Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:

What you're saying is that it is impossible for a true believer to fall away so far as to prove he was never a true believer (but it does happen).

That's not what I'm saying. I believe it is impossible for a true believer to ever fall away to a point that he becomes unsaved. Period.

My question to you is, what of the true believer that apostatizes? Are you saying that's impossible to happen or are you saying he will prove he never was a true believer?

RickD wrote:

On the other hand, Jac says it is IMpossible for a (true) believer to lose their salvation, period, even if they apostatize.

Now you're confusing me. I thought Jac believed that a believer would never lose his salvation. I thought Jac and I both believed in Absolute Assurance of the true believer.

Sorry, that was a typo, I meant IMpossible. As to the question above, Jac would answer the believer is saved no matter what. There is no such thing as one proving they were never saved, no matter the level of apostasy.

RickD wrote:

Jac is absolutely correct, at the heart of this issue is not only faith, but also what "believe" means (as opposed to what "works" are)

Now you're confusing me again. This is what I've been saying, Byblos. Jac is saying that the heart of the issue is not what believe means, but on whom we believe.

Well, Jac said faith, I added the "believe" part because I "believe" it is equally as important.

Guys, I gotta go to work. I'll address the last two posts when I can.

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote:

Jac is absolutely correct, at the heart of this issue is not only faith, but also what "believe" means (as opposed to what "works" are)

Now you're confusing me again. This is what I've been saying, Byblos. Jac is saying that the heart of the issue is not what believe means, but on whom we believe.

Well, Jac said faith, I added the "believe" part because I "believe" it is equally as important.

Just to clarify what I said, I think that the key issue is the definition of faith, whether as a noun or verb (faith/belief/believe, etc.). I'm not going to go back and look at my precise words, but I'm actually trying to say that the question is the nature of faith, and part of that discussion would be whether or not there are different "types" of faith and whether or not it is the quality/type of faith that saves or if it is the object of the faith that saves. In my view, once we come to some clear answers on those questions, we can then properly evaluate the questions relating to works.

So says I, anyway. As always, I could be wrong.

Jac3510 wrote:

Belief in the inner witness of the HS has nothing to do with whether or not a person will listen to the prompting of the HS

I disagree. And maybe it's semantics, but I would have to believe the HS is witnessing to me, the things of God, in order for me to listen to His prompting. If I don't believe he exists, why would I listen to Him?

In any case, even if some make that faulty conclusion, we don't believe something is true because we like (or dislike) the consequences that come from that belief (or disbelief).

Not sure what you're getting at, but I don't always like what the HS tells me.

`

I'm saying that the way you know you are indwelt is because you have believed. I am saying you do NOT know that you believed because you are indwelt. Therefore, you have assurance because you have believed. You do NOT have assurance because the indwelling Spirit tells you so.

I know the HS is in me, because scripture says so. I have assurance because scripture says so. And I have assurance because God's Holy Spirit, gives me peace about the absolute assurance of my salvation. I have assurance of my salvation, because God has promised me assurance. If you're even talking about assurance of my salvation.

But the only way you know any of this is from the HS is because the Bible tells you. That means that your assurance does not come from an inner witness of the Spirit. Your assurance comes from the objective word of God.

Now, I'm not even sure we're talking about the same thing. My assurance of salvation is from God. The HS inside me, IS God. So, how can you say that God doesn't give me assurance of salvation?
My assurance of salvation doesn't come from the "objective word of God"(the bible). The bible points to God. God gives me assurance. The bible is not God.

I've never said the indwelling HS was an experience. I said the inner witness OF the HS (which supposedly comes from the fact that He indwells us) is an experience. Now, more importantly, look at the part of your words I highlighted. This is what your argument boils down to: "I just know it!"

Jac, the inner witness IS the Holy Spirit. He is the inner witness. A witness is a person. The HS is a person.

What's to keep a Buddhist or Hindu or Mormon from saying they just know their God (or whatever their conception is) in an experiential, personal way? I know people who are deeply involved in eastern mysticism. They just KNOW (in a deep, experiential sense) they are one with the universe. They can't describe it, but they have an "inner witness" that comes from having a deep relationship with the Universe (which they personify). You may not want to agree, but your argument is no better or worse than theirs.

I really don't care if a buddhist, Mormon, etc. claims an indwelling of the HS, Jac. Their beliefs don't line up with scripture. I'm not making an argument out of the indwelling HS. I don't try to prove the God of the bible exists, to an unbeliever, by saying "the Holy Spirit is in me, so God exists". The HS gives ME assurance of my faith, in God, through Christs efficacious work. The HS gives ME assurance of my salvation.

That goes to your question. I can't think of anything I've just "known" to be true.

Jac, do you KNOW you are saved?

You may be convinced that something is true, and even correct about it, but if you can't explain it--if you have no reason for it--then you have no rational warrant for that belief.

Jac, that is unrealistic. There are plenty of things I can't explain, but I know are true. God created the heavens and the earth. I believe it, but can't explain it. God exists in 3 persons. I believe in the trinity, but can't explain it.

I'll continue later...

RickD wrote:I disagree. And maybe it's semantics, but I would have to believe the HS is witnessing to me, the things of God, in order for me to listen to His prompting. If I don't believe he exists, why would I listen to Him?

So if we sin or do wrong, this means we do not have the HS?

See Romans 4:9-12 and Galatians 3:6-9
.
.

BavarianWheels wrote:

RickD wrote:I disagree. And maybe it's semantics, but I would have to believe the HS is witnessing to me, the things of God, in order for me to listen to His prompting. If I don't believe he exists, why would I listen to Him?

So if we sin or do wrong, this means we do not have the HS?

See Romans 4:9-12 and Galatians 3:6-9
.
.

Huh?

Let's say, for instance, you are talking to someone who clearly does not believe the Gospel. They believe that the reason they are going to heaven is because they have been a good person. Suppose you give them a perfectly reasonable argument from Scripture as to why they're holding a false Gospel. And then suppose they say, "Yes, that's fine and good, but you must be wrong, because you see, I have an inner witness that tells me I am saved." How can you argue with that? Granted, Truth can't contradict itself, so if Scripture says one thing and they another, they should submit to Scripture. But why should they accept your argument that Scripture says this rather than that when they have a personal witness that assures them of their salvation?

Jac, I have never encountered someone who claimed they were correct about their interpretation of scripture, and said anything like that. I have never been in a debate with someone, and said "I know our interpretations of scripture contradict each other's, but I have the trump card; the indwelling of the HS." To me that's absolutely unrealistic.

Now, all those problems can be dealt with one by one. But here's the bigger point: there is no biblical reason to believe in a so called inner witness of the Holy Spirit. The only verse that can suggest as much is better translated another way entirely. So why believe it?

I couldn't disagree more. Like I said before, the inner witness IS the Holy Spirit. Just do a simple search for "indwelling of the Holy Spirit scripture", and you'll see all the scripture telling you that a believer has the Holy Spirit, when they believe on Christ. Like I asked you before, haven't you ever prayed for some answer, and God has spoken to you? That's the inner witness of the HS. Have you ever been strongly convicted of a sin you committed? Inner witness of the HS.

Byblos wrote:

My question to you is, what of the true believer that apostatizes? Are you saying that's impossible to happen or are you saying he will prove he never was a true believer?

I'm saying either 1) he was never a true believer
or 2) he is a true believer who has fallen away, but is still saved

Which one of the two, is between God and him. And he will find out when he dies. I can't have assurance of anyone else's salvation but my own. That's between them and God.

Some people may have all the outward signs of being a believer, but are not. Some people may have all the signs of what some people would consider an apostate, but are a true believer who has just fallen away.

RickD wrote:I disagree. And maybe it's semantics, but I would have to believe the HS is witnessing to me, the things of God, in order for me to listen to His prompting. If I don't believe he exists, why would I listen to Him?

I don't believe the HS is witnessing to me, and I listen to His prompting. I know lots of people who hold exactly the same position.

Not sure what you're getting at, but I don't always like what the HS tells me.

You seemed to imply that one of the reasons we should believe in the internal witnessing of the Holy Spirit is that, if people deny it, they will ignore His prompting. But that's an appeal to consequence. The response to that would not be that we should therefore believe in the witnessing of the Spirit, but rather that people should listen to His prompting and are mistaken in ignoring it.

And I have assurance because God's Holy Spirit, gives me peace about the absolute assurance of my salvation.

I am saying this is where you are mistaken. That peace and absolute assurance is an experience that may be incorrect. Some Muslims have peace and absolute assurance, too. So do some Mormons. And some Hindus, etc. That is, internal peace is no proper basis of assurance.

Now, I'm not even sure we're talking about the same thing. My assurance of salvation is from God. The HS inside me, IS God. So, how can you say that God doesn't give me assurance of salvation?
My assurance of salvation doesn't come from the "objective word of God"(the bible). The bible points to God. God gives me assurance. The bible is not God.

God gives you assurance mediately, that is, through His Word (the Bible). He does not give it to you immediately (through the direct witnessing of the Spirit).

Jac, the inner witness IS the Holy Spirit. He is the inner witness. A witness is a person. The HS is a person.

I've been using "witness" verbally. I've switched to the participle in this reply and will do so from here on out to emphasize that.

I really don't care if a buddhist, Mormon, etc. claims an indwelling of the HS, Jac. Their beliefs don't line up with scripture. I'm not making an argument out of the indwelling HS. I don't try to prove the God of the bible exists, to an unbeliever, by saying "the Holy Spirit is in me, so God exists". The HS gives ME assurance of my faith, in God, through Christs efficacious work. The HS gives ME assurance of my salvation.

Then you are just being intellectually dishonest. You say that Mormons have an inner conviction that they are saved, but that they ought not place any confidence in that inner conviction; and yet, you have an inner conviction, but you can place confidence in your conviction. Goose and gander, Rick. You need to be consistent. Their assurance is mistaken because they are objectively wrong. Their internal witness is meaningless. Why? Because internal convictions are always meaningless. That is, they have no epistemological value.

Jac, do you KNOW you are saved?

Of course. Objectively so. Not subjectively.

Jac, that is unrealistic. There are plenty of things I can't explain, but I know are true. God created the heavens and the earth. I believe it, but can't explain it. God exists in 3 persons. I believe in the trinity, but can't explain it.

Then you just have an unwarranted belief in the Trinity. Many of us can explain it, and our beliefs on that are warranted.

I'm not saying, Rick, that your personal conviction that you are saved is mistaken. I'm not even saying it is unwarranted. To the extent that it is based on Scripture, it is warranted. All who believe have eternal life; Rick believes; therefore, Rick has eternal life. That's objective. But to the extent that your assurance is based on private conviction, it is unwarranted.

Jac, I have never encountered someone who claimed they were correct about their interpretation of scripture, and said anything like that. I have never been in a debate with someone, and said "I know our interpretations of scripture contradict each other's, but I have the trump card; the indwelling of the HS." To me that's absolutely unrealistic.

I have. They're called Mormons. They call it "the burning of the bosom." It's central to their theology, actually.

I couldn't disagree more. Like I said before, the inner witness IS the Holy Spirit. Just do a simple search for "indwelling of the Holy Spirit scripture", and you'll see all the scripture telling you that a believer has the Holy Spirit, when they believe on Christ. Like I asked you before, haven't you ever prayed for some answer, and God has spoken to you? That's the inner witness of the HS. Have you ever been strongly convicted of a sin you committed? Inner witness of the HS.

Again, I've been using "witness" verbally, not substantively. AGAIN, I am not denying that all believers are indwelt. I've told you that several times now, Rick. Read my words. And I agree that the Holy Spirit is a witness. What I deny is that the Holy Spirit, indwelling you, witnesses to you that you are saved. The object of the witnessing is not you. Witnesses testify; the Spirit, as a witness, is not testifying to you concerning your salvation. He is testifying along with you to God concerning your salvation.

The one who witnesses TO YOU concerning your salvation is Scripture. To the extent the HS witnesses TO YOU, it is simply to the extent that He illuminates Scripture to your mind. But note, again, that even that witness TO YOU is objective, because it's nothing more than Him bringing Scripture to your mind. Again, your assurance here is mediate; not immediate.

Anyway, I disagree that God speaking to you is the inner witness of the HS. Beyond the fact that there is NO verse that says that (I challenge you to show me one verse that calls an answer to prayer the Holy Spirits witnessing to you), the Bible is also clear that non-believers have had their prayers answered. Is that the HS' indwelling of them? Obviously not. So having your prayers answered and being prompted by the Spirit to do this or that is not identical with the indwelling. Consider again OT Saints. They were not indwelt, and yet they had their prayers answered and they heeded the prompting of the Spirit. So you've just made an incorrect identification here.

Bottom line: we can be 100% sure of our salvation, and objectively so, because the BIBLE says that everyone who believes has eternal life. There is no need, room, or place for an internal, subjective testimony just telling you that you are saved so that you just "know it."

RickD wrote:I disagree. And maybe it's semantics, but I would have to believe the HS is witnessing to me, the things of God, in order for me to listen to His prompting. If I don't believe he exists, why would I listen to Him?


I don't believe the HS is witnessing to me, and I listen to His prompting. I know lots of people who hold exactly the same position.

Ok, then we disagree.

You seemed to imply that one of the reasons we should believe in the internal witnessing of the Holy Spirit is that, if people deny it, they will ignore His prompting. But that's an appeal to consequence. The response to that would not be that we should therefore believe in the witnessing of the Spirit, but rather that people should listen to His prompting and are mistaken in ignoring it.

Not really. I was basically saying that one should probably believe it actually is the Holy Spirit communicating with us, or one might not listen. Yes, we should not ignore the Holy Spirit. But don't you think we should believe it's actually the Holy Spirit, first?

I am saying this is where you are mistaken. That peace and absolute assurance is an experience that may be incorrect. Some Muslims have peace and absolute assurance, too. So do some Mormons. And some Hindus, etc. That is, internal peace is no proper basis of assurance.

I disagree. Muslims, Mormons, etc. may have a feeling of absolute assurance. The only Muslims, Mormons, or anyone else, that have absolute assurance, are the ones who have trusted Christ. Absolute assurance isn't a feeling that we get inside. Absolute assurance is what God has given us in Christ. God has given us Absolute assurance, or a guarantee. It's a guarantee from God, not a feeling of assurance.

God gives you assurance mediately, that is, through His Word (the Bible). He does not give it to you immediately (through the direct witnessing of the Spirit).

I disagree. God gives me assurance(not the feeling of assurance) through Christ. God tells me I have assurance through the bible. Otherwise, Christians who believe on Christ, and don't have access to a bible, wouldn't have assurance.

I really don't care if a buddhist, Mormon, etc. claims an indwelling of the HS, Jac. Their beliefs don't line up with scripture. I'm not making an argument out of the indwelling HS. I don't try to prove the God of the bible exists, to an unbeliever, by saying "the Holy Spirit is in me, so God exists". The HS gives ME assurance of my faith, in God, through Christs efficacious work. The HS gives ME assurance of my salvation.


Then you are just being intellectually dishonest.

How so?

You say that Mormons have an inner conviction that they are saved, but that they ought not place any confidence in that inner conviction; and yet, you have an inner conviction, but you can place confidence in your conviction.

Where have I ever said that Mormons have an inner conviction that they are saved? I thought you said that. You know, the whole "bosom thing".

you have an inner conviction, but you can place confidence in your conviction.

Jac, the indwelling Holy Spirit, isn't my entire basis for believing I am eternally secure in Christ.

Their assurance is mistaken because they are objectively wrong. Their internal witness is meaningless. Why? Because internal convictions are always meaningless. That is, they have no epistemological value.

Their assurance is mistaken, because it is a feeling of assurance. It's not assurance that God gives to true believers.

Jac, do you KNOW you are saved?


Of course. Objectively so. Not subjectively.

But, you said:

I can't think of anything I've just "known" to be true.

Then you just have an unwarranted belief in the Trinity. Many of us can explain it, and our beliefs on that are warranted.

If you can explain the trinity, that means you must be able to understand the trinity. Please, start a thread, and explain the trinity to the rest of us who can't quite grasp the "One God, in three persons" concept.

I'm not saying, Rick, that your personal conviction that you are saved is mistaken. I'm not even saying it is unwarranted. To the extent that it is based on Scripture, it is warranted. All who believe have eternal life; Rick believes; therefore, Rick has eternal life. That's objective. But to the extent that your assurance is based on private conviction, it is unwarranted.

Jac, of course my personal conviction is based on how I interpret scripture. I never said my assurance(feeling) of salvation is "based on" private conviction. I said my assurance is the same assurance God has given to all true believers. If one is a true believer, one doesn't have to have a feeling of assurance, to have absolute assurance of salvation.

Jac, I have never encountered someone who claimed they were correct about their interpretation of scripture, and said anything like that. I have never been in a debate with someone, and said "I know our interpretations of scripture contradict each other's, but I have the trump card; the indwelling of the HS." To me that's absolutely unrealistic.


I have. They're called Mormons. They call it "the burning of the bosom." It's central to their theology, actually.

That's neither here nor there. I have never used the indwelling of the HS, as an argument to prove I'm saved, and someone else isn't. Or my interpretation is correct, and an unbeliever's isn't.

Again, I've been using "witness" verbally, not substantively. AGAIN, I am not denying that all believers are indwelt. I've told you that several times now, Rick. Read my words. And I agree that the Holy Spirit is a witness. What I deny is that the Holy Spirit, indwelling you, witnesses to you that you are saved.

Jac, from whom do you get, "the peace that passes all understanding"? Jac, the HS witnesses to me that God's promises of absolute assurance are true. You can deny it until the cows come home. That's your choice.

Witnesses testify; the Spirit, as a witness, is not testifying to you concerning your salvation. He is testifying along with you to God concerning your salvation.

Whatever you choose to call what the Holy Spirit does, He shows me that God's promises about my salvation are true. You can disagree. That's fine.

The one who witnesses TO YOU concerning your salvation is Scripture. To the extent the HS witnesses TO YOU, it is simply to the extent that He illuminates Scripture to your mind. But note, again, that even that witness TO YOU is objective, because it's nothing more than Him bringing Scripture to your mind. Again, your assurance here is mediate; not immediate.

JAC, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I'M SAYING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!THE HOLY SPIRIT WITNESSES TO MY SPIRIT, THAT GOD'S PROMISES OF ASSURANCE ARE TRUE!!!
Are God's promises still true, if I haven't read the scripture, that speaks about the promises? Of course. So, again I ask, what about those who don't have access to scripture? The Holy Spirit won't speak to them? And again, I'm not talking about a feeling of assurance.

Anyway, I disagree that God speaking to you is the inner witness of the HS.

That's fine. You can disagree until the cows come home. The Holy Spirit has spoken to me. He has convicted me at times, He has downright told me audible words at times. He has given me a little leading, at other times. Maybe the Holy Spirit has never spoken to you. Or maybe you just don't realize that it's the Holy Spirit.

(I challenge you to show me one verse that calls an answer to prayer the Holy Spirits witnessing to you),

Jac, if the Lord answers a prayer, by speaking to me by the Holy Spirit(I'm certainly not saying that's the only way God answers my prayers), I wouldn't call that the Holy Spirit "witnessing" to me. I would just call that the HS speaking to me.

the Bible is also clear that non-believers have had their prayers answered.Agree Is that the HS' indwelling of them? Obviously not.agree So having your prayers answered and being prompted by the Spirit to do this or that is not identical with the indwelling.Not identical, but when God chooses to answer my prayers by the HS's prompting, it can be from the indwelling HS. Consider again OT Saints. They were not indwelt, and yet they had their prayers answered and they heeded the prompting of the Spirit. So you've just made an incorrect identification here.Never said whenever God answers my prayers, it's always by the Holy Spirit, speaking to me.

Bottom line: we can be 100% sure of our salvation, and objectively so, because the BIBLE says that everyone who believes has eternal life. There is no need, room, or place for an internal, subjective testimony just telling you that you are saved so that you just "know it."

Jac, can you be 100% sure that your interpretation of scripture, regarding salvation is objectively so? So, there is no need, room, or place, for the Holy Spirit of God, who is God Himself, to testify to my spirit, that God's written word is true?

Bottom line: Absolute assurance is NOT a feeling of assurance. Anyone can have a feeling of assurance. Absolute assurance is given by God, to all true believers.

Rick, I don't know how to make myself any clearer than I already have. At this point, you seem to be getting angry and frustrated, so I'm content to let this go. Suffice it to say that I deeply disagree with about half of what you are saying, and I find it very dangerous. But such is the nature of theological discussion. We can agree to agreeably disagree.

Jac3510 wrote:Rick, I don't know how to make myself any clearer than I already have. At this point, you seem to be getting angry and frustrated, so I'm content to let this go. Suffice it to say that I deeply disagree with about half of what you are saying, and I find it very dangerous. But such is the nature of theological discussion. We can agree to agreeably disagree.

Wow Jack, I forgot you lived in Atlanta GA - I was there last week for a two days for a short vacation. Should have mentioned it and maybe we could have met for coffee. The hotel stayed at was near Dr. Stanley's - First Baptist - very nice church too.

Blessings...

Ah, definitely too bad. I actually live less than three miles from FBA. I just had my graduation ceremony there this past weekend. If you (or anybody else, for that matter) decide to stop by, let me know. I've been stupid busy recently, but my schedule is cleared out now. I kind of like it, haha.

The common denominator in understanding scripture or listening to the witness of the Holy Spirit within us is that both involve elements of ourselves that can interpret or understand wrongly. In theory anyway, if Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit then the two should never be in disagreement. It's easier, of course to focus upon Scripture because it is more fixed and tangible, but even reading and understanding Scripture involves (or should I believe) an element of the Holy Spirit working within us to bring us to understanding. Of course, even with Scripture being tangible and in front of us and many people believing that the Holy Spirit has guided us into truth, at least in the Protestant world we have over 30,000 denominations which gives testimony to the different understandings that can come out.

The early Church, to my understanding was more concerned with focusing upon the person of Jesus Christ. The title "Word of God" was focused upon Him and the gospel message of grace that was preached and witnessed to and spread like wildfire even before the existence and subsequent recognition and canonization of New Testament Scripture. Of course too, the Holy Spirit is referred to as the Spirit of Christ. If Christ is a real person (and I believe He is), still in existence today (and I believe He is), and the bible is part of God's plan in revealing Christ and Himself to us (and I believe it is) then there's a need I believe not to confuse those elements and their internal consistent agreement with what we come up with through the lens of our interpretation. One of the more important elements in my mind for how this works is within the context of community and body life where we are to be continually "one anothering" each other (there are 58 of these in the New Testament) and to not be so individually focused on our own understandings that we lose sight that the same scripture is available to others and the same Holy Spirit is residing within them and we need to give heed to the resources God has given us in one another within the body.

Coming to understandings is a process that involves both epiphanies where things may become clear quicky and progress made over the course of a lifetime where what we come to know reflects its accuracy by how well it leads us to live in harmony with God and Christ.

My thoughts anyway for what they are worth.

Jac3510 wrote:Rick, I don't know how to make myself any clearer than I already have. At this point, you seem to be getting angry and frustrated, so I'm content to let this go. Suffice it to say that I deeply disagree with about half of what you are saying, and I find it very dangerous. But such is the nature of theological discussion. We can agree to agreeably disagree.

Jac, I'm not at all angry. But, I'm clearly frustrated. I still don't think you understand what I'm saying. I have absolutely no problem disagreeing with you, because your interpretation is not the standard by which I believe what I believe. Just like nobody here is that standard. My biggest problem with what you're saying, is that you say anyone can have assurance. Anyone can have a feeling of assurance. But only true believers in Christ, have real genuine assurance. That is, we as believers are assured of salvation, because God has assured us, not because we feel like we are saved.
And, disagreeing with what you think I'm saying, is one thing, but calling it dangerous, that's something that is completely unwarranted. If you are going to make a claim that my belief is dangerous, first, I hope you would understand what I'm saying, and I don't think you do. Part of that is probably my fault, because of how I'm explaining myself. And second, if you're going to make the claim that what I'm saying is dangerous, then you should show why it's dangerous.