you are a new creature in Christ whom He will sustain?

Beyond that:

Byblos wrote:Look, I know I'm going to get a lot of heat for this (from both sides, Jac and everyone else), but if one subscribes to Once Saved Always Saved or absolute assurance, then one cannot escape Jac's logic. It is the inescapable logical conclusion of OSAS, i.e. no matter what evidence of faith one displays, or more importantly, the lack thereof, one CANNOT lose their salvation. This business of someone proving they were never saved makes no sense whatsoever. Call it antinomianism or whatever you want but the logic is clear. If you believe in OSAS then you could be Hitler or Stalin and still be saved. While it's an abhorring idea to most, the stance dictates it; there simply is no escaping that.

I am Catholic (is there really anyone who doesn't know that by now?) and as such, I ultimately submit to the authority of the church EVEN IF I DISAGREE with it. In this instance, while I see meritorious evidence on both sides, I must defer to the church on that because when taking scripture in its totality, the preponderance of the evidence leans towards moral assurance, not absolute assurance. I know Jac will pounce on me with John 3:16 here but that's beside the point. My point is that insofar as OSAS, I cannot but agree with Jac's logic.

Well, I appreciate that endorsement, even though you still disagree with me. And while, yes, I do think that John 3:16 means you SHOULD agree with me, I can do no more than I've already done (as you've agreed with the logic).

The difference between you and me, Byblos, is that you have a source of authority that I don't: the RCC. You submit to that, just as I submit to Scripture. More precisely, you submit to the RCC's interpretation of the Scripture, even if they disagree with yours, whereas I submit to my own interpretation of Scripture. But I can't fault you for that any more than I can fault the atheist who doesn't believe the Bible. Look, I have a different source of truth than they do. I recognize Scripture as authoritative, and they don't. So in this, you are simply being consistent with your fundamental position, which is that the Church's interpretation of Scripture is valid and all others are not regardless of your logic.

Now, that's fair. While I still think that the RCC is wrong and in denying OSAS is denying the Gospel, you have a logically consistent reason for believing what you do. What I have a more serious problem with are those who do not have your source of truth and yet refuse to acknowledge the shear logical facts, and thus are being plain irrational.

FFC wrote:...So that begs the question as to whether "fruit" is actually a reliable indicater of a persons status with God, or a general indicater. Anyone who examined the life of Samson or the prodigal son(in his backslidden state) would surely conclude this person was not a child of God but as we read the scriptures we see that they are. I believe a person who is walking in the Spirit will bear fruit, but none of us are walking in the spirit all of the time.

Just my thoughts

Well, they both came to their senses and returned. That was my point. God worked on both and in both accounts, they returned after a period of time elapsed. Samson returned to the Lord (Judges16:28) and the prodigal returned home to his father. That is indeed good fruit.

If they never returned — that would be another story that illustrates the fruit of a stony shallow heart, fruit of a heart bent on walking in the ways of the world, or the fruit of a heart bent on attaining worldly affluence none bothers ever returning to the Lord.

A heart walking by the Spirit will return to the Lord. A heart walking to the ways of the world will not.
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:

FFC wrote:...So that begs the question as to whether "fruit" is actually a reliable indicater of a persons status with God, or a general indicater. Anyone who examined the life of Samson or the prodigal son(in his backslidden state) would surely conclude this person was not a child of God but as we read the scriptures we see that they are. I believe a person who is walking in the Spirit will bear fruit, but none of us are walking in the spirit all of the time.

Just my thoughts

Well, they both came to their senses and returned. That was my point. God worked on both and in both accounts, they returned after a period of time elapsed. Samson returned to the Lord (Judges16:28) and the prodigal returned home to his father. That is indeed good fruit.

If they never returned — that would be another story that illustrates the fruit of a stony shallow heart, fruit of a heart bent on walking in the ways of the world, or the fruit of a heart bent on attaining worldly affluence none bothers ever returning to the Lord.

A heart walking by the Spirit will return to the Lord. A heart walking to the ways of the world will not.
-
-
-

That rings true to me. I think the difference between a backslidden believer and someone who never believed can probably be seen in the condition of their hearts. I think for the most part A backslidden believer will feel guilt and conviction through his time of rebellion but never stop believing. The one who was never saved may talk a good game but not feel any kind of remorse in his wicked lifestyle at all.

BavarianWheels wrote:

FFC wrote:But Who keeps us saved ourselves or God? Or would you say it is a joint effort?

Christ keeps us as long as we're willing to be kept.
.
.

Well that seems to contradict Phillipians 2:13

"for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure." (NASB)

To say it depends on our willingness to keep ourself saved questions God's power. I agree that because of our fleshly nature we can grieve and quench the holy spirit and get out of fellowship with God, but not out of a relationship that christ settled on the cross.

God always remains faithful even when we are faithless.

Of course I know you are talking about someone who flat out doesn't want God in their life anymore. To me that is an indicater that they never were saved.

Jac3510 wrote:Well, I appreciate that endorsement, even though you still disagree with me. And while, yes, I do think that John 3:16 means you SHOULD agree with me, I can do no more than I've already done (as you've agreed with the logic).

I agree with your logic given YOUR interpretation of John 3:16. I didn't say I agree with the interpretation.

Jac3510 wrote:The difference between you and me, Byblos, is that you have a source of authority that I don't: the RCC. You submit to that, just as I submit to Scripture. More precisely, you submit to the RCC's interpretation of the Scripture, even if they disagree with yours, whereas I submit to my own interpretation of Scripture. But I can't fault you for that any more than I can fault the atheist who doesn't believe the Bible. Look, I have a different source of truth than they do. I recognize Scripture as authoritative, and they don't. So in this, you are simply being consistent with your fundamental position, which is that the Church's interpretation of Scripture is valid and all others are not regardless of your logic.

To say because I submit to the church's (interpretive) authority I do not consider scripture as authoritative (or that the church, for that matter, does not consider scripture authoritative) is a fallacy. They're not mutually exclusive. It is not a matter of who is more authoritative than the other, it's a matter of who has the INTERPRETIVE authority over scripture, individuals or the church. The constitution of the United States is meaningless without the proper and, yes authoritative (judicial), body to interpret it. Does SCOTUS change the constitution in any way? No, they interpret it. Can you and I disagree with their decision? Of course we can but we must abide by their interpretation nonetheless.

But we are really getting off track here. My point in all of this is that given YOUR interpretation of John 3:16, and given that to the extent that one believes in OSAS then the ONLY logical conclusion is the one you espouse. We've discussed this many times before and I've always said (and you agreed with me) that there is absolutely no difference between believing you can lose your salvation or believing in the possibility that you might discover at some point that you've never been saved. In either case there is no absolute assurance of salvation, only a moral one. So if one does believe in OSAS and does believe in absolute assurance, then the ONLY tenable position is yours, Jac.

Jac3510 wrote:Now, that's fair. While I still think that the RCC is wrong and in denying OSAS is denying the Gospel, you have a logically consistent reason for believing what you do. What I have a more serious problem with are those who do not have your source of truth and yet refuse to acknowledge the shear logical facts, and thus are being plain irrational.

I agree (not to the part that the RCC is wrong, of course).

FFC wrote:Of course I know you are talking about someone who flat out doesn't want God in their life anymore. To me that is an indicater that they never were saved.

This is exactly what I (and Jac) are talking about. If there is a chance that someone might discover later on that they were never saved, what does that do to absolute assurance and OSAS? The most you can hope for is a moral assurance that you MIGHT be saved (or you MIGHT NOT discover that you never were). But you have no absolute assurance at all.

Conclusion: It is either you agree with Jac or you start looking for RCIA classes at your local Catholic parish .