Evidence for God from Science

DannyM wrote:Byblos,

Thanks for outlining your position. A couple of immediate observations:

I happen to believe the mechanism by which we enter into the new covenant is through baptism, the symbolism of which is between that and Israel (again as a nation) being saved once and for all through the parting of the Red Sea, and Noah and his family being saved through the flood, so are we saved through baptism (Ro 6:3). And here's the shocker, once a person is baptised into Christ they have become a born-again Christian. THERE IS NO WAY THEY CAN UNCHRISTIANIZE. I know this will surprise some people that I'm saying this but there it is. They have become part of the family of believers and partakers of the covenant of grace, they are no longer under the law.

Are you advocating water baptism as the means to one becoming born again?

That's nothing new Danny nor, might I add, is the idea indigenous to Catholicism. I believe scripture is clear on this ending with the Great Commission. The early church was also clear on water baptism as the means by which one becomes born again in Christ. Heck even Martin Luther had this to say:

"Baptism is no human plaything but is instituted by God himself. Moreover, it is solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we shall not be saved. We are not to regard it as an indifferent matter, then, like putting on a new red coat. It is of the greatest importance that we regard baptism as excellent, glorious, and exalted" (Large Catechism 4:6)

DannyM wrote:John 3:3-6

In reply Jesus declared, I tell you the truth, no-one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.

4 How can a man be born when he is old? Nicodemus asked. Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!

5 Jesus answered, I tell you the truth, no-one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.

6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.

You quote the exact scripture that we use in SUPPORT of water baptism. That's where the difference of opinion/interpretation will come into play and where I do not wish to take this discussion. We will have to agree to disagree on what that says.

DannyM wrote:And you are saying they are no longer under the law?

Of course I am. I already explained what baptism is, it is a promise from God himself to adopt us into the new covenant of Christ. We don't do the baptizing, it is His doing; we merely cooperate with it.

DannyM wrote:

Now does this mean being a Christian is guaranteed eternal life? No, it does not. As I said, salvation is being made part of the family of God through Christ, that is a free gift. Eternal life is conditional on keeping the individual covenant and whether or not one has eternal life is determined at the great judgment. John 5:29 and Romans 2:7 are emphatic on this point.

I disagree. Emphatic about what? These verses are correlating a person's behaviour with their salvation status; they are not implying a person's salvation status is contingent upon their behaviour.

And again this comes down to a matter of interpretation.

DannyM wrote:1 John 5:1-5

Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well.

2 This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands.

3 This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome,

4 for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith.

5 Who is it that overcomes the world? Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God.

Romans 8:9-10

You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.

10 But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness.

So how do we know we are the children of God? That's right, by carrying out his commands. So those who do NOT carry out God's commands, are they the children of God as well? If you say they are, you are contradicting scripture. If you say no they are not, then there goes your absolute assurance out the window. That's the crux of this discussion.

DannyM wrote:Once a person is saved, their behaviour is changed by the Holy Spirit and they become characteristically righteous and not sinful:

1 John 3:1-10

How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are! The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him.

2 Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.

3 Everyone who has this hope in him purifies himself, just as he is pure.

4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.

5 But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin.

6 No-one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No-one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him.

7 Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous.

8 He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work.

9 No-one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God.

10 This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.

Note in 1 John 3:1 what it says, that we ARE the children of God. Then note verse 6, No-one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him. So I ask you again, what does this do to absolute assurance when a child of God keeps on sinning?

DannyM wrote:This is what we strife to be, indwelled with the Holy Spirit as we are. He keeps us strong to the end. And He won’t let us down:

1 Corinthians 1:8-9

He will keep you strong to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

9 God, who has called you into fellowship with his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, is faithful.

Of course he keeps us strong and won't let us down, that is His promise. But that doesn't mean we can't reject his free gift out of our own free will.

DannyM wrote:

Does this mean it is salvation by works? Of course not as salvation is the state of being saved from being dead to God through Adam. It is done by Christ and Christ alone as the high priest through his blood that is the new covenant. Inheriting the kingdom of God and eternal life is done through becoming part of the family of God AND keeping the covenant which carries certain promises (an inheritance). Look at Eph 1:11, Eph 1:14, and Eph 1:18 for the promise of this inheritance then look at Mt 19:29 to see what that inheritance, you guessed it, none other than everlasting life. Note particularly how this inheritance is obtained, is it through faith ALONE? I don't think so, it is through the fruits of the spirit made possible by being in the family of Christ and only through him are made possible. Look at Mt 25:34 for more emphasis of that point, then look at 1 Cor 6:9-10, 1 Cor 15:50, Ga 5:21 that show who will not inherit eternal life and contrast that with Romans 2:7 and Heb 6:12.

John, your verses are not talking about a salvation based on any contingency. I mean, just look at 1 Corinthians 6:11

And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Is this speaking of salvation being contingent upon behaviour? I think not. Paul was speaking to the Corinthians who had become genuine believers and as such were washed. If anything Paul is pointing to the inevitable change of behaviour which comes with being born again, the regenerative effect of being born again of God.

And I totally agree that a person is truly and intrinsically changed when they become born again, not merely hills of dung covered with snow. It is, however, a constant struggle between the new righteous spirit and the old sinful nature. A struggle made all the more easier by our sanctification process (not to keep calling them sacraments). But again, this does not negate the fact that a person can completely reject it.

DannyM wrote:Romans 8:38-39

For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers,

39 neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Nothing in all creation, present OR future, will be able to separate us from God.

Of course, I agree, nothing will separate us from God unless we choose to do so. It takes a conscious act of the will.

DannyM wrote:2 Corinthians 1:21-22

Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us,

22 set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.

Ephesians 1:13-14

And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,

14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession— to the praise of his glory.

Now that’s what I call *emphatic*, Bro.

But does not negate a conscious act of the will.

DannyM wrote:2 Timothy 4:18

The Lord will rescue me from every evil attack and will bring me safely to his heavenly kingdom. To him be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Paul would not say this if it were possible that he would end up in hell.

Then why would he say "I pummel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified" (1 Cor. 9:27) or "to work out our salvation with fear and trembling" (Philippians 2:12).

Danny, for every scripture you quote that seems to show absolute assurance I can quote others that show otherwise. Either scripture is contradictory or our interpretation is faulty. Neither of us believes scripture is contradictory so in the absence of an authoritative interpreter it will always remain as a private interpretation subject to change.

Byblos,

Of course he keeps us strong and won't let us down, that is His promise. But that doesn't mean we can't reject his free gift out of our own free will.

I'll ask again: Do we have free will to reject God when we are in heaven?

RickD wrote:Byblos,

Of course he keeps us strong and won't let us down, that is His promise. But that doesn't mean we can't reject his free gift out of our own free will.

I'll ask again: Do we have free will to reject God when we are in heaven?

No because then you and I will have absolute assurance.

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote:Byblos,

Of course he keeps us strong and won't let us down, that is His promise. But that doesn't mean we can't reject his free gift out of our own free will.

I'll ask again: Do we have free will to reject God when we are in heaven?

No because then you and I will have absolute assurance.

No, in heaven, we will have the completion of the absolute assurance He has given us.
Assurance, by definition, is a pledge, a down payment,or a promise. When we are in heaven, we obviously don't need a promise anymore.

My point is that don't you see a correlation between not having freewill to reject God in heaven, and not being able to reject God after He has given us His seed? The whole point of the Holy Spirit of God in us, is the power of God transforming us to the image of Christ. If God doesn't have the power to keep us in Him, then why would He have the power to transform us despite our sin nature, that is contrary to God?

-
A false gospel, of works - probably so, therefore, how so...

Free gift of grace revoked – what – by human works – so I guess human works are superior to God’s grace so much so that a true believer can revoke God’s own promise by the human works involved by simply walking away...

Yep - that would it be it then...

But what does the bible say...


Ephesians 2:8, "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God..."

Romans 11:29, "For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable."

Numbers 23:19,"God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?"

Titus 1:1, 2 , "Paul, a bondservant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect and the acknowledgment of the truth which accords with godliness, in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began..."

James 1:17, "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning. 18 Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures."

Hebrews 6:17, 18, 19c, "Thus God, determining to show more abundantly to the heirs of promise the immutability of His counsel, confirmed it by an oath, 18 that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we might have strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us. 19 This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which enters the Presence behind the veil..."

It would indeed take a lot of works to be able to cause God to break his promises, cause him to renege His gift of grace, and let you be able to walk away. Think I’ll place my faith in God’s hands and not in doctrine that teaches we, by our works can easily jump out of his hands.

John 10:27-30, "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. 28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand. 30 I and My Father are one."

John 3:14, 15, 16c, "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

Titus 2:11, 12, 13, 14, 15c, "For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works. Declare these things; exhort and rebuke with all authority. Let no one disregard you." ESV

All Bible quotes from NKJV unless otherwise indicated
.
-
-
Jude 1:24, 25c, "Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, And to present you faultless Before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy, 25 To God our Savior, Who alone is wise, Be glory and majesty, Dominion and power, Both now and forever. Amen."

B.W.'

Jude 1:24, 25c, "Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, And to present you faultless Before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy, 25 To God our Savior, Who alone is wise, Be glory and majesty, Dominion and power, Both now and forever. Amen."

Would God keeping a true believer from saying we don't believe in Him anymore, be the same as God keeping us from stumbling?

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote:Byblos,

Of course he keeps us strong and won't let us down, that is His promise. But that doesn't mean we can't reject his free gift out of our own free will.

I'll ask again: Do we have free will to reject God when we are in heaven?

No because then you and I will have absolute assurance.

No, in heaven, we will have the completion of the absolute assurance He has given us.
Assurance, by definition, is a pledge, a down payment,or a promise. When we are in heaven, we obviously don't need a promise anymore.

Rick I was kidding about the absolute assurance thing. In heaven we will have 2 things: there is no sin and there is the beatific vision of God. Will we have free will? Perhaps but only within those parameters, much like our free will on earth is limited to the physical realities we live in. I have the free will to decide to jump to the moon but I am restricted in accomplishing it.

RickD wrote:My point is that don't you see a correlation between not having freewill to reject God in heaven, and not being able to reject God after He has given us His seed? The whole point of the Holy Spirit of God in us, is the power of God transforming us to the image of Christ. If God doesn't have the power to keep us in Him, then why would He have the power to transform us despite our sin nature, that is contrary to God?

No I don't see the correlation. God has provided the plan of redemption and gave us a new covenant. We all must DO something Rick. Unless one believes in total depravity, our cooperation is part and parcel of covenant keeping. And here's the kicker (and what I have been arguing all along in this thread), it is no different than what you believe or what Danny believes, unless you believe in absolute assurance with absolutely no conditions. Otherwise it's all a matter of degrees, six of one and half a dozen of the other.

You or Jlay may not believe someone was a genuine believer and now they are not but that's not the point at all of secured salvation.

Byb,

After reading through the thread I am convinced that you are speaking of something different. You are speaking of assurance as a 'feeling.'

Assurance of salvation is from God. His promise. Whether we fall in to doubt doesn't change what is secure and assured to the believer. A person can only have the personal assurance (feeling/knowledge) if they are trusting Christ. In other words the knowing lines up with the truth. Obviously if they begin to doubt their own salvation, they are not feeling assured. Of course this has nothing to do with whether that person is saved or not. We are saved in Christ. Made righteous in Christ. Made to sit in heavenly places, in Christ. Blessed with every spiritual blessing, in Christ. For the believer to experience assurance is not the same as the source of assurance.

If a person totally rejects Christ, then they could never say they were 'real.' It is self-defeating. How can someone say they were really a Christian, when they are saying a Christian isn't real to begin with?
"I used to be a Christian.'
What do you mean by that?
I was a Christian, I believed that junk."
Is God real?
"No."
And was Jesus really who He says He was?
"of course not."
So, can a "real" Christian go to heaven?
No.
Then, how can there be any real Christians, and how do you claim yourself to have been one?


A true believer will be disciplined. If they are a true believer, and they are denying their own salvation, then their will be a chastening from the Lord. The whole point of Hebrews is to show that it is IMPOSSIBLE to fall away and be renewed again. In other words it can't and won't happen.

No matter how cleverly modern RCCs want to word it, grace is NOT sufficient. Works are required. Man powered, man-made, in the flesh effort.

"Baptism is no human plaything but is instituted by God himself. Moreover, it is solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we shall not be saved. We are not to regard it as an indifferent matter, then, like putting on a new red coat. It is of the greatest importance that we regard baptism as excellent, glorious, and exalted"

Baptism is absolutely essential to salvation. However, many a scholar has made the error of assuming that baptism and water are synonymous. Paul, our apostle, most certainly did not. We are baptized by one SPIRIT into one body.

There is nothing magic in the water. The thief on the cross was baptized into the same body as you or I. A priest has no more authority to dunk you into heaven, or smack the HS into your being.

So how do we know we are the children of God? That's right, by carrying out his commands. So those who do NOT carry out God's commands, are they the children of God as well?

Are you perfectly doing this? No. Nor am I. Are the commands of the RCC the same thing? No. What are Christ's commands?
Further, this says, we can KNOW that we are children of God. We can KNOW. When we trust Christ obediently we have assurance. When we doubt, we do not.
The most important command of Christ is obediently trusting Him. His life, His message, His works. (John 5:24) That we are saved by grace through faith. When we add to this command, we are rejecting it, and thus not obeying it. No matter how many rules or guidelines we abide by. If we miss the heart of the matter, all our works are like throwing God a nickels worth of self-righteousness for the priceless gift of grace. An insult. God descended to the deepest depths to rescue us. Anything that we do, is saying that He didn't. That we have to climb up. In Christ, He came all the way down.

Then note verse 6, No-one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him. So I ask you again, what does this do to absolute assurance when a child of God keeps on sinning?

That is known in the context of 1 John. Obviously if we take this sin mentioned here as a broad brush, then no one is saved. Because in some form, either through commission or omission, all sin again. That is why the same book states, that one who claims to have no sin, is a liar and the truth is not in him. (1 John 1:8) So, obviously that is not the proper exegesis.

(1 John 3:6) "No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him."

The first part says no one who LIVES in Him. As believers we have the choice to live in Him. You can not live in Christ and sin. Paul's exposition in Romans 7 and 8 explain this dual nature.

But again, this does not negate the fact that a person can completely reject it.

Sure it does. It's self defeating. I may disobey my parents, but I can't reject the birth they gave me. I can rebel, but I can't unwind my DNA. You are saying that a person can unbirth themself.

Unless one believes in total depravity, our cooperation is part and parcel of covenant keeping. And here's the kicker (and what I have been arguing all along in this thread), it is no different than what you believe or what Danny believes, unless you believe in absolute assurance with absolutely no conditions. Otherwise it's all a matter of degrees, six of one and half a dozen of the other.

Bottom line is you are taking liberties with terminology in an attempt to justify your position. Needless to say that myself, Danny, Rick and many others would say, uhhh, NO!

RickD wrote:B.W'.'..

Jude 1:24, 25c, "Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, And to present you faultless Before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy, 25 To God our Savior, Who alone is wise, Be glory and majesty, Dominion and power, Both now and forever. Amen."

Would God keeping a true believer from saying we don't believe in Him anymore, be the same as God keeping us from stumbling?

What would you say?

See the following quote

From AMG's Word Studies on this matter

ἄπταιστος - Strongs 679 - Jude 1:24 - Stumbling...

áptaistos; gen. aptaístou, masc.-fem., neut. áptaiston, adj. from the priv. a (1), without, and ptaíō (4417), to stumble. Free from stumbling, blameless. It occurs only in the benediction, of Jude 1:24 "Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling [aptaístous]." Is Jude promising that we shall live our lives without ever stumbling?

James 3:2 says that we all stumble in many things. Yet, 2 Pe 1:10 assures us that we will never fall. The word "falling," then, seems ambiguous and poses an interpretive dilemma. If the stumbling in view concerns the daily sins of God's children, then Jude's words are meant to be an encouragement telling us that God's grace is sufficient to keep us from sin. However, if the stumbling refers to an utter fall into perdition (as in 2 Pe 1:10), then Jude's confession is a promise of eternal security.

The rhetorical question Paul asks in Rom 11:11 is "Have they stumbled that they should fall?" Here the definite distinction is drawn between ptaíō (4417), to stumble, and píptō (4098), to fall. To stumble is not necessarily to fall. This refers to the Jews who did not receive Jesus Christ as the Messiah. In James 2:10 we find that ptaíō, to stumble, is used in connection with the keeping of the Law. The mere stumbling or faltering over one precept is like faltering or stumbling over the whole of the Law.

In James3:2 the word used is ptaíō, but is translated "offend": "For in many things we offend all." This means that we all stumble over many things and none of us is exempt. James goes on to say that the most likely stumbling is with our tongue: "If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man."

Is, therefore, Jude's wish in verse twenty-four that we be kept áptaistoi, without stumbling or blameless, an empty wish? No. Here he is not referring to us but to the ability of the Lord to keep us from stumbling. He is not saying that we shall live through our lives without any stumbling in contradiction to James 3:2, but that the Lord is able to keep us from stumbling. That is His part and His activity in our lives. We never stumble because of Him, but because we live in a body that is corruptible and liable to stumble in a world which is yet unredeemed and full of traps (see Rom 8:18-28).

See also amṓmous (299), without blemish, which also occurs in Jude 1:24, "and to present you faultless [amṓmous], before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy."

What is translated "to present you" in Gr. is stḗsai, the aor. inf. act. of hístēmi (2476), to stand. "The Lord who is able to keep us from stumbling is going to cause us to stand before His glory" (a.t.).

This refers to the glorification of Jesus Christ and our glorification, the demonstration and the revelation of what we are, in and through Christ. He is going to present us amṓmous (299), translated "faultless," meaning without mṓmos (3470), spot or blemish. Jesus Christ came before God as ámōmos, unblemished, to shed His blood for us. That was the word that was used for the spotlessness or unblemished character of the sacrifices that were made in the OT. It is His blood that causes us also to be ámōmoi (Eph 1:4; Eph 5:27; Col 1:22). The shedding of Christ's blood (i.e., His sacrificial death) makes the sinner blameless before the Lord at the time of His glorification. It will be a time of great rejoicing (agallíasis [20]) to discover that in spite of our ptaísmata, stumblings, we are not going to be deprived of the privilege of being glorified with Him, being washed with His blood and being made without internal blemish and thus proper candidates for glorification.

You quote the exact scripture that we use in SUPPORT of water baptism. That's where the difference of opinion/interpretation will come into play and where I do not wish to take this discussion. We will have to agree to disagree on what that says.

Luther got a few things wrong. If those verses tell me I need a water baptism in order to be born again, then I am lost. I was baptised as a non-consenting child, so that won’t count. However, I might rest easy, since I firmly believe those verses tell me no such thing.

Of course I am. I already explained what baptism is, it is a promise from God himself to adopt us into the new covenant of Christ. We don't do the baptizing, it is His doing; we merely cooperate with it.

Then at least you are agreeing that they are no longer under the law.

And again this comes down to a matter of interpretation.

There are no verses which unambiguously state that a person who had genuinely believed in Christ and consequently been saved, born of God, having been sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, then went on to become an unbeliever.

Salvation is spoken of throughout the gospel as contingent upon faith in Jesus Christ. We are constantly told that, once saved, we HAVE eternal life.

Rom 6:5-7

If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection

Rom 6:8

Now if we died with Christ, We believe that we will also live with Him

2 Tim 2:11

Here is a trustworthy saying: If we died with him, we will also live with him;

These verses, and many more, are all indicative of a salvation based on a past event or point in time, not contingent upon a continued faith. If there were no certainty, then surely the subjunctive would be used to express only possibility or uncertainty. Initial, genuine faith receives absolute assurance; the inheritance, sealed.

So how do we know we are the children of God? That's right, by carrying out his commands. So those who do NOT carry out God's commands, are they the children of God as well? If you say they are, you are contradicting scripture. If you say no they are not, then there goes your absolute assurance out the window. That's the crux of this discussion.

Aunt Sally time! That’s not the position of secured salvation at all. What do you think John’s aim is here, the plan for his book? You have also offered a false dilemma in a hasty effort to throw out my doctrine, John. That can’t work. If the above are the only two choices then you are saying the scripture contradicts *itself*.

Note in 1 John 3:1 what it says, that we ARE the children of God. Then note verse 6, No-one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him. So I ask you again, what does this do to absolute assurance when a child of God keeps on sinning?

John is exhorting the Brothers. My sin/not sin scales are constantly in debt. Do you think these verses make me uncomfortable? No they do not. If scripture is viewed in context then John is calling on Christians to conquer their sins. I see John as singling out wilful sin. If we are to read John as you suggest here then we had better throw Romans 7:7-23 out of the canon right away.

Of course he keeps us strong and won't let us down, that is His promise. But that doesn't mean we can't reject his free gift out of our own free will.

This here, John, is what I think is holding you back. I think you are a trifle obsessed with free will. I almost get the impression your theology must be built around an absolute free will …?

And I totally agree that a person is truly and intrinsically changed when they become born again, not merely hills of dung covered with snow. It is, however, a constant struggle between the new righteous spirit and the old sinful nature. A struggle made all the more easier by our sanctification process (not to keep calling them sacraments). But again, this does not negate the fact that a person can completely reject it.

The change is perseverance and endurance in the face of this world. If you believe you are saved when you show you do not sin then, my Brother, you are doomed. Sanctification is the Holy Spirit doing His job.

Of course, I agree, nothing will separate us from God unless we choose to do so. It takes a conscious act of the will.

There’s that blasted free will again.

But does not negate a conscious act of the will.

So nothing can spoil our inheritance, no-one in all creation, future or present, nothing can spoil it…except us? I see this is a human caveat and not a scriptural one.

Then why would he say "I pummel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified" (1 Cor. 9:27) or "to work out our salvation with fear and trembling" (Philippians 2:12).

Testing oneself. Otherwise Paul could not logically say:

The Lord will rescue me from every evil attack and will bring me safely to his heavenly kingdom. To him be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

John, Brother, can you see how we are distinguishing here from an absolute assurance and exhortations to Christians? Absolute assurance by definition cannot become non-absolute. If someone’s salvation ‘became’ non-absolute then, by definition, they never had absolute assurance.

God bless

At this point I think that ample scripture have been offered for the affirmitive position . If we do not find agreement soon then it is going to look like a stalemate for some of us.

J, a few things I wanted to clarify

jlay wrote:After reading through the thread I am convinced that you are speaking of something different. You are speaking of assurance as a 'feeling.'

No I am not.

jlay wrote:Assurance of salvation is from God. His promise. Whether we fall in to doubt doesn't change what is secure and assured to the believer. A person can only have the personal assurance (feeling/knowledge) if they are trusting Christ. In other words the knowing lines up with the truth. Obviously if they begin to doubt their own salvation, they are not feeling assured. Of course this has nothing to do with whether that person is saved or not. We are saved in Christ. Made righteous in Christ. Made to sit in heavenly places, in Christ. Blessed with every spiritual blessing, in Christ. For the believer to experience assurance is not the same as the source of assurance.

Nothing I disagree with here.

jlay wrote:If a person totally rejects Christ, then they could never say they were 'real.' It is self-defeating. How can someone say they were really a Christian, when they are saying a Christian isn't real to begin with?
"I used to be a Christian.'
What do you mean by that?
I was a Christian, I believed that junk."
Is God real?
"No."
And was Jesus really who He says He was?
"of course not."
So, can a "real" Christian go to heaven?
No.
Then, how can there be any real Christians, and how do you claim yourself to have been one?

Here's where we are having a basic difference. On the one hand you say a person can have absolute assurance and on the other you say one can prove they weren't a 'real' Christian. I see that as a contradiction, I'm not sure how much more clearly I can explain it.

jlay wrote:A true believer will be disciplined. If they are a true believer, and they are denying their own salvation, then their will be a chastening from the Lord. The whole point of Hebrews is to show that it is IMPOSSIBLE to fall away and be renewed again. In other words it can't and won't happen.

No matter how cleverly modern RCCs want to word it, grace is NOT sufficient. Works are required. Man powered, man-made, in the flesh effort.

"Baptism is no human plaything but is instituted by God himself. Moreover, it is solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we shall not be saved. We are not to regard it as an indifferent matter, then, like putting on a new red coat. It is of the greatest importance that we regard baptism as excellent, glorious, and exalted"

Baptism is absolutely essential to salvation. However, many a scholar has made the error of assuming that baptism and water are synonymous. Paul, our apostle, most certainly did not. We are baptized by one SPIRIT into one body.

There is nothing magic in the water. The thief on the cross was baptized into the same body as you or I. A priest has no more authority to dunk you into heaven, or smack the HS into your being.

The thief on the cross was before the great commission and the institution of baptism. The priest does nothing more than administer the sacrament. It is God who does the baptism.

jlay wrote:

So how do we know we are the children of God? That's right, by carrying out his commands. So those who do NOT carry out God's commands, are they the children of God as well?

Are you perfectly doing this? No. Nor am I. Are the commands of the RCC the same thing? No. What are Christ's commands?
Further, this says, we can KNOW that we are children of God. We can KNOW. When we trust Christ obediently we have assurance. When we doubt, we do not.
The most important command of Christ is obediently trusting Him. His life, His message, His works. (John 5:24) That we are saved by grace through faith. When we add to this command, we are rejecting it, and thus not obeying it. No matter how many rules or guidelines we abide by. If we miss the heart of the matter, all our works are like throwing God a nickels worth of self-righteousness for the priceless gift of grace. An insult. God descended to the deepest depths to rescue us. Anything that we do, is saying that He didn't. That we have to climb up. In Christ, He came all the way down.

What you call works I do not. I see them as God's hand guiding us to become like Christ (although we can never measure up).

jlay wrote:

Then note verse 6, No-one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him. So I ask you again, what does this do to absolute assurance when a child of God keeps on sinning?

That is known in the context of 1 John. Obviously if we take this sin mentioned here as a broad brush, then no one is saved. Because in some form, either through commission or omission, all sin again. That is why the same book states, that one who claims to have no sin, is a liar and the truth is not in him. (1 John 1:8) So, obviously that is not the proper exegesis.

(1 John 3:6) "No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him."

The first part says no one who LIVES in Him. As believers we have the choice to live in Him. You can not live in Christ and sin. Paul's exposition in Romans 7 and 8 explain this dual nature.

But again, this does not negate the fact that a person can completely reject it.

Sure it does. It's self defeating. I may disobey my parents, but I can't reject the birth they gave me. I can rebel, but I can't unwind my DNA. You are saying that a person can unbirth themself.

That is most definitely NOT what I'm saying. I think I've clearly said the exact opposite when I said a person cannot be unchristianized, but that is a different topic than securing eternal life. As I said in my original post, there is a delineation in scripture between Christ's sacrifice as the high priest which is a corporate offering for the church (Danny, I believe this is the message of Hebrews) and individual forgiveness of sins. Christ's sacrifice as high priest did away with Yum Kippur and the yearly sacrifice of covenant renewal. It is now a new and everlasting covenant not subject to renewal and that is why the gates of hell shall never prevail against the church.

jlay wrote:

jlay wrote:

Unless one believes in total depravity, our cooperation is part and parcel of covenant keeping. And here's the kicker (and what I have been arguing all along in this thread), it is no different than what you believe or what Danny believes, unless you believe in absolute assurance with absolutely no conditions. Otherwise it's all a matter of degrees, six of one and half a dozen of the other.

Bottom line is you are taking liberties with terminology in an attempt to justify your position. Needless to say that myself, Danny, Rick and many others would say, uhhh, NO!

There are no liberties being taken J, I read scripture the same way you do and come to a different conclusion, that is all.

DannyM wrote:At this point I think that ample scripture have been offered for the affirmitive position . If we do not find agreement soon then it is going to look like a stalemate for some of us.

Lol Danny, I have no problem whatsoever if even you want to declare victory. Like I said from the beginning, I simply wanted to clarify my position rather than win a debate. I think I've done that, knowing full well disagreements persist.

Peace Brothers.

Byblos wrote:

DannyM wrote:At this point I think that ample scripture have been offered for the affirmitive position . If we do not find agreement soon then it is going to look like a stalemate for some of us.

Lol Danny, I have no problem whatsoever if even you want to declare victory. Like I said from the beginning, I simply wanted to clarify my position rather than win a debate. I think I've done that, knowing full well disagreements persist.

Peace Brothers.

LOL. No. The only victory here is the Brothers keeping an air of civility throughout. In any case, who would adjudicate? I think we’d need a Pope… or something…

DannyM wrote:

Byblos wrote:

DannyM wrote:At this point I think that ample scripture have been offered for the affirmitive position . If we do not find agreement soon then it is going to look like a stalemate for some of us.

Lol Danny, I have no problem whatsoever if even you want to declare victory. Like I said from the beginning, I simply wanted to clarify my position rather than win a debate. I think I've done that, knowing full well disagreements persist.

Peace Brothers.

LOL. No. The only victory here is the Brothers keeping an air of civility throughout. In any case, who would adjudicate? I think we’d need a Pope… or something…

I think I'll just leave it at that.

Byblos wrote:

DannyM wrote:

Byblos wrote:

DannyM wrote:At this point I think that ample scripture have been offered for the affirmitive position . If we do not find agreement soon then it is going to look like a stalemate for some of us.

Lol Danny, I have no problem whatsoever if even you want to declare victory. Like I said from the beginning, I simply wanted to clarify my position rather than win a debate. I think I've done that, knowing full well disagreements persist.

Peace Brothers.

LOL. No. The only victory here is the Brothers keeping an air of civility throughout. In any case, who would adjudicate? I think we’d need a Pope… or something…

I think I'll just leave it at that.

John, I started out thinking I agreed with Jac. I do agree with him on (OSAS), the obvious irreconcilable difference being his belief that apostates were ‘once saved’ and my belief to the contrary. God bless you, Bro