Am I a Christian?

[RickD]

Also if we have two natures then that would explain how the bible says if we are born of God we cannot sin but the bible also says if we say we have no sin we are decieving ourselves.

I saw this explained that if you are born again then you can not continue in habitual sin.

But many people struggle and are ensnared with addicitons and fears. That could be considered habitual sin.


http://carm.org/can-true-christian-sin

I think we need to be careful with the No True Scotsman fallacy. The truth is, many Christians do fall into habitual sin.

[Byblos]

Found this also
https://gracethrufaith.com/ask-a-bible- ... digal-son/

The answer in that link is what I've been saying to Byblos.

I'm suing them for stealing my answer!

How does that contradict, much less even address, the two points I've raised?

[RickD]

Found this also
https://gracethrufaith.com/ask-a-bible- ... digal-son/

The answer in that link is what I've been saying to Byblos.

I'm suing them for stealing my answer!

How does that contradict, much less even address, the two points I've raised?

I would say it contradicts your position against OSAS.

The prodigal went through a period of rebellion and left his father’s house but there was nothing he could do to sever his connection to his father. He could not stop being his father’s son. Once we are born again the same restriction applies to us. In 2 Cor. 1:21-22 Paul wrote that God has set his seal of ownership on us and put His spirit in our hearts as a deposit guaranteeing this.

[RickD]

Will we have free will in heaven?

Yes. In the presence of the beatific vision and without our fallen sinful nature we are incapable of choosing sin, no less the unforgivable sin, i.e. total separation from God.

Clearly that's not applicable to us here, even if one subscribes to the concept of two natures. Evidently the second new sinless nature just lays there in a dormant state considering we go on sinning.

I guess if you think we have free will in heaven, and can't fall, it's not a stretch for you to also believe that we can still have free will here, while allowing that God will never leave us. Even if we sin to the point of saying we don't believe anymore. And again, I'm not sure if Christians ever stop believing totally. I believe God will always try to woo us back to Him when we stray. However far we stray.

[Nessa]

I believe God will always try to woo us back to Him when we stray. However far we stray.

Sometimes I think God's style of wooing leaves alot to be desired....

Pain insists upon being attended to. God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our consciences, but shouts in our pains. It is his megaphone to rouse a deaf world.

- C.S. Lewis

[RickD]

I believe God will always try to woo us back to Him when we stray. However far we stray.

Sometimes I think God's style of wooing leaves alot to be desired....

Pain insists upon being attended to. God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our consciences, but shouts in our pains. It is his megaphone to rouse a deaf world.

- C.S. Lewis

Maybe you're just not listening, Kenny Nessa.

[Kurieuo]

Rick, I'd like to also direct my previous questions to SoCal to you also. Mainly the second question if the first doesn't apply.

[SoCalExile]

Again, I don't believe in perseverance. One either does or doesn't believe in Christ.

Yet if they don't persevere, they didn't believe. Which in the practical sense, means they must persevere to be saved.

Which is the doctrine of 'Perseverance of the Saints".

You essentially acknowledge in relation to Matt 7:21-23 that such people there didn't believe.
So then, you see the importance of having belief in Christ versus some pseudo-belief/s about Christ.

To be specific, you reasoned that they really believed in themselves. Two questions here. Why is believing in one's self incompatible with belief in Christ? What distinction are you making between their beliefs in Christ, and those beliefs of a real authentic Christian?

The issue here is the idea that someone who born-again can fall away, or commit a serious sin. You're trying to use a situation, where people who aren't born-again can pretend they are, to prove a point not addressed there, while ignoring the Bible in situations where a born-again believer did do what you say they couldn't.

Yet while trying to avoid the proper theological term for your belief!

[RickD]

Again, I don't believe in perseverance. One either does or doesn't believe in Christ.

Yet if they don't persevere, they didn't believe. Which in the practical sense, means they must persevere to be saved.

Which is the doctrine of 'Perseverance of the Saints".

You essentially acknowledge in relation to Matt 7:21-23 that such people there didn't believe.
So then, you see the importance of having belief in Christ versus some pseudo-belief/s about Christ.

To be specific, you reasoned that they really believed in themselves. Two questions here. Why is believing in one's self incompatible with belief in Christ? What distinction are you making between their beliefs in Christ, and those beliefs of a real authentic Christian?

I'm not sure what you're asking in the second part.

OSAS, as far as I understand, is consistent with believers possibly falling away. It's just that falling away doesn't mean losing salvation.

Or, some would say that if someone falls away, he was never saved. And I would say, someone can fall away, and still be saved.

Not sure if that answers what you were looking for. If not, rephrase it and I'll try to address it again.

[Byblos]

Found this also
https://gracethrufaith.com/ask-a-bible- ... digal-son/

The answer in that link is what I've been saying to Byblos.

I'm suing them for stealing my answer!

How does that contradict, much less even address, the two points I've raised?

I would say it contradicts your position against OSAS.

That's not the point (whether or not it contradicts my position), that's a given. The point is that it offers nothing to say on why assurance is not negated if one can prove they were never saved nor does it say anything about negating free will.

The prodigal went through a period of rebellion and left his father’s house but there was nothing he could do to sever his connection to his father. He could not stop being his father’s son. Once we are born again the same restriction applies to us. In 2 Cor. 1:21-22 Paul wrote that God has set his seal of ownership on us and put His spirit in our hearts as a deposit guaranteeing this.

You keep asserting this (that the son will always be the father's son) but that's trivially obvious and utterly besides the point. The point is that the son chose to separate himself from his father and was considered dead, until when? Until he chose to return to the father. Had he not returned to the father, what would he be? A son, but a dead one nonetheless.

Will we have free will in heaven?

Yes. In the presence of the beatific vision and without our fallen sinful nature we are incapable of choosing sin, no less the unforgivable sin, i.e. total separation from God.

Clearly that's not applicable to us here, even if one subscribes to the concept of two natures. Evidently the second new sinless nature just lays there in a dormant state considering we go on sinning.

I guess if you think we have free will in heaven, and can't fall, it's not a stretch for you to also believe that we can still have free will here, while allowing that God will never leave us. Even if we sin to the point of saying we don't believe anymore. And again, I'm not sure if Christians ever stop believing totally. I believe God will always try to woo us back to Him when we stray. However far we stray.

Of course God will try to woo us back, it's called sanctification through reconciliation.

[RickD]

Byblos wrote:

That's not the point (whether or not it contradicts my position), that's a given. The point is that it offers nothing to say on why assurance is not negated if one can prove they were never saved nor does it say anything about negating free will.

You're right. It doesn't address either of those points.

But I can't understand how assurance is negated if one can prove one was never saved. Assurance is only for those who ARE saved.

1) believe on Christ= eternal life

2) eternal life=assurance(God's promise to keep one saved)

Byblos wrote:

You keep asserting this (that the son will always be the father's son) but that's trivially obvious and utterly besides the point. The point is that the son chose to separate himself from his father and was considered dead, until when? Until he chose to return to the father. Had he not returned to the father, what would he be? A son, but a dead one nonetheless.

It's not besides the point. He is always the son, just like a believer is always a child of God, once saved. And being a child of God means God will never let him go. Period. That's what's consistent with OSAS. We are a new creation in Christ. Bought and paid for by Christ, sealed by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is God's pledge. His promise that we are His forever. He will never leave us nor forsake us. Nothing can separate us from the love of God...

[Byblos]

But I can't understand how assurance is negated if one can prove one was never saved. Assurance is only for those who ARE saved.

Unless or until they prove they weren't.

Byblos wrote:

You keep asserting this (that the son will always be the father's son) but that's trivially obvious and utterly besides the point. The point is that the son chose to separate himself from his father and was considered dead, until when? Until he chose to return to the father. Had he not returned to the father, what would he be? A son, but a dead one nonetheless.

It's not besides the point. He is always the son, just like a believer is always a child of God, once saved. And being a child of God means God will never let him go. Period. That's what's consistent with OSAS. We are a new creation in Christ. Bought and paid for by Christ, sealed by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is God's pledge. His promise that we are His forever. He will never leave us nor forsake us. Nothing can separate us from the love of God...

I'm not exactly sure what else to say on this other than yes, the son is still a son but deader than a door nail unless he returns. The son-ship label is useless when one is not alive in the Father.

[RickD]

But I can't understand how assurance is negated if one can prove one was never saved. Assurance is only for those who ARE saved.

Unless or until they prove they weren't.
That's neither here nor there. If one proves to himself he was never saved, then he never had assurance.

Byblos wrote:

You keep asserting this (that the son will always be the father's son) but that's trivially obvious and utterly besides the point. The point is that the son chose to separate himself from his father and was considered dead, until when? Until he chose to return to the father. Had he not returned to the father, what would he be? A son, but a dead one nonetheless.

It's not besides the point. He is always the son, just like a believer is always a child of God, once saved. And being a child of God means God will never let him go. Period. That's what's consistent with OSAS. We are a new creation in Christ. Bought and paid for by Christ, sealed by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is God's pledge. His promise that we are His forever. He will never leave us nor forsake us. Nothing can separate us from the love of God...

I'm not exactly sure what else to say on this other than yes, the son is still a son but deader than a door nail unless he returns. The son-ship label is useless when one is not alive in the Father.
And again, I'd just say that one who believed in Christ, has eternal life, and is and always will be alive in the Father.

[Byblos]

But I can't understand how assurance is negated if one can prove one was never saved. Assurance is only for those who ARE saved.

Unless or until they prove they weren't.
That's neither here nor there. If one proves to himself he was never saved, then he never had assurance.

That's the whole point.

Byblos wrote:

You keep asserting this (that the son will always be the father's son) but that's trivially obvious and utterly besides the point. The point is that the son chose to separate himself from his father and was considered dead, until when? Until he chose to return to the father. Had he not returned to the father, what would he be? A son, but a dead one nonetheless.

It's not besides the point. He is always the son, just like a believer is always a child of God, once saved. And being a child of God means God will never let him go. Period. That's what's consistent with OSAS. We are a new creation in Christ. Bought and paid for by Christ, sealed by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is God's pledge. His promise that we are His forever. He will never leave us nor forsake us. Nothing can separate us from the love of God...

I'm not exactly sure what else to say on this other than yes, the son is still a son but deader than a door nail unless he returns. The son-ship label is useless when one is not alive in the Father.
And again, I'd just say that one who believed in Christ, has eternal life, and is and always will be alive in the Father.

I mean I understand perfectly what you're saying, it's just that I don't think you're answering what I'm saying. But at this stage I'd simply be repeating myself over and over with nothing new to add. And with that ...

[B. W.]

...I read recently that 50 percent of all born-again Christians don’t have the assurance of salvation. Maybe some just need to memorize some pertinent passages on the assurance of salvation, like 1 John 5:13, and realize that God's Word does indeed promise that salvation is the present possession of every true follower of Christ.

On the other hand, perhaps a lot of so-called Christians do not have the assurance of salvation because they are not really saved. Just because you attend church or engage in certain religious activities does not necessarily mean you are a Christian. The Apostle Paul instructed those in the early church to examine themselves to see if their faith was genuine (2 Corinthians 13:5).
So, how do I know if you are a Christian? How do you know if I'm one? There must be evidence. Jesus said, "By their fruits you shall know them" (Matthew 7:20). If someone examined your life, would they find any spiritual fruit—hard evidence to prove that you are a true follower of Jesus Christ?

Or, let me put it another way: If you were arrested for being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you? By "evidence," I don't mean how many Bibles you own, or how many bumper stickers you might have on your car with Christian sayings on them. I mean hard evidence. If your family members, neighbors, and coworkers were interviewed and asked the question, "Is (your name here), in your opinion, a real Christian?" we might not be happy with the response.

The only way others can tell whether you are a Christian is by your works. While all the good works in the world won't save a person (Titus 3:5), they are reasonable evidence that someone is saved.
In a nutshell, all the great religions of the world, apart from Christianity, say, "Do." "Do this and you might go to heaven," "Do that and you might find nirvana," and so on. Christianity, in contrast, says, "Done."

In other words, God has taken care of your salvation through the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross. He cried out, "It is finished!" He purchased your ticket to heaven at the cross. But having received that ticket, your life should reflect your commitment to Christ. Works won't save you, but if you really are saved, then works will follow (2 Corinthians 5:17). Has that happened to you? Has there been a change in your life?

In Acts 26, the Bible outlines three steps you must take to be sure you are a Christian. This is important to understand, because you may be living under false hope, and ultimately, have a false assurance of salvation. When Paul spoke to King Agrippa and described how God had called him to preach the gospel message, he essentially broke that message down and in so many words, defined it.

Paul said that God told him to preach the gospel, which was comprised of a person hearing it, realizing it was given " 'to open their eyes, so they may turn from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God. Then they will receive forgiveness of sins and be given a place among God's people, who are set apart by faith in [Christ]' " (Acts 26:18).
So first, you must have your eyes opened. A spiritual blindness afflicts those who have not yet turned their lives over to Jesus Christ, because "Satan . . . has blinded the minds of those who don't believe . . ." (2 Corinthians 4:4 NLT).

Second, you must turn from darkness to light. Satan loves darkness. Hell is referred to as outer darkness. If you want to really believe, then you need to come out of the darkness and into the light (Acts 26:18).

Third, you must turn from the power of Satan to God. A lot of people today want to live in two worlds. If you want to be a Christian on Sunday, but want to live the other way the rest of the week, it won't work (2 Corinthians 6:14). You must turn from Satan to God.
Have your spiritual eyes been opened? Have you turned from darkness to light? Have you turned from the power of Satan to God? If you've taken these steps, then God has forgiven your sins and has a place for you among God's people in heaven. This is the hope of those who truly belong to Christ - Greg Laurie.
___________________________

I feel like there is absolutely no 'evidence' in my life (or inside of me) I am saved

But then I'm very depressed so maybe that is clouding my vision.

Yesterday, someone close to me questioned if I had Christ in me cos I was honest about my feelings.

Though If it is so simple to be saved - confession of Christ and faith in him - then why is the path so narrow?

Nessa,

I just returned from a series of meetings in South Dakota and just read your post...

As to your question: Is there enough evidence that you are a follower of Jesus - the answer is yes...

What you have written here on this forum is enough