Evidence for God from Science

You should all just become Calvinists already.

narnia4 wrote:You should all just become Calvinists already.

GOD HELP US ALL!!!!!!

God says he's done what is neccesary for our salvation all we have to do is accept it. Then yes you're right thats what bears fruit. Refer to titus 3:4-5, rom 4:25, eph 2:9, rom 5:8, isa 53:44 Trying to earn salvation is saying Gods sacrifice was not good enough

RickD wrote:

Kureiuo wrote:
I'm seeing you embrace all that. Like I wrote earlier, I hope you're right as then many more will be in heaven. But, many would be put off "Free Grace" based on that alone. Not being able to fathom how a righteous God could do this.

K, just a thought I had while reading this. Many people are "put off" with Christianity because Christians believe someone can live an extremely evil life, and then accept Christ on his deathbed, and go to heaven.

True enough. I am too...

But, then we're all stand damned because all have sinned... so if all the events in someone's life lead them to finally have a decisive change on their deathbed such that they finally trust in Christ, then who am I to question the source of my own cure. I too have taken from the same fountain of life. I am put off that any of us can stand before an entirely righteous God -- yet I hope for our sakes that Christ's promise is true.

However, to say those hate God continue alongside those who love, then it seems to me the purpose of this life is thwarted... which is about God's relationship with us. I don't believe God set up this life we now live to simply accept some proposition or promise, which is only a method God uses to bring about His desired purpose of a loving relationship.

I haven't even gotten into whether it is really an act of mercy for God to force someone who doesn't want to be with Him to do so... CS Lewis reasoned something along the lines that for God to force someone into His presence who didn't want to be would be like sharp shards constantly piercing them. So it is rather compassionate that God's reserves a place for those who hate Him... that is, if Annihilation isn't true (which I don't believe it is).

Kureiuo wrote:
However, to say those hate God continue alongside those who love, then it seems to me the purpose of this life is thwarted... which is about God's relationship with us. Not accepting some proposition or promise which is only a method God uses to bring about His desired purpose.

Tbh, that's probably the most difficult thing for me to grasp about free grace. That one could actually trust in Christ for salvation, receive the HS, then somehow end up hating God.

I just can't understand how the HS would allow a believer to get to that point.

Kureiuo wrote:
I haven't even gotten into whether it is really an act of mercy for God to force someone who doesn't want to be with Him to do so...

That's kinda part of the reason why I believe those who really don't love God, and don't want to be with Him, really never were saved to begin with. I just don't claim to know if such a person never really believed in Christ, or if that person is a believer, has fallen away, and God will draw him back.

And I see an apostate as one who was never saved, whereas Jac says apostates are saved.

jlay wrote: Nothing, whoops, I mean something can separate us.
You know it's interesting that Paul seems to address these same objections to his position.
Let's see, the free grace of God is satanic. Yes, you can be separated. Grace doesn't cover every sin.
I'm sure we all believe G that you just 'naturally' started keeping the Sabbath and going to Synagogue.

Oh please... Nothing can separate us? So you suppose we can sin, kill, destroy, rape, pillage and plunder since G-d's grace is upon us? What does the Bible say?

Romans 6:1-2, “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?”

Ephesians 4:31 Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice.

Ephesians 5:5-6, “For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.”

Hebrews 12:14-15, “Make every effort to live in peace with everyone and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord. Looking carefully lest anyone fall short of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up cause trouble, and by this many become defiled.”

James 1:21 Therefore, get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent and humbly accept the word planted in you, which can save you.

jlay wrote:What G puts forth is just one of the many back door lordship salvation arguments. Some I used to promote myself. Of course, as you can see it turns you into a pharisaical fruit inspector. Of course G thinks he is doing these things. He thinks his Messianic congregation and acting like a Hebrew means he loves god, while we don't. Brilliant.

No.. I'm not saying becoming messianic or acting hebrew means anything... For me, that is what the flow is for my calling.. Not everyone has to do this. I'm certainly not advocating that everyone has to act like this to be saved.

RickD wrote: G, from what I understand about what you and Jac are saying, the qualifier is on Jac's end. You are saying exactly what you said here:"if someone accepts Christ as Lord and savior they will naturally want to repent in accordance to the Bible and abstain from sin Acts 3:19."

I believe Jac is saying that if someone places his trust in Christ, he is saved. And if that person continues to abide in Christ(qualifier, because Jac is saying not all who are saved, continue to abide) that person will produce good fruit.

G, as I understand it, you are saying everyone(without exception) who trusts in Christ will produce fruit. Jac is saying that only those saved who continue to abide in Christ, will produce fruit.

Let me say it again. If a believer believes in Christ, the Holy Spirit will dwell in them to produce fruit in the believer. How? The Holy Spirit with instruct them to do good works according to G-d's word the Bible, John 14:26, 2 Timothy 3:16. Jac's "free grace" however also says that the believer will also produce fruit. How? Naturally without any instruction from the Bible. Why? Because the warped belief system of "free grace" believes that any commandment whether it's in the OT or NT is AUTOMATICALLY legalism.. Therefore IF you follow G-d's commandment's in the Bible, you are trying to attain salvation through legalistic merits.. Plain and simple. This is a HUGE, HUGE error..

G, do you have a Free Grace link that shows what you're saying here? I don't see this from anything that Jac has said. Jac hasn't said that "only mere words can save you". He has said that trusting in Christ ALONE is what saves. What I also see Jac saying, is that it is on the believer to continue to abide in Christ. When a believer abides in Christ, the Holy Spirit WILL sanctify him. I don't see Jac saying Free Grace is a license to sin.

Again he is saying that following G-d's commandments in the Bible are legalism.. That's the difference. In other word's he is trying to trick people out of obeying G-d's commandments thinking that his holy spirit is the source of all truth without the Bible.

G, while I see that from what I've read from Free Grace adherents, it's true that they believe there is nothing that can separate a believer from God's saving Grace. BUT, from what I've read, I haven't seen them say "Therefore who cares... Do whatever you want because G-d's saves me regardless". Do you have a link, or a quote that attributes a "Free Gracer" as saying that? The reason I ask, is that many who don't believe in assurance of salvation, have attributed that belief to me, because I do believe in assurance. And, I certainly don't believe that assurance of salvation is a license to sin. On the other hand, God's Grace allows me the freedom in Christ that doesn't keep me burdened by constantly trying to gain God's approval by my actions. God's assurance tells me I'm already accepted by God, so I can live by God's grace in the spirit as one who is approved. Not as one constantly living with the burden of trying to gain God's approval.

I am accepted by God through trusting Christ. I'm not constantly worrying if I have done enough to keep God's approval of me.

It's not trying to follow G-d to get saved... We follow G-d and WANT to do His will and commandments because we ARE saved. That is the difference here. Will we fall sometimes? Sure.. But we get up off our feet again and try to STOP sinning. Why? The answer is given in 1 John 2:3-7 and 1 John 5:3-4.

Gman wrote:
Because the warped belief system of "free grace" believes that any commandment whether it's in the OT or NT is AUTOMATICALLY legalism.. Therefore IF you follow G-d's commandment's in the Bible, you are trying to attain salvation through legalistic merits.. Plain and simple. This is a HUGE, HUGE error..

Again, from what free grace link did you get this? Or, please provide the quote from Jac with him saying that which you are claiming he's saying. I just didn't see Jac saying this. If I missed it, I'd like to see it.

Gman wrote:
Again he is saying that following G-d's commandments in the Bible are legalism.. That's the difference. In other word's he is trying to trick people out of obeying G-d's commandments thinking that his holy spirit is the source of all truth without the Bible.

Please provide the quote where Jac has said this. I really don't remember him saying this either. I'm beginning to think you are misreading what Jac is saying. But, if you show me Jac's own words that say this...

G, when you claim someone is saying something as specific as you claim Jac has said, I believe the onus is on you to show where he said it. So, either I'm misreading Jac, and I missed where he said what you are claiming he said...or you misread him. By your providing the quote of Jac's words that you are getting your claims from, we can see what he actually said, and work through it together.

RickD wrote:

Kureiuo wrote:
However, to say those hate God continue alongside those who love, then it seems to me the purpose of this life is thwarted... which is about God's relationship with us. Not accepting some proposition or promise which is only a method God uses to bring about His desired purpose.

Tbh, that's probably the most difficult thing for me to grasp about free grace. That one could actually trust in Christ for salvation, receive the HS, then somehow end up hating God.

I just can't understand how the HS would allow a believer to get to that point.

Kureiuo wrote:
I haven't even gotten into whether it is really an act of mercy for God to force someone who doesn't want to be with Him to do so...

That's kinda part of the reason why I believe those who really don't love God, and don't want to be with Him, really never were saved to begin with. I just don't claim to know if such a person never really believed in Christ, or if that person is a believer, has fallen away, and God will draw him back.

And I see an apostate as one who was never saved, whereas Jac says apostates are saved.

And yet again we keep dancing in circles around the same subject. If an apostate is one who was never saved then assurance is at best a moral, not an absolute one. That's as Catholic as anyone can get (Jac is going to say it so might as well save him the trouble).

Byblos wrote:
And yet again we keep dancing in circles around the same subject. If an apostate is one who was never saved then assurance is at best a moral, not an absolute one. That's as Catholic as anyone can get (Jac is going to say it so might as well save him the trouble).

Byblos, when I talk about assurance in this context, I'm talking about a positional assurance that God gives to all who are His sheep. Christ knows His sheep, and He keeps His sheep secure in Him. As for the wolf in sheep's clothing running around with the flock, he has no such assurance from God. That wolf might even believe he's a sheep, and not a wolf. Even some of the sheep might believe he's really a sheep. But God knows he's not one of His sheep, and He gives the wolf no such assurance.
If God promises that all those who place their faith in Christ are guaranteed their salvation, then are you saying that God's promises aren't absolute?

For those who are believers, God has given us the Holy Spirit as a GUARANTEE that our salvation is assured.

2 Corinthians 1:22:
22 who also sealed us and gave us the Spirit in our hearts as a pledge.

The word translated as pledge is:

Strong's Number: 728
Original Word Word Origin
arrabon of Hebrew origin (06162)
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Arrhabon 1:475,80
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
ar-hrab-ohn' Noun Masculine
Definition

an earnest
money which in purchases is given as a pledge or downpayment that the full amount will subsequently be paid

Byblos, God has given us the Holy Spirit as a pledge, a guarantee that our salvation is paid in full! God guarantees it! That my friend is true, absolute assurance!

Gman wrote:
Let me say it again. If a believer believes in Christ, the Holy Spirit will dwell in them to produce fruit in the believer. How? The Holy Spirit with instruct them to do good works according to G-d's word the Bible, John 14:26, 2 Timothy 3:16. Jac's "free grace" however also says that the believer will also produce fruit. How? Naturally without any instruction from the Bible. Why? Because the warped belief system of "free grace" believes that any commandment whether it's in the OT or NT is AUTOMATICALLY legalism.. Therefore IF you follow G-d's commandment's in the Bible, you are trying to attain salvation through legalistic merits.. Plain and simple. This is a HUGE, HUGE error..

G, in addition to making some outright wrong assertions, I think you are mixing two things. There are plenty of Lorship Salvation proponents who make distinctions in "commandments." There are all kinds of commands in the Bible. You as well don't adhere to every command. You have reasons you follow some and not others. You can't simply believe that Christians are supposed to flip open the Bible to any random place and just start doing what it says. No, we have progressive revelation. Do you adhere to how God has chosen to reveal his word? Do you honor what He has appointed for our time?
The NT is full of additional commands. It is also full of instruction. In fact as much as 2/3 of the NT is written to believers with rebuke, correction and instruction on Christian living. Why? Because they were getting it wrong. Even those 1st century believers were screwing it up.

The one key command we are to obey is to trust Christ and nothing else. Not Christ, plus what we might do in the future. It is interesting that since Paul was commissioned by Christ with the newest revelation that he never once instructs believers to follow the Law. In fact, he goes to great lengths to admonish believers to not do that very thing. Much of the instruction to believers from Paul has to do with living that is contrary to their positional identity 'in Christ.' Paul deals as much with the mind and vision of the believer. "Set your eyes upon Christ." "Be transformed by the renewing of your mind." "Don't look back."

So, let's just assume for the moment that a person has properly placed their trust in Christ alone for salvation.
-How many of their sins are forgiven, past, present and future?
-What is required of them to maintain their salvation? (please be specific.)
-Is the blood of Christ insufficient to cover any of their sins? (If no, please provide contextual scriptural support.)
-What can a person do or not do to contribute in any form or fashion to gain or keep their salvation?
-Can this person who trust in Christ, grieve the HS, or act contrary to the way a Christian should?
-If works are necessary, how do we know they are genuine?
-Does trusting in Christ mean a person must be willing to sell all they have and pick up their cross? (If so, then are you saying that a salvation is contingent on the committment of a sinner?)
-Is there any distinction between believer and disciple? (If no, please show this contextually from scripture.)

Have you lusted, or been angry with another person since you trusted Christ? If so, were you in danger of losing your salvation?

Again he is saying that following G-d's commandments in the Bible are legalism.. That's the difference. In other word's he is trying to trick people out of obeying G-d's commandments thinking that his holy spirit is the source of all truth without the Bible.

Well, since we are putting it so bluntly. We could say you've been tricked into thinking that acting like an OT Jew has some value that means you love God more than the rest of us.

It's not trying to follow G-d to get saved... We follow G-d and WANT to do His will and commandments because we ARE saved. That is the difference here. Will we fall sometimes? Sure.. But we get up off our feet again and try to STOP sinning. Why? The answer is given in 1 John 2:3-7 and 1 John 5:3-4.

Absolutely we should want to stop sinning. So, please state it clearly. If we are real believers would we be keeping the Sabbath as you do?
G, Paul dealt with these same objections. The grace of God presented by Paul was so radical that he was nearly ousted by the Jerusalem church. In fact, he dealt with these objections in his writings. It is radical, because it says that even the vilest criminal can be made completely right with God, by trusting Christ and nothing else. If we put conditions on people for salvation, whether up front or slip them in the back door, then they will never produce genuine fruit. Why? Because the measure of their salvation will NEVER be in what Christ has done, but what they are doing. They will always look to their own performance as the measure. It's no wonder we so much religious activity and so little genuine fruit in the church.
I am amazed at how quickly the in-depth doctrinal teaching of Paul can be dismissed because of a few proof texts from James. It really shows the depth of theology today.

Kurieuo wrote:I'm not seeing where I've skewed things but happy to be corrected -- I've tried to leave things quite open to be corrected.

Perhaps it was my commentary on the ontology of "trust". What is "trust"? How is it we come to "trust" in another? This to me requires certain conditions in us to be met, much more than a simple "yes, I believe".

If you are trusting in a proposition, that is different from trusting in a person. To trust in Christ's promise, we must trust in Christ Himself for it is Christ who gave it. So certain conditions need to be met in us before such "trust" can be had. And it's not that those conditions can be force... I can't force myself to trust someone I don't know... rather the trust naturally unfolds and at some point I do hand things over to Christ.

Yes, it was your commentary on trust. I didn't realize that you had stepped away from describing what FG proponents argue. I'll add here that there is a disagreement (and a rather severe one, by the way) in FG camps over pisteuo is fundamentally belief or trust; those who argue the latter (Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin) argue that we are to believe a proposition; those who argue the latter (J. B. Hixon, Charlie Bing) argue that we are to trust a Person. I'm firmly in the latter camp.

Now, there are all kinds of interesting things that come out of that debate, particularly when you get into the sin qua non of the gospel, but they aren't directly related to your issues. I'm just pointing out that there are those people in FG circles who hold that that being persuaded of the truth of certain Christological claims (namely, that whoever believes in Jesus has everlasting life) are saved. They, I think it is fair to say, have the most passive view of all, since we can't (in my view) choose what we believe.

It seems, though, that we would disagree on the ontology of trust. What you describe seems is not, it seems to me, trust, but rather fellowship and devotion. More on that when you discuss it below.

I'm seeing you embrace all that. Like I wrote earlier, I hope you're right as then many more will be in heaven. But, many would be put off "Free Grace" based on that alone. Not being able to fathom how a righteous God could do this.

There is a reason that the Bible calls the gospel offensive. There is nothing all that offensive about saying that if you really love Jesus then you get to go to heaven. The very issue that puts you off, though, I think illuminates the very heart of the gospel. You can't fathom how a righteous God would let someone into heaven who hates Him, when other people (you?) have given their lives to serving Him in love. That's just . . . unrighteous! Those people don't deserve heaven! How can people who hate God get the same heaven as people who hated Him?!?

The fact that they do get the same heaven (though see my comments on rewards below) shows God's grace. This is one of the reasons I love Free Grace so much. It takes God's grace seriously. It is so easy to think about the grace of God towards me. But to think about the grace of God towards Hitler?!? No, that is a step too far. But K, that is exactly it. God really does love Hitler that much. I know that you KNOW that, but think about it a minute. I mean, honestly, stop and ponder it. God is not so angry at Hitler's indescribable evil that He cannot save him, that He would be unwilling to save him. God would be absolutely THRILLED to get to enjoy Hitler's company for all of eternity, because God loves him soooooooooooooooo much. God loves Adolph Hitler infinitely more than you could ever think of loving your own family. Again, I know you KNOW this, but stop and let it sink in a moment. God loved Hitler so much that He took all of Hitler's sins--all the torture and murder and heresy--He took ALL of it and put it on His own Son. Jesus already paid the price for all of Hitler's sins. So when God looks at that man, He doesn't see a wicked, evil, anti-semitic dictator. He sees His creation, whom He loves dearly, dead and separated from Him because of his own sin; He sees one He loved enough to die for, and all He asks is that man to let Him save Him. And if Hitler did that even for a moment, then God would have LEAPT at the chance to justify him. That is God's GRACE. It is undeserved, unmerited favor.

And you know what . . . He LEAPT just as quickly at the chance to justify you. It's really mind bogglingly amazing . . . God's grace is sooooooooo beautiful, K. It's so beautiful that some, you are right, are put off by it. But they are only put off by it, I believe, because of their own judgmental nature. How could God love Hitler so much when we hate him so dearly? Answer: because God is gracious. We aren't. We're sinful, spoiled little kids driven by sinful hearts who every once in an occasion just so happen to experience a moment of love in life. In those very few moments, we are like our Father. But most of the time, we're busy sinning up a storm, and so we react against grace. The problem is with us, and the gospel reveals that problem in all of its darkness.

I guess the next stop is to explore your view on Heaven including any rewards (like difference between those who make it to heaven dying hating God versus those who love God and went about His work through His grace), and Hell.

For example, does everyone get to experience the direct everlasting presence of God, or is Heaven more simply a place that is peaceful... such that some in Heaven can be in God's presence more directly than others rather than God being directly ever-present before all in heaven... the point I'm thinking of being whether someone who died disliking God could shy away from Him in heaven, or whether God perhaps isolates the person in perhaps some "lower place" of heaven...?

The Bible doesn't give details on how the rewards will be meeted out. I believe that all will be in the presence of God but that some will capable of enjoying Him to greater or lesser degrees. But, really, that's more a philosophy question than anything else. I am very attracted to the Catholic view of this (the beatific vision).

As to why a person who hated God in life would want to be near Him, again, I think there is a beautiful answer to that question, and one that further illuminates the grace of God. We hate God in this life because of our sin nature, which is rooted in our flesh. When we are resurrected with a glorified body, we will no longer have that nature, and so that hatred will be gone. In that instant, with no sin nature, we will want nothing more than to be in the presence of God our Father and Savior forever. There is a reason, I suggest, that God will wipe away every tear. We see that verse as a promise of comfort--that God will make all of the hurts we faced in this life better. I see it more as a promise of forgiveness. Imagine, in that instant, when for the very first time you can see you sin in all of its ugliness. You see it now, but only dimly. Imagine seeing it--REALLY seeing it--like Jesus does. Imagine the shame and horror that you absolutely will feel in that moment. I think in THAT moment, the grace of God is going to become far more real than any of us can imagine--so real it will stay with throughout all of eternity. I think, in that moment, the shame will be unbearable. That shame would be absolute Hell were it not for God's loving embrace. He will take us in His arms and say, "It is okay. I still love you. I always did. I always will." Some of us might even hear, "Well done, my good and faithful servant!" And though we might be inclined to argue--how could I have done well despite having ALL THAT SIN--the truth of God will be so overpowering, the direct experience of Him, that we will be able to do nothing other than fall at His feet in adoration. THAT'S the context I see the promise of wiping away the tears. He won't be wiping away the tears of the pain of this life--we, with Paul, will count those sufferings as rubbish, not worth shedding a tear over. He will wipe away the tears of our shame, and he will do so with His infinite love. If that's true of me and you, how much truer of those who lived their lives hating God? For them, the experience of grace could arguably be GREATER! What did Jesus say . . . the one who is forgiven little loves little, but the one who is forgiven much loves much.

"Trust" I think does involve an inward change... however, I agree it is natural -- a passiveness -- not something we just decide to do. The cause of such change required for "trust" to occur is a natural response to God. Like clay hardens in the Sun, but it's not the clay hardening itself... it's just what naturally happens to the clay in response to the Sun.

Also, refer to my previous words on trust. I'm not say you believe "trust" is this or that -- I didn't intend that if it came across that way. Rather, the way I see "trust" works -- the ontology of trust -- requires certain personal conditions to be met before "trust" can occur in someone else.

So I don't know that trust involves an inward change in the same sense you do. First, on change broadly . . . unbelief to belief is a change. Change is nothing more than potentially existing in one state to actually changing in that state. We definitely don't decide what to believe. We are just honest with ourselves about what we believe, and if we don't like it, then we will ourselves to reconsider that belief until we find a way to be persuaded otherwise.

So in one since, trust IS an inward change, but only in the trivial sense that everything is an inward change. You seem to be suggesting that it is a change in disposition or devotion. I think that goes too far. Trust, as I see it, to be rather technical, is not something we do, but something we CEASE to do. When I trust you to do something for me, what I am doing is stopping to work in one way and allowing you to do it on my behalf. That may or may not entail any devotion or fellowship, love or hatred. I promise you that I have no particular fondness for Obama, but I'm perfectly willing to trust him to take care of this country militarily. I don't really have a practical choice to do otherwise, now do I?

Just so with God. It is conceivable that a person, seeing their spiritual state, can realize they have no other choice, and simply stop working and allow Jesus to save them, but at the same time denying their devotion to Him. I'm not saying that is common, of course. I'm saying that it is conceivable. What is far more common is people who don't fully grasp their spiritual state (who does, anyway?), and therefore take for granted the gravity of what Jesus has done for Him. Then, as a result of that, they don't so much hate God as they treat Him with indifference, not being moved enough by the gravity of the gift to devotion.

In all of this, again, the ontology of trust is not something that I do. It is something I CEASE doing. I form the intellectual belief that God is capable of saving me, and I trust Jesus to do it for me.

Now, theologically, I go further and say that if I abide in that trust--if I don't merely trust Jesus to save me on the last day, but I also trust Him to live in me in this life--then I WILL bear fruit. I will bear fruit because HE will do it in me, and I know that because He so promised it. Part of that fruit is the fruit of love. Love for God WILL develop as I abide in that trust. But abiding in the trust of God is a different question than trusting Him to save me. What I absolutely cannot do is trust God to save me, and then, having saved me, take the reigns back so to speak and begin working really hard all over again, only this time, rather than to save myself, to please Him to be a "good Christian." That doesn't please God at all. I'm not trusting. I'm back to doing.

God doesn't want us to do. He wants us to stop doing, to surrender. He wants to do in and through us.

And guess what? All of that is shear grace! All of it is unmerited favor. It doesn't matter how good or bad we are, relative to one another. It doesn't matter if we are Hitler or Billy Graham. God wants the same thing for all of us. He wants us to stop fighting Him and He wants us to just believe Him. Stop being religious. Stop being "good." Stop being Law keepers. Just stop all of it, because we're all sinful anyway. He wants us to just trust Jesus to live in and through us. And when we do, it's amazing . . . He keeps His promise.

The supposed conflict between Paul and James has been debated so much and to be honest, I don;t know why.
It is clear that Paul values good works the stem from God's Grace ( out of love) and it is clear that James understands that good works come from strong faith.
It should be noted that James also states WHICH works he believes has most value - taking care of widows and orphans and NOT speaking badly of anyone.

It seems to me that James is addressing those that CLAIM to have faith but show no evidence of it and He is right to question this because, if there is no evidence of the faith that ONE PROCLAIMS ( and the proclamation part is crucial), how can one believe what is proclaimed by that person?

RickD wrote:Byblos, God has given us the Holy Spirit as a pledge, a guarantee that our salvation is paid in full! God guarantees it! That my friend is true, absolute assurance!

Actually, it isn't, Rick. Byblos is right, in my opinion.

Yes, the HS is a pledge and guarantee of our salvation. But if we can fall away and prove that we never had the HS even though we thought we did, then there is no way to know whether or not you have the HS or not. You can think you do, but you have to admit that if others were deceived about having the HS (which they later proved by falling away), then you, too, could be deceived.

The moment you say that you can prove you were never really saved even though you thought you were, you have denied absolute assurance. The best you can have is moral assurance.

I have absolute assurance, since I say that I can never prove I was never saved. It doesn't matter what I do in the future, I am saved, because even if I am faithless, Jesus is faithful to His promise to save me.

edit:

Just j's post. We need a 'like' button. In the meantime, this will have to suffice:

The only way to blasphemy the HS is to KNOW the HS and then to deny Him, so I think the fact that Jesus said it was a real possibility ( He warned against it) makes me think that it is possible to deny the HS even after knowing Him.
Which means that just because a person knows/has the HS ( Which means they accept Him for how can we know the HS without accepting Him into our lives?)doesn't mean there is no possibility of that person falling out of Grace and deny Him.