Evidence for God from Science

If you are simply saying that a person has to trust Christ alone with their eternal soul, then I am fine. If you are saying that a person has to give every aspect of their being to Christ, then you go too far. That's a matter of discipleship.

See, I am afraid that people hear the way you present the Gospel and think that they have to give their lives to Christ as part of the Gospel-deal. They think of their salvation as an exchange plan. I give You my life, You give me salvation in return. That's not faith in Christ, Jlay. That is faith in your works. That is faith in Christ plus. If no one ever says to you, "Wait, so I can just trust Christ and live however I want and still be saved?!?" then you haven't given people the radical Gospel of Jesus Christ, because only when they say that can you be sure they have come to realize that it is TRULY FREE.

Did you know all that when you very first got saved?

I answered that when i wrote it. AS you said. The Holy Spirit came. Something did happen that can not happen without God, and has continued to guide me and grow me in the faith. Are you saying that there IS evidence someone is saved or not? How can I live as I want when the love of Christ compels me, and the Holy Spirit is occupying me?

"Wait, so I can just trust Christ and live however I want and still be saved?!?"

You call that trust? You see I am afraid when people hear that, they think they can use the grace of God for an occassion of the flesh. I just don't read the gospel and come to that conclusion at all. I would question if anyone who actually understood the gift of salvation would react in such a way. I would be highly suspect that they are trusting Christ, but insteas they are taking out fire insurance. "I'll believe, just in case." When the reality of my sin, and the reality of God's gift hit my heart it overwhelmed me. I certainly wasn't thinking. 'Hey, now I can sin without consequence!!'

Byblos wrote:Do I really need to point out the 800 lb gorilla in the room everyone is desperately trying to ignore? Such (Jac's position) is the only logical and inescapable conclusion of OSAS. If you want to believe in assurance then absolute assurance DEMANDS a Once Saved Always Saved position NO MATTER WHAT, otherwise it is no assurance at all, rendering OSAS meaningless. Jac and I have come to this understanding long ago. I choose to reject it because I believe OSAS is unbiblical (free will and all). If you disagree, you'd be hard-pressed (and wrong) not to take up his position.

I suppose you're right about that Byblos (Yeah we finally agree).

Interestingly, The Westminster Confession, adopted by most Presbyterian churches, states:

"They whom God hath accepted in his Beloved, effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace; but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved … Nevertheless they may, through the temptations of Satan … fall into grievous sins…" (Book of Confessions of the United Presbyterian Church, 1967 Ed., Sec. 6.086-6.088).

The Philadelphia Confession, adopted by many Baptist churches, is almost identical to the above.

Honestly, I can understand why most protestant churches would choose to teach OSAS. It's important to let Christians know that God never gives up on them and even if they think they have gone too far the truth is if they want to repent they can. What I'm talking about is the person that, for whatever reason, returns to a non-believing state as an apostate and dies in that condition never repenting.

ageofknowledge wrote:

Byblos wrote:Do I really need to point out the 800 lb gorilla in the room everyone is desperately trying to ignore? Such (Jac's position) is the only logical and inescapable conclusion of OSAS. If you want to believe in assurance then absolute assurance DEMANDS a Once Saved Always Saved position NO MATTER WHAT, otherwise it is no assurance at all, rendering OSAS meaningless. Jac and I have come to this understanding long ago. I choose to reject it because I believe OSAS is unbiblical (free will and all). If you disagree, you'd be hard-pressed (and wrong) not to take up his position.

I suppose you're right about that Byblos (Yeah we finally agree).

Toll the bells I am flabbergasted. This alone ought to make atheists shake in their boots at the marvels of the one true God, truly a miracle (can you tell I'm excited?).

ageofknowledge wrote:Interestingly, The Westminster Confession, adopted by most Presbyterian churches, states:

"They whom God hath accepted in his Beloved, effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace; but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved … Nevertheless they may, through the temptations of Satan … fall into grievous sins…" (Book of Confessions of the United Presbyterian Church, 1967 Ed., Sec. 6.086-6.088).

The Philadelphia Confession, adopted by many Baptist churches, is almost identical to the above.

Honestly, I can understand why most protestant churches would choose to teach OSAS. It's important to let Christians know that God never gives up on them and even if they think they have gone too far the truth is if they want to repent they can. What I'm talking about is the person that, for whatever reason, returns to a non-believing state as an apostate and dies in that condition never repenting.

OSAS is central to Protestant belief. Quite honestly without it I think protestantism would fall. And central to OSAS is absolute assurance particularly for apostates because again, no one knows for sure they will not become apostates themselves. That is what Jac is arguing and I see his point, it's only logical. You want assurance? The only kind that makes sense is an absolute one (from a Protestant's perspective).

I'm sorry but that sounds like a straw man to me. It doesn't matter how much you believe their are only two options.

If one is trusting In Christ, one has assurance of salvation. The assurance of salvation is hope. It isn't a feeling. The assurance of salvation isn't about our confidence level, or that we can clinch our fist, squint our eyes, and make ourselves know, that we know that we know. My faith in Christ is not faith in my own ability to intellectually process and decide. My faith is in the work of Christ. When I trusted in Christ I knew. I didn't have all the doctrine down pat. But I knew, in my heart of hearts. Something happened that I can't fully explain. But it happened, and I know that it did. I 'Ginosko.' Interesting word. Translated into the English, 'Know'. But it is also the word that is used to say, Joseph has not yet KNOWN Mary. There are other words in the great that translate know in English. Oida, Gnostos. Paul likes to use this word Ginosko when talking about knowing Christ. When you Ginosko, you know. There are many who gnostos, or oida.

What I'm talking about is the person that, for whatever reason, returns to a non-believing state as an apostate and dies in that condition never repenting.

And this is why I think we need to have some idea of just what sonstitutes saving faith, what constitutes repentence, and What "In Him" represenents.
No one is saved by accident.
I keep coming back to the rich young ruler. There are many examples. But the scriptures afford many opportunities for Jesus to just tell someone, "John 3:16." Instead he gives the rich young ruler the Law. I mean imagine if someone came up and asked you, 'How can I inherit eternal life.' Many would say, 'just John 3:16, and OSAS.' Is that sound doctrine?

In fact when Phillip encountered the Ethiopian, did he lay a John 3:16 on him. No, he taught him from the scriptures, from the Law and the Prophets. And the Ethiopian came to see and KNOW his need for salvation. And could then truly embrace what is IN HIM.

J, from my side it's like preaching to the choir. I'm already convinced of that (moral assurance, trust in Christ, not the self, etc). I am also convinced one can willfully and consciously reject God's grace; it is precisely why I reject OSAS. Now can one reject OSAS and still claim to be Protestant? I don't know, maybe if you're a Calvinist but once you cross that threshold, anything in between is simply a watered down version of Catholicism, IMO.

Jlay,

I have a lot to reply to in this thread and not a lot of time right now. But really quickly, I wanted to give you this link:

Did the Rich Young Ruler Hear the Gospel According to Jesus by Hal Haller. Since you keep coming back to it, it is important that you get that response. Haller is a VERY good writer and fantastic exegete (he is a prof. here at our university).

Let me know what you think.

God bless

edit:

I don't know, maybe if you're a Calvinist but once you cross that threshold, anything in between is simply a watered down version of Catholicism, IMO

This is SUCH a great, concise way of putting it. Love it! Absolutely correct, which, again, is why if I were to reject the absolute assurance view I advocate I would convert to Catholicism in the name, at least, of intellectual honesty.

I am a Protestant and yes you can be a protestant and believe in freewill. You don't have to be a Calvinist to accept the sufficiency of Christ or Luther's definition of salvation by faith. The reason why Byblos's comments look like a strawman jlay is because he's framing and defining the single exception to OSAS I gave into his own position. A position I don't agree with. What he's not saying is that his position is a Catholic one meaning that the Catholic relationship of works to salvation must be considered. I've met many lost Catholics (us Protestants don't equate church membership in the Catholic church nor infantile baptism with salvation) anxiously trying to work their way to heaven. They have about as much peace in the matter as a Muslim and live in an unsaved state never having trusted Christ for their salvation but instead looking to works and Catholic Church traditions to save them. It's always a pleasure to lead a member of the Catholic church to Christ and salvation.

My statements are both Protestant and clear: OSAS comes very close to the truth because authentic believers certainly do have eternal security in Christ; however, they also have freewill and can choose to become apostate. If they die in that state they die as an unrepentant non-believer. Fortunately, it's very rare.

ageofknowledge wrote:I am a Protestant and yes you can be a protestant and believe in freewill. You don't have to be a Calvinist to accept the sufficiency of Christ or Luther's definition of salvation by faith. The reason why Byblos's comments look like a strawman jlay is because he's framing and defining the single exception to OSAS I gave into his own position. A position I don't agree with. What he's not saying is that his position is a Catholic one meaning that the Catholic relationship of works to salvation must be considered. I've met many lost Catholics (us Protestants don't equate church membership in the Catholic church nor infantile baptism with salvation) anxiously trying to work their way to heaven. They have about as much peace in the matter as a Muslim and live in an unsaved state never having trusted Christ for their salvation but instead looking to works and Catholic Church traditions to save them. It's always a pleasure to lead a member of the Catholic church to Christ and salvation.

My statements are both Protestant and clear: OSAS comes very close to the truth because authentic believers certainly do have eternal security in Christ; however, they also have freewill and can choose to become apostate. If they die in that state they die as an unrepentant non-believer. Fortunately, it's very rare.

And this is why I maintain neither you nor those lost Catholics know the first thing about Catholicism. Neither I, my family, friends, relatives, nor the church I know and belong to advocates salvation by works. That is either a deliberate lie or a gross misunderstanding (on the part of ignorant Catholics more than any other group). Salvation is a gift from God by His Grace through Jesus Christ. Period. Nothing anyone can do to earn it. Where we differ (perhaps we don't, as it turns out) is that Catholicism teaches that salvation can be WILLFULLY lost. Perseverance, therefore, requires God's graces to stay in the faith and those graces are considered as GIFTS as well, we do not earn them nor are they considered works (since they are gifts). Those are what we call the sacraments. That, my friend, is Catholicism in a nutshell. That is the Christianity I was born into, was taught and will always believe.

Over the years discussing this topic it's been my observation that the majority of Catholics who leave the church do so out of ignorance of their faith. The ones who convert to Catholicism, on the other hand, do so out of deep conviction.

Jac,
Thanks for the article. If you are under the assumption that I hold to MacCarthur ot the other position, you are mistaken. I believe Jesus gave the RYR what he needed, to tear down his misconceptions about how to receive eternal life.

Interestingly he didn't invite him over for a lamb barbeque to discuss John 3:16. He left discouraged. Which is what we all need to come to salvation. We need to know that, no one comes to the Father except through Him. There is no other way. No back door, no sneaking into the sheep pen. We need to realize the hopeless condition we are in. There is no balancing the scales, no righting wrongs.
This is exactly what I am talking about in regards to, 'in him.'

I could say the same about the woman caught in adultery, etc. Imagine, Jesus saying, "Go and sin no more." Would that not just lay you to waste? "I can't!!!" Exactly.

Byblos, I agree there is some watered down Catholcism. However, there are Christians who are not bound by Protestantism or Catholicsim, as if these are the only options. They are not. They are both religious results of trying to take the Word of truth and package it for mass consumption. For me it is a matter of breaking free of protestant strongholds, because that is the tradition I grew up under. I have a dear friend who is RC and have been observing him breaking free of RCC strongholds for the past five years. This either or thing is a religious pit fall if you ask me. It happens within prostestanism as well. They say, you are either a Calvanist or an Armenianist. Again, the faith is placed in religion. I've noticed a lot of people who want to discuss God and who He is. They just don't want to include Him in the conversation. Much like Eve and the Serpent.

I mean we are talking of eternal matters. I get sick of hearing it from both sides. I have a boss who loves to drop the 'OSAS' any time matters of faith are discussed. I also had a co-worker who would brag that he was right because his church (RCC) had been around for 2,000 years. His faith was in the age of the church, not in Christ. My bosses faith seems to be in some religious concept.
I mean you have to wonder. How many people's faith is in OSAS. Not IN Christ, but actuallin OSAS. Does that make sense?

Or, I have faith in Christ, plus infant baptism, the sacraments, getting smacked by the priest, last rights, confession, and being prayed for in purgetory.

jlay wrote:Byblos, I agree there is some watered down Catholcism. However, there are Christians who are not bound by Protestantism or Catholicsim, as if these are the only options. They are not. They are both religious results of trying to take the Word of truth and package it for mass consumption. For me it is a matter of breaking free of protestant strongholds, because that is the tradition I grew up under. I have a dear friend who is RC and have been observing him breaking free of RCC strongholds for the past five years. This either or thing is a religious pit fall if you ask me. It happens within prostestanism as well. They say, you are either a Calvanist or an Armenianist. Again, the faith is placed in religion. I've noticed a lot of people who want to discuss God and who He is. They just don't want to include Him in the conversation. Much like Eve and the Serpent.

I mean we are talking of eternal matters. I get sick of hearing it from both sides. I have a boss who loves to drop the 'OSAS' any time matters of faith are discussed. I also had a co-worker who would brag that he was right because his church (RCC) had been around for 2,000 years. His faith was in the age of the church, not in Christ. My bosses faith seems to be in some religious concept.
I mean you have to wonder. How many people's faith is in OSAS. Not IN Christ, but actuallin OSAS. Does that make sense?

Or, I have faith in Christ, plus infant baptism, the sacraments, getting smacked by the priest, last rights, confession, and being prayed for in purgetory.

There's really nothing you said I fundamentally disagree with. The reason I sometimes rely on church history is a recognition on my part of my own short-comings and my need for an independent verifier (authority, yet again). Otherwise, I would be more than content worshiping the Lord just like any other genuine Christian, Catholic or not.

Byblos wrote:

ageofknowledge wrote:I am a Protestant and yes you can be a protestant and believe in freewill. You don't have to be a Calvinist to accept the sufficiency of Christ or Luther's definition of salvation by faith. The reason why Byblos's comments look like a strawman jlay is because he's framing and defining the single exception to OSAS I gave into his own position. A position I don't agree with. What he's not saying is that his position is a Catholic one meaning that the Catholic relationship of works to salvation must be considered. I've met many lost Catholics (us Protestants don't equate church membership in the Catholic church nor infantile baptism with salvation) anxiously trying to work their way to heaven. They have about as much peace in the matter as a Muslim and live in an unsaved state never having trusted Christ for their salvation but instead looking to works and Catholic Church traditions to save them. It's always a pleasure to lead a member of the Catholic church to Christ and salvation.

My statements are both Protestant and clear: OSAS comes very close to the truth because authentic believers certainly do have eternal security in Christ; however, they also have freewill and can choose to become apostate. If they die in that state they die as an unrepentant non-believer. Fortunately, it's very rare.

And this is why I maintain neither you nor those lost Catholics know the first thing about Catholicism. Neither I, my family, friends, relatives, nor the church I know and belong to advocates salvation by works. That is either a deliberate lie or a gross misunderstanding (on the part of ignorant Catholics more than any other group). Salvation is a gift from God by His Grace through Jesus Christ. Period. Nothing anyone can do to earn it. Where we differ (perhaps we don't, as it turns out) is that Catholicism teaches that salvation can be WILLFULLY lost. Perseverance, therefore, requires God's graces to stay in the faith and those graces are considered as GIFTS as well, we do not earn them nor are they considered works (since they are gifts). Those are what we call the sacraments. That, my friend, is Catholicism in a nutshell. That is the Christianity I was born into, was taught and will always believe.

Over the years discussing this topic it's been my observation that the majority of Catholics who leave the church do so out of ignorance of their faith. The ones who convert to Catholicism, on the other hand, do so out of deep conviction.

A good reply on this issue Byblos and if that is your position it is satisfactory from my perspective sans-sacramental definition. See, as you well know, us Protestants respond in different ways to different aspects and different sacraments of the Catholic Church. ECC and RCC conflict as well to a lesser extent. But the heart of the disagreement between Protestant and Catholic theology of sacrament is the Catholic claim that sacraments are an actual cause of grace to the recipient.

I would argue that when all the evidence is surveyed and weighed, it seems the biblical view is most closely approximated by the Zwinglian position on the number, nature, and effects of the Lord's Supper; that there are only two ordinances: water baptism and Communion; with this the majority of Christendom in agreement. Those who confess Christ are to be baptized, and the New Testament mode seems to have been immersion. Other modes were later and exceptional rather than original and primary.

Further, it best accords with Scripture and sound reason to conclude that the ordinances are not sacraments, either as a cause or means (vehicle) of grace, but symbols that, if properly observed in obedient faith, can occasion blessings in one's life. The symbols do not themselves bring grace; rather, they are a reminder and proclaimer of Christ's sacrificial death and, in the case of baptism, His resurrection.

This latter point is really at the heart between the Catholic and the Protestant views on sacrament. Anyways my Catholic brother (if you'll accept a non-Catholic believer in Christ as such), us Protestants are giving you a good work out today.

ageofknowledge wrote:A good reply on this issue Byblos and if that is your position it is satisfactory from my perspective sans-sacramental definition. See, as you well know, us Protestants respond in different ways to different aspects and different sacraments of the Catholic Church. ECC and RCC conflict as well to a lesser extent. But the heart of the disagreement between Protestant and Catholic theology of sacrament is the Catholic claim that sacraments are an actual cause of grace to the recipient.

We can debate the efficacy of sacramental graces some other time but that is besides the point. What is at the heart of the disagreement is the erroneous belief that the sacraments are works (hence the claim of salvation by works). They are not and it is not.

ageofknowledge wrote:I would argue that when all the evidence is surveyed and weighed, it seems the biblical view is most closely approximated by the Zwinglian position on the number, nature, and effects of the Lord's Supper; that there are only two ordinances: water baptism and Communion; with this the majority of Christendom in agreement. Those who confess Christ are to be baptized, and the New Testament mode seems to have been immersion. Other modes were later and exceptional rather than original and primary.

What happened to repentance? Don't you think it should be tossed in the mix too? And again, we can debate the forms and effects of such sacraments if you wish but that would be besides the point I was trying to make.

ageofknowledge wrote:Further, it best accords with Scripture and sound reason to conclude that the ordinances are not sacraments, either as a cause or means (vehicle) of grace, but symbols that, if properly observed in obedient faith, can occasion blessings in one's life. The symbols do not themselves bring grace; rather, they are a reminder and proclaimer of Christ's sacrificial death and, in the case of baptism, His resurrection.

I would agree that they are symbols (I mean call them whatever you want, really) and that the intent is what matters but I hope we can also agree that intent without the outward symbol is shallow.

ageofknowledge wrote:This latter point is really at the heart between the Catholic and the Protestant views on sacrament. Anyways my Catholic brother (if you'll accept a non-Catholic believer in Christ as such), us Protestants are giving you a good work out today.

Age, my brother in Christ, do you really think I would still be a member of this site, in a moderator capacity no less, if I thought otherwise? As for the good workout, I haven't broken a sweat, how about you?

And this is why I maintain neither you nor those lost Catholics know the first thing about Catholicism.

And Byblos I would say you are the exception not the rule. That there are many who are 'Catholic' by tradition, but have no idea where their faith lies. I think you have a lot more convincing to do within the RCC than outside. Have you been to Spain to observe the church there? There are people who will tell you they are Catholic, but if you ask if they are Christian, they don't even know how to respond.

The same could be said in the protestant church. "So and so repeated a prayer of faith at VBS........OSAS!" My concern has little to do with OSAS in general and whether a real redemptive work happened in the 1st place. Because till now we are applying OSAS in a broad stroke. But I think all would agree, one can not back slide if they never slid forward in the 1st place.

We are talking about saving faith. And I wonder how many think they are saved, but have in fact misappropriated their faith.

jlay wrote:

And this is why I maintain neither you nor those lost Catholics know the first thing about Catholicism.

And Byblos I would say you are the exception not the rule. That there are many who are 'Catholic' by tradition, but have no idea where their faith lies. I think you have a lot more convincing to do within the RCC than outside. Have you been to Spain to observe the church there? There are people who will tell you they are Catholic, but if you ask if they are Christian, they don't even know how to respond.

Perhaps you're right. The church must shoulder some of the blame but it ought to fall squarely on the so-called believers who take no interest in nurturing their faith. Why is a great question. Why do we believe what we believe? I don't claim to know all (or any of) the answers but I will always keep searching.

jlay wrote:The same could be said in the protestant church. "So and so repeated a prayer of faith at VBS........OSAS!" My concern has little to do with OSAS in general and whether a real redemptive work happened in the 1st place. Because till now we are applying OSAS in a broad stroke. But I think all would agree, one can not back slide if they never slid forward in the 1st place.

We are talking about saving faith. And I wonder how many think they are saved, but have in fact misappropriated their faith.

Indeed, for the gate is narrow and few are chosen.

Byblos wrote:Age, my brother in Christ, do you really think I would still be a member of this site, in a moderator capacity no less, if I thought otherwise? As for the good workout, I haven't broken a sweat, how about you?

Jlay makes a good point too. But believers from different backgrounds including jlay, Byblos, and myself certainly find we have a lot more in common than not, despite very different positions, when imprisoned for being Christians by communist, facist, and Muslim state governments. When we end up in prison cells for our faith, we find ourselves supporting and praying for each other. Our debates take a back seat. And that speaks volumes, in my opinion, for the unity we share as partakers of Christ as the author of Hebrews pointed out despite our theological differences.