Evidence for God from Science

Jac3510 wrote:Saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

Jac, I was just admiring the words of your signature. There is still something left ambiguous though, which I thought might be a good topic for discussion. That is whether the "through faith alone" is a continuous faith, or a once upon a time faith?

According to my understanding of things, saving faith is a one time exerice of faith (lit. belief) in Christ's promise to give everlastling life to all who believe Him (John 3:16; 6:47; 20:31; etc.). Continuous faith is not necessary to "make it to heaven."

There really is a LOT to say on this subject -- we've talked about it to a great degree in several threads -- but before I go and start laying out all kinds of issues that may not be of interest, I'll wait and see if anyone disagrees.

Jac3510 wrote:According to my understanding of things, saving faith is a one time exerice of faith (lit. belief) in Christ's promise to give everlastling life to all who believe Him (John 3:16; 6:47; 20:31; etc.). Continuous faith is not necessary to "make it to heaven."

There really is a LOT to say on this subject -- we've talked about it to a great degree in several threads -- but before I go and start laying out all kinds of issues that may not be of interest, I'll wait and see if anyone disagrees.

Yes, I remember from past discussions this was your view, but back then the tensions seemed much higher since you were in very heated discussions on various fronts with many people. So I decided to let it lapse...

However, I believe in a continuous faith, and that such a faith is no more a work than a one off faith. If I am wrong, well I am happy, for this means all the more people will be with God. But if I am right, I would hate to tell people like Anthony Flew and Dan Barker who once believed but do so no longer, that they will be with God and there is absolutely nothing to worry about (although they might begin worrying at such a thought ).

I read through the pages linked to in your signature, and agree with much of what is said. The reasoning is very nicely presented. Yet, when all is said and done I see this one issue remains for me - whether faith in Christ is a once off, or whether it is continuous. I read the page "But... I thought I could lose my salvation, and let me say I agree that one can not "lose" their salvation. That said, I still do not see from the passages presented that the issue is clear as to whether faith or belief in Christ is one off or continual. For example, these passages are (my comments are bracketed):

• John 5:24: Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes (a continual believing?) in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and (what follows here is simply the outcome of such belief whether continual or once off) shall not come into judgement, but has passed from death into life.
  
  John 6:35, 37-39: And Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst…All that the Father has given Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out (certainly, I believe Jesus will not cast away anyone who comes to Him, but does this then mean Christ holds someone hostage who then wishes to walk away from Him? Here, Jesus leaves open the possibility that one can still certainly leave Him but it will not be because He drove them away if they do). For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, (this is perhaps the strongest part of this passage for a once off belief, for if someone walks away then it could be said Christ lost them. Yet, it is only the Father's will that Christ should lose none, just as it is God's will that everyone will come to Him and not perish [2 Peter 3:9]. This does not mean that all will come to God for everyone is still given the freedom to deny Him. Likewise, while it is the Father's will that Christ should lose none who come to Him, it still remains that we have the freedom to then walk away) but should raise it up on the last day."

Thoughts?

I do remember things being very heated last year. I'm far more convinced of my theology today than I was then (additional study does that!), but I'd like to think I've mellowed out significantly as well, which is a good thing. Let me also offer a second prefratory remark here. The semantics in this discussion are very important. As I have quoted several times before, "We are not saved by believing biblical language. We are saved by believing biblical truth." I really couldn't care less what words a person uses, so long as they are believing the biblical proposition. The trouble is that people often use the same words (i.e., faith, salvation) in ways so radically different that the fundamental ideas being expressed and believed are not the same at all!

With that in mind, we come to your comments. You made two statements that, taken together, can be taken one of two ways. First you said that you agree that salvation cannot be lost. Second, you said you believe continuous faith is necessary. The first way to take these creates a contradiction: a person believes and is saved, but if they must continue believing to maintain that salvation. Of course, that directory violates your first statement above, so I can't see you meaning it that way. I assume, then, you mean that in this way: God knows who will continue in faith, and therefore, He only saves those whom He knows will, in fact, persevere until the end. Am I following your reasoning correctly?

Now, unlike my extended discussion with ttoews, I don't believe that you are presenting a works based salvation. The issue, for me, lies in my earlier remarks about the underlying idea being believed. And that leads me to the third idea in your reply that must be addressed. You seem to believe that if I am right, well then it's all good, because those who believe they have to continue in the faith are just as saved because at least they got the one time in there. On the other hand, if I am wrong, then only those whose faith endures are saved, and those apostates stand condemned (as never justified to begin with).

If that is your thinking, I disagree. The two ideas, one-time faith and continuous faith, are mutually exclusive promises. You must believe either one or the other. There really is no use for me to try to prove that John had a one time faith in mind (which is fairly simple to do, I think) until you agree with that. So let me comment on that, and see where we are from there.

The issue here is not one of faith vs. works. It is in the nature of the promise being believed. It should be immediately obvious that "faith" does not save, but it is the object of faith that does. After all, every person alive has faith in something. The question is simple: what is your faith in? In the passages you quote, Jesus says that salvation comes through faith (belief). WHAT must we believe?

If Jesus had in mind a one time faith, then the idea we are to believe is this: Jesus says, "Do you believe me, right now at this moment, that I am giving you everlasting life?" What I mean is that we are believing that Jesus is telling the truth. If, on the other hand, the idea is continuous faith, then the idea we are meant to believe is this: Jesus says, "Is the trust that you are placing in Me to get you to heaven the type of trust that will endure until the end?" What I mean is that we are believing that Jesus promises to save those who permanently trust Him.

Let me put that a little differently. In both our views, Jesus is making a promise. The question is simple: What is He promising? In my view, Jesus is promising that if we believe He is telling the truth, then we have everlasting life. In your view, Jesus is promising that whoever has the type of faith that endures throughout their lives (however long that may be, it is presumably preserved by God) has everlasting life. As you can see, these are different promises. He did not mean both of these at the same time. If you believe one, you disbelieve the other.

Thoughts?

I always end up coming to these passages:

John 10:25, "Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. 29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. 30 I and my Father are one." KJV

Here we have Jesus telling us that there are those that are not his sheep and there are those that are. Therefore, the Lord knows who are his and who is not. He still calls — speaks his words to all and his sheep hear his voice and He knows them and they follow him. No one or thing is able to pluck his sheep out of his hand.

Those that are his sheep hear his voice — hence believe.

Romans 4:3, “For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.” KJV - Genesis 15:6-18

Abraham believed God and heard his voice and became God's friend James 2:23 tells us.

Romans 10:17, “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”

Those that hear his voice follow him and are never lost, shall never perish, neither shall anything pluck them out of God's hand.

Since there are those that are his sheep and there are those not his sheep then those that are not his sheep do not hear or follow Him. You have two types of people; those that truly believe and those that do not believe. Those that believe follow Christ — those that do not hear nor follow and in due course of time stole away.

After all these years as a Christian I have come to this conclusion: what Jesus says is true — no one or thing is able to snatch them from His hands, not even the individual. Those that are his do stumble but never fall so far away that they stray from the Master's hands. Because in due time they hear, learn, and return.

Psalms 23:1-6, “The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.:2 He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters. 3 He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake. 4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. 5 Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over. 6 Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.” KJV
-
-
-

Jac and K
I would guess it would depend on what a person's first view of the Gospel is.
I think many people start with the view of a one time belief, but then get under eroneous teaching and start doubting their original beliefs. In this instance I would say they were saved. But if their original belief was that they had to continue "faithing", then I think you are right Jac, they are not saved.

I beleive we are saved by grace through faith. And then we have the right to serve by grace through faith. Those that continue growing in their faith receive the grace to allow the Holy spirit to work through them.

And both - the faith through which we receive salvation and the faith through which we serve - comes from the hearing the Word.

Faith is taking the Word of God over your own and obeying it.
When we are saved by faith we obeyed the Word by calling in the name of Jesus to save us (Rom 10:13).
When we serve by faith we take the Word of God over our own by keeping his commandments. But not to be confused, the faith to serve is in addition to that faith that is necessary for salvation. This is where much of the confusion comes.

If someone receives the Gospel and believes they are saved. But know in my case as well as many others, my initial years as a Christian were VERY worldly, but I also was hardly ever reading the Word. There is no way I could have received the faith to serve, because I was not growing in faith. And I was not growing in faith because I was not reading the word, or even going to church very often for that matter.....

But I now see that if I had continued living the worldly life, I might not even be alive today. Certain "coincidences" seemed to come into my life to get me started going to church, and further circumstances got me into a fantastic weekly Bible study. (there are no coincidences )

So I do believe there will be a change in the life of a saved person. It may not be immediately, if ever, noticeable. It depends on how deep into the Word a person gets. And the change could even seem to be somewhat negative to the saved person, especially if this person gets into the word, but then still lives like the world, because those that know better are more responsible. But either way there will be some sort of change eventually.

Jac, Do you agree with most of this? I think maybe not the necessity of change, I guess it determines how you have interpreted what I wrote. Please, realize I am not saying that the change will always be that they will start acting like a Christian should (that would be lordship salvation). I am just saying that there will always eventually be some sort of change in the life of the believer. The change could literally be physical death, (although this is probably an extreme case after some one has received great understanding already.)

Any thoughts?
YLT

YLT - I think I would agree with just about everything you said, certainly with the ideas presented. I make a big deal out of semantics because I don't like using phrases that can be taken to mean other things, but I can even adopt most of your wording by and large.

The most important thing you pointed out is that a person can (and often does) have a simple one time faith that is later twisted into a belief that continuous faith is necessary. Such a person is still saved because at one time they believed the promise of Jesus. On the other hand, a person who has ALWAYS believed continuous faith is necessary is in trouble, because they have not believed the promise of Jesus. They have believed a totally different proposition.

I could also agree with the spirit of your comments about the necessity of change, given your last qualification. I should say that I do believe that a change WILL occur (not may), but I believe those changes are structural and may or may not lead to behavioral changes. For example, the new believer is changed in that he now has a new nature. He now has the Holy Spirit living in him. He now will come under the wrath of God for disobeying God's commandments in a way in which he did not before. Sin for him now takes on a new meaning because it now brings about the discipline only suffered by the children of God, including, in some cases, death.

BUT, does that mean any of those structural changes wil necessarily result in behavioral changes? I say no. Abiding in Christ is what guarantees that, because the one who abides is guaranteed to yield the fruit of the Spirit.

Again, the most important thing I see here is that people recognize that the two ideas presented in this thread--one, that one time belief is necessary, and two, that continuous faith is necessary--are mutually exclusive ideas because they are based on different propositions. These ideas believe different things entirely.

Thanks for your comments on the matter. It is always good to see the same idea expressed differently, and you present it in a more generous manner than I do, I think

------------------------------------

BW:

I'm going to have to disagree with a lot of what you have said here. You've drawn some very unnecessary conclusions from John 10. The underlying question here is why did Jesus say the Pharisees were not His sheep? You don't provide an answer for that, and I think that may be why your reasoning is off here (as I see it). Is it, as the Calvinists say, because they were not elect? No. The Pharisees had rejected God Himself long before Jesus came on the scene. Isreal had a sad history of that, don't you think? Paul exlicitly says that the Jews sought righteousness from the Law, and as such, they condemned themselves. God's people are those who live by faith, so He tells us in the Old Testament.

These Jews had chosen to live by the Law. Therefore, they were not Christ's sheep. They could not hear the voice of Jesus because they had rejected the His voice their entire lives before. The OT is Christ's self-revelation just as much as the NT. How could they have disbelieved Him when He spoke through the prophets and yet believed Him when He spoke from His own mouth???

In that context, Jesus uses a shephard metaphor. It was familiar, recalling David's life. Israel was a flock--God's flock. Just as sheep know their shephard's voice, so would the Jews who had not rejected Jesus' self-testimony in the OT. But it is too much to say that they would follow in obedience to His commandments. Yes, Jesus says sheep follow, but as part of the metaphor, He is pointing to their receptiveness of their Master's words. It takes the analogy to far to say that Jesus is talking about obedience here, and thus distinguishes true believers from false believers. There is not a hint of anything even like "false believers" in this passage. Just the opposite, all believers are Christ's, and no one can pluck them from His hand.

Concerning James 2:23, I hate to tell you that while Abraham was called a friend of God, this is not a universal promise to all believers. In fact, the next verse goes on to say, "You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone." We are considered God's friends when we obey Him in complete faithfulness, regardless of the cost to ourselves, as did Abraham.

Concerning Romans 10:17, the verse says absolutely NOTHING about following, so it is inappropriate to say that those who hear will follow.

It seems your entire theology is built on the idea that Jesus' sheep follow Him, but you supply the words "in obedience" to that sentence, which is totally unnecessary and outside the context of the illustration. Believers are not guaranteed to persevere in their faith. They may fall. They may be restored. They also may not be restored but instead die in their unbelief. This says absolutely nothing about the validity of their belief. It says everything about the rewards they have lost in Heaven.

God bless

I am here going to paste a reply to Jac's second reply above (which I wrote yesterday before the site went unexpectedly offline). I have not read anything since then, and so my reply does not take any additional posts into consideration.

Jac3510 wrote:Let me also offer a second prefratory remark here. The semantics in this discussion are very important. As I have quoted several times before, "We are not saved by believing biblical language. We are saved by believing biblical truth." I really couldn't care less what words a person uses, so long as they are believing the biblical proposition. The trouble is that people often use the same words (i.e., faith, salvation) in ways so radically different that the fundamental ideas being expressed and believed are not the same at all!

I agree that discussions like these often involve semantics to a great deal. So in order to avoid confusion I will provide as much details as is required to understand my position. Please feel free to ask for clarification.

Jac3510 wrote:With that in mind, we come to your comments. You made two statements that, taken together, can be taken one of two ways. First you said that you agree that salvation cannot be lost. Second, you said you believe continuous faith is necessary.

Yes, I agree salvation can not be lost. To make a clarification on the second, I feel uneasy with the wording that says a continuous faith is necessary. I would rather say that faith itself is continuous. Such wording makes a big difference. My belief is not so much the type of faith required to be saved, but rather the nature of what faith itself is. Can our faith in Christ be once off, or is our faith itself a continuous affair? I am drawn towards the latter. Rightly or wrongly, I see that faith is by its nature continuous.

The more I think about it, the more I dislike the idea of "a continuous faith being necessary". Such a phrase presumes something of the nature of faith, that faith can be once off rather than being continuous. Further, I am concerned that such a statement as phrased implies one might need to always have at the forefront of their consciousness their faith or belief in Christ. I do not believe this at all, and would in fact hold to the belief that someone who has come to Christ can have full doubts and still be saved (which I believe because I do not think that Christ would hold a lack of knowledge or answers against His own). On the other hand, we have the likes of Dan Barker. Barker, once a Christian minister, does not now simply doubt Christ or for that matter God's existence, but rather he is decisively against Christ and God. Barker once having a faith and belief in Christ, but now not any longer, highlights for me that faith is not once off. Rather, existing as we do in a temporal world means who we are changes over time. Thus, to answer the question of whether we have faith in Christ we need to look at who "we" presently are, not who we once were.

This gets into exploring an ontology of our "self" which I see as continually developing throughout life. For example, what makes you who you are right now? It is all your previous life experiences and continual development throughout life up until the present time right? Some might answer that we are our physical (and spiritual) body, but this would be to answer "what" we are rather than "who". I see that who we are right now is due to the whole of our life experiences in the temporal world we live in, and not simply one state of it. As such, the person we are at death may be very different to the person we were as a child, or different to who we are as an adolescent, or different to who we are as an adult, or different to who we are at various other times in our life. Yet the resulting person we are at the end of our life, is a coalesce of this continual flow of the persons we once were.

With this ontological understanding of who we are, it should become clearer why I see our faith is also continuous since it is contingent on us. For example, the Dan Barker who was a minister, is not the same Dan Barker today who is the result of a coalesce of all his previous experiences and thus represents the more developed "Dan Barker". So to say "Dan Barker has faith in Christ" was not really true at any time - we just did not know who the truer "Dan Barker" was until he developed more fully. The "Dan Barker" back when he was a minister may have had faith in Christ, but that Dan Barker no longer exists and has been replaced by the more completely developed Dan Barker who does not have faith in Christ.

So to summarise what I have said here, rather than believe "a continuous faith is necessary" I believe the simpler as you do that one must simply have faith in Christ. Only I believe that throughout life we are developing more completely into the person we really are, and that our faith is contingent upon this person. Thus, to say faith is a once off commitment for me presents an incomplete picture of who we are, and as such our faith in Christ. I see we must take the most complete picture of who we are, and for us the most complete picture of who we are (and by extension our faith which is contingent upon who we are) is found today in the present.

Jac wrote:The first way to take these creates a contradiction: a person believes and is saved, but if they must continue believing to maintain that salvation.

It is not so much that a person must continue believing to be saved, but rather that the person we really are (the person we will become) is not saved if we do not believe in Christ. Thus, I see we either believe or we do not, only I think we need to take a fuller picture of our development into account when evaluating who we really are.

Jac wrote:Of course, that directory violates your first statement above, so I can't see you meaning it that way. I assume, then, you mean that in this way: God knows who will continue in faith, and therefore, He only saves those whom He knows will, in fact, persevere until the end. Am I following your reasoning correctly?

I do believe "God knows who will continue in faith", just as I believe God knows all who will come to faith in Christ on their death bed. I very plainly believe God saves those who believe in Christ. Persevering until the end does not come into the equation if the "who" in "the person who believes" is understood as the most complete person, that is, the person closest to who we will become at the end of our development in this life.

What follows from this is that we can only judge whether a person is saved by their most complete self. For this, we can only look at "who" they are right now. Yet, their more completely developed self might be different in the end. As for myself, I know I am saved, and have absolutely no doubt about it based on Christ's promise. If I turn against God as I develop down the track, then I would also know I no longer have faith in Christ. I do not have privy to the knowledge of the future however. I only know the person I am now, and not the more complete self I will be when I die. From God's omniscient perspective however, I am sure He can see us as our final person and so can justify us (who we really are) based on our faith in Christ before our lives end.

Jac wrote:Now, unlike my extended discussion with ttoews, I don't believe that you are presenting a works based salvation.

From memory, and I may be wrong, but I never thought ttoews was presenting a works based salvation any more than having "faith" or "belief" is a work. However, I do not really claim to know what ttoews argued or believes so I guess I can not really say either way.

Jac wrote:The issue, for me, lies in my earlier remarks about the underlying idea being believed. And that leads me to the third idea in your reply that must be addressed. You seem to believe that if I am right, well then it's all good, because those who believe they have to continue in the faith are just as saved because at least they got the one time in there.

Correct.

Jac wrote:On the other hand, if I am wrong, then only those whose faith endures are saved, and those apostates stand condemned (as never justified to begin with).

Again, it is not a matter or perseverance, or as in this case endurance of faith, but rather to do with the more completely developed person. The person who came about through a coalesce of the flow of all the persons they were in the past (from the person they were at conception until birth, through childhood to adolescence, onto adulthood, and so on). As only God can see us in our completed form, only God ultimately knows who is justified through Christ. But that is not to say I cannot have assurance now of my being saved. As of now, I am fully confident that I am saved given Christ's promise.

Jac wrote:If that is your thinking, I disagree. The two ideas, one-time faith and continuous faith, are mutually exclusive promises.

I see the two ideas as rather being that 1) faith is a one-time commitment, or 2) that faith is continuous. This puts a very different picture on the issue we are discussing.

Jac wrote:You must believe either one or the other. There really is no use for me to try to prove that John had a one time faith in mind (which is fairly simple to do, I think) until you agree with that. So let me comment on that, and see where we are from there.

Or to rephrase the ideas, did John view the nature of faith as a one time commitment, or faith as an ongoing process?

Jac wrote:The issue here is not one of faith vs. works. It is in the nature of the promise being believed. It should be immediately obvious that "faith" does not save, but it is the object of faith that does. After all, every person alive has faith in something. The question is simple: what is your faith in? In the passages you quote, Jesus says that salvation comes through faith (belief).
WHAT must we believe?

If Jesus had in mind a one time faith, then the idea we are to believe is this: Jesus says, "Do you believe me, right now at this moment, that I am giving you everlasting life?" What I mean is that we are believing that Jesus is telling the truth. If, on the other hand, the idea is continuous faith, then the idea we are meant to believe is this: Jesus says, "Is the trust that you are placing in Me to get you to heaven the type of trust that will endure until the end?" What I mean is that we are believing that Jesus promises to save those who permanently trust Him.

Let me put that a little differently. In both our views, Jesus is making a promise. The question is simple: What is He promising? In my view, Jesus is promising that if we believe He is telling the truth, then we have everlasting life. In your view, Jesus is promising that whoever has the type of faith that endures throughout their lives (however long that may be, it is presumably preserved by God) has everlasting life. As you can see, these are different promises. He did not mean both of these at the same time. If you believe one, you disbelieve the other.

I do not see the belief which saves us as being an affirmation of a question or acceptance of a proposition. Such could perhaps even be considered a work, albeit a very small one, since an explicit response or acceptance is required. Rather, I see the "belief" or "faith" required as being more of a natural surrendering, an implicit trust in Christ, albeit this can certainly be evidenced by explicit affirmations as you put it. This natural surrendering to, and implicit trust in Christ is what I see as "faith" or "belief" in Christ. As such, it only makes sense to me that this "faith" or "belief" is intimately tied to the person we are, and as our person is in continuous flow and in flux until the day we die, so is the nature of our faith.

Jac3510 wrote:BW:

I'm going to have to disagree with a lot of what you have said here. You've drawn some very unnecessary conclusions from John 10. The underlying question here is why did Jesus say the Pharisees were not His sheep? You don't provide an answer for that, and I think that may be why your reasoning is off here (as I see it). Is it, as the Calvinists say, because they were not elect? No. The Pharisees had rejected God Himself long before Jesus came on the scene. Isreal had a sad history of that, don't you think? Paul exlicitly says that the Jews sought righteousness from the Law, and as such, they condemned themselves. God's people are those who live by faith, so He tells us in the Old Testament.

These Jews had chosen to live by the Law. Therefore, they were not Christ's sheep. They could not hear the voice of Jesus because they had rejected the His voice their entire lives before. The OT is Christ's self-revelation just as much as the NT. How could they have disbelieved Him when He spoke through the prophets and yet believed Him when He spoke from His own mouth???

In that context, Jesus uses a shephard metaphor. It was familiar, recalling David's life. Israel was a flock--God's flock. Just as sheep know their shephard's voice, so would the Jews who had not rejected Jesus' self-testimony in the OT. But it is too much to say that they would follow in obedience to His commandments. Yes, Jesus says sheep follow, but as part of the metaphor, He is pointing to their receptiveness of their Master's words. It takes the analogy to far to say that Jesus is talking about obedience here, and thus distinguishes true believers from false believers. There is not a hint of anything even like "false believers" in this passage. Just the opposite, all believers are Christ's, and no one can pluck them from His hand.

Concerning James 2:23, I hate to tell you that while Abraham was called a friend of God, this is not a universal promise to all believers. In fact, the next verse goes on to say, "You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone." We are considered God's friends when we obey Him in complete faithfulness, regardless of the cost to ourselves, as did Abraham.

Concerning Romans 10:17, the verse says absolutely NOTHING about following, so it is inappropriate to say that those who hear will follow.

It seems your entire theology is built on the idea that Jesus' sheep follow Him, but you supply the words "in obedience" to that sentence, which is totally unnecessary and outside the context of the illustration. Believers are not guaranteed to persevere in their faith. They may fall. They may be restored. They also may not be restored but instead die in their unbelief. This says absolutely nothing about the validity of their belief. It says everything about the rewards they have lost in Heaven.

God bless

I think you are reading too much into John 10 also. YLT stated something interesting in his point as a new Christian living worldly and then coincidences happened which changed YLT. Those that believe — follow Christ because they hear his voice. His rod and staff comfort the wayward sheep bringing them back into the fold. No one has an answer why this is, yet it happens and is true.

When we try to explain away what Jesus says concerning none able to snatch his sheep from his hand just does not cut the mustard. The truth Jesus is speaking transcends time no matter who he is speaking too. Even Ephesians 2:10 is another verse that supports what I am trying to explain, yet the English translation just does not quite capture the richness of the Greek.

Finally, just because I stated what I stated should not be interpreted with an anti-Calvinist tone. I cannot do anything about how Calvinism interprets John 10. It is a shame that everything is reduced to either a Calvinist or Armenian frame work. As someone once remarked to me — to the Armenian I sound like a Calvinist and to a Calvinist I sound like an Armenian.

Let me try to explain it again. God's word is the catalyst for Election. Follow the rambling riddle:

If God never called Adam and Eve where would we all be? If he did not speak to Abraham — what would be our eternal state? If God did not speak through the scriptures and the foolishness of preaching where would we all be?

Check it out — God's word, which he is faithful to perform and keeps, says 'if” a person repents or 'choose' — guess what? There is your choice, granted by God — his gift to you whereas if he remained silent would there ever be any sheep for his pasture?

It is his word that now makes choice possible. It is still his work — he calls — will we follow? Hear? How will we respond? This answer is known by an all knowing God yet he in unfathomable justice, mercy, fairness, he calls even to those he knows will reject him [Psalms 97:9] so that he proves Himself God in all things and all ways.

He does not need to look down the corridors of time to see who will choose because without a catalyst no choice could ever be made. Since He provides the catalyst by offering choice which his word declares, and he is faithful to keep his word, God proves himself sovereign in all ways.

He knows the answer of the heart his word rudely imposes before we ever were and since he knows the answer he can do with us all as he wills. Yet there is no unrighteous, no unfair dealings, no trickery, no injustice, in this. With God, all is above board as he test the heart, Psalms 14:10 and his people will be volunteers, free will offerings, in the day of his power, Psalms 110:3.

He truly knows his sheep and his sheep hear his voice — his word — and are transformed by it. Others hear his word and reject it and go their own way. They reject the 'if' or the 'choose this day,' or the 'repent for the kingdom of God is at hand.' They reject God's work and his ways and are justly held to account by the uprightness of God.

It is his word that makes all things possible. It is by his word he made the universe. By his word, we are offered choice when before we had none. Calvinist or Armenian for some reason, have got things all twisted up so much so that the word is neglected in the final equation. The catalyst is seldom seen or understood in each doctrine and much is missed that explains a lot.

When I read John 10 — I read in the context of the voice — his word and what it does and its purpose. Never limit John 10 for tradition sake alone. It has deeper meaning than any of us really fathoms.

Now I wrote in a jumble and I'll leave it up to the reader to unravel. All I ask is take your time and go slow and compare with the rest of the bible as there is more than I can share in his word.
-
-
-

K:

Ok, you've given me a few very concrete ideas to question you on, and I think that will help keep the discussion organized:

1. A faith that perseveres vs. ontological faith

Your view is that the continuance of faith is not itself a necessity, but rather that a developing person will have the type of faith that does, in fact, exist. It exists because it is a part of who they are.

If I may pull one of James' tricks, then: what is the difference in a person whose faith that did not endure and a person who developed in such a way that faith was no longer a part of the character? In the end, is this six vs. half a dozen?

2. Faith as belief vs. faith as commitment

Clarity, not consensus! We can talk about why I disagree that faith has anything to do with commitment in the near future. For now, I want to focus on your comment here: "I see the two ideas as rather being that 1) faith is a one-time commitment, or 2) that faith is continuous."

For the sake of clarity, it is important that you see that I do NOT believe that faith is a one time commitment. It is no commitment at all. Faith is intellectual assent to an idea. It is believing that a proposition is true. It is NOT a decision. It is not willful. A person cannot decide to believe. They are either convinced that something is true or they are not.

If you were to ask me, then, if the nature of faith is a one time commitment vs. a continuous idea, I would say that both are wrong. Further, both are equally wrong. I personally don't see the need in discussing two ideas which are inherently wrong, do you? If I had to debate whether salvation came through Allah or Joseph Smith, I would throw up my hands and say neither.

3. The doctrine of assurance

You stated that you know for sure that you are saved based on Christ's promise. However, you go on to say, "If I turn against God as I develop down the track, then I would also know I no longer have faith in Christ. I do not have privy to the knowledge of the future however. I only know the person I am now, and not the more complete self I will be when I die."

So I have a question for you. Are you 100% certain that you will be the type of person who has faith when you die? If not, are you (or how can you be) certain that you will be (or are now, since you believe salvation cannot be lost) saved?

I think that should cover it for now. Thanks much.

B. W. wrote:I think you are reading too much into John 10 also. YLT stated something interesting in his point as a new Christian living worldly and then coincidences happened which changed YLT. Those that believe — follow Christ because they hear his voice. His rod and staff comfort the wayward sheep bringing them back into the fold. No one has an answer why this is, yet it happens and is true.

When we try to explain away what Jesus says concerning none able to snatch his sheep from his hand just does not cut the mustard. The truth Jesus is speaking transcends time no matter who he is speaking too. Even Ephesians 2:10 is another verse that supports what I am trying to explain, yet the English translation just does not quite capture the richness of the Greek.

Finally, just because I stated what I stated should not be interpreted with an anti-Calvinist tone. I cannot do anything about how Calvinism interprets John 10. It is a shame that everything is reduced to either a Calvinist or Armenian frame work. As someone once remarked to me — to the Armenian I sound like a Calvinist and to a Calvinist I sound like an Armenian.

Let me try to explain it again. God's word is the catalyst for Election. Follow the rambling riddle:

If God never called Adam and Eve where would we all be? If he did not speak to Abraham — what would be our eternal state? If God did not speak through the scriptures and the foolishness of preaching where would we all be?

Check it out — God's word, which he is faithful to perform and keeps, says 'if” a person repents or 'choose' — guess what? There is your choice, granted by God — his gift to you whereas if he remained silent would there ever be any sheep for his pasture?

It is his word that now makes choice possible. It is still his work — he calls — will we follow? Hear? How will we respond? This answer is known by an all knowing God yet he in unfathomable justice, mercy, fairness, he calls even to those he knows will reject him [Psalms 97:9] so that he proves Himself God in all things and all ways.

He does not need to look down the corridors of time to see who will choose because without a catalyst no choice could ever be made. Since He provides the catalyst by offering choice which his word declares, and he is faithful to keep his word, God proves himself sovereign in all ways.

He knows the answer of the heart his word rudely imposes before we ever were and since he knows the answer he can do with us all as he wills. Yet there is no unrighteous, no unfair dealings, no trickery, no injustice, in this. With God, all is above board as he test the heart, Psalms 14:10 and his people will be volunteers, free will offerings, in the day of his power, Psalms 110:3.

He truly knows his sheep and his sheep hear his voice — his word — and are transformed by it. Others hear his word and reject it and go their own way. They reject the 'if' or the 'choose this day,' or the 'repent for the kingdom of God is at hand.' They reject God's work and his ways and are justly held to account by the uprightness of God.

It is his word that makes all things possible. It is by his word he made the universe. By his word, we are offered choice when before we had none. Calvinist or Armenian for some reason, have got things all twisted up so much so that the word is neglected in the final equation. The catalyst is seldom seen or understood in each doctrine and much is missed that explains a lot.

When I read John 10 — I read in the context of the voice — his word and what it does and its purpose. Never limit John 10 for tradition sake alone. It has deeper meaning than any of us really fathoms.

Now I wrote in a jumble and I'll leave it up to the reader to unravel. All I ask is take your time and go slow and compare with the rest of the bible as there is more than I can share in his word.
-
-
-

BW,

Two quick things:

1) On what textual, exegetical, and/or contextual basis do you interpret the word "follow" in John 10 to refer to the call to obedience?

2) I've no interest in talking riddles. I, for one, find them to be ways to mask a contradiction. "How can God elect me and yet I still have a choice?" people ask. And they answer, "It is a great paradox, a great riddle indeed!" Instead, they should acknowledge the fact that the question presents a contradiction any way you look at it, and appealing to paradox and the unknown only proves it. I've given you what I belive to be a solid exegetical reason for why Jesus' words have absolutely NOTHING to do with election in these verses.

Tell me where you disagree and why:

Jesus was talking to the Pharisees about their unbelief
Jesus was explaining to the Pharisees why the could not believe
Jesus pointed out that they could not believe because they were not His sheep
Jesus explained that they were not His sheep because they had rejected OT testimony of salvation through faith alone
Jesus pointed out that those who were His sheep heard His voice
Jesus explained that those who were His sheep were those who had NOT rejected the OT testimony regarding faith
Jesus pointed out that "His sheep" "heard His voice and followed Him."
Thus, hearing and following have no reference to obedience, but to receptivity to the revelation of God as presented by Jesus Christ, as per the analogy and context.

Jac3510 wrote:K: Ok, you've given me a few very concrete ideas to question you on, and I think that will help keep the discussion organized:

Just ask if anything needs greater clarity. I would also be interested to know where you differ, and if you do disagree what reasoning there might be behind it. (which I expect you will do anyway)

Jac3510 wrote:1. A faith that perseveres vs. ontological faith

Your view is that the continuance of faith is not itself a necessity, but rather that a developing person will have the type of faith that does, in fact, exist. It exists because it is a part of who they are.

I believe it comes down to the nature of faith. Is "faith" (or lack thereof) to be seen as a continuum or as an isolated happening?

Take the following timeline of the life of a hypothetical person "Anthony":

[Birth]----[5]----[accepts Christ]----[becomes Atheist]----[20]----[25]----[30]----[35]----[40]----[45]----[returns to Christ]----[Death]

As I understand your position Anthony would be saved because he accepted Christ at age 10, while according to mine Anthony was always saved because in evaluating who Anthony is I look at the whole of his life not just one part of it.

Let us do a second timeline for Anthony:

[Birth]----[5]----[accepts Christ]----[becomes Atheist]----[20]----[25]----[30]----[35]----[40]----[45]----[Death]

Now as I understand your position, Anthony is saved because he came to Christ at the age of 10. According to my view Anthony was never saved because the real Anthony, the completely developed Anthony, rejected Christ.

The difference as I see it is that you are taking one event in Anthony's life (where he accepts Christ), and saying the Anthony at that one event is still the same Anthony at death. It may be true that Anthony's essence is the same, but it is not true so far as "who" Anthony is. I am taking the whole continuum of Anthony's life and saying that the end result is who Anthony ultimately is and was always going to be.

Jac wrote:If I may pull one of James' tricks, then: what is the difference in a person whose faith that did not endure and a person who developed in such a way that faith was no longer a part of the character? In the end, is this six vs. half a dozen?

Let me know if the above clarifies this.

Jac wrote:2. Faith as belief vs. faith as commitment

Clarity, not consensus! We can talk about why I disagree that faith has anything to do with commitment in the near future. For now, I want to focus on your comment here: "I see the two ideas as rather being that 1) faith is a one-time commitment, or 2) that faith is continuous."

For the sake of clarity, it is important that you see that I do NOT believe that faith is a one time commitment. It is no commitment at all. Faith is intellectual assent to an idea. It is believing that a proposition is true. It is NOT a decision. It is not willful. A person cannot decide to believe. They are either convinced that something is true or they are not.

If you were to ask me, then, if the nature of faith is a one time commitment vs. a continuous idea, I would say that both are wrong. Further, both are equally wrong. I personally don't see the need in discussing two ideas which are inherently wrong, do you? If I had to debate whether salvation came through Allah or Joseph Smith, I would throw up my hands and say neither.

Sorry, a poor choice of word. Yet, you still see faith as a one time happening right?

Jac wrote:3. The doctrine of assurance

You stated that you know for sure that you are saved based on Christ's promise. However, you go on to say, "If I turn against God as I develop down the track, then I would also know I no longer have faith in Christ. I do not have privy to the knowledge of the future however. I only know the person I am now, and not the more complete self I will be when I die."

So I have a question for you. Are you 100% certain that you will be the type of person who has faith when you die? If not, are you (or how can you be) certain that you will be (or are now, since you believe salvation cannot be lost) saved?

I believe I am as certain as certain can be. I do not know whether it is a God-given intuition or something inside my very being I am intune with, but I absolutely can not comprehend or envision myself without faith in Christ. Such a faith is as much a part of me as my own being. Perhaps I just feel so in touch with who I am that I can say so with complete confidence that I know the person I will be when I will die will still strongly believe in Christ. This might seem like I am avoiding what you are trying to get at, which I am not trying to do. So I will attempt to answer what I feel you want a response to.

I said previously a person can not lose their salvation. The Anthony illustration above should answer "why", as I see "the person" as the whole of their life. However, what about from a purely temporal perspective of a person who accepts Christ and then later on walks away from Christ and dies. Now from my own perspective I see that they did not ever lose or walk away from their salvation because they never had it. Yet, looking at it from a purely temporal perspective it was not like they "lost" salvation either. I do not know who began using the term "lost", but someone who turns away from Christ does not just lose salvation as though it fell out of their pocket. Rather they gave salvation up by knowingly walking away from Christ. And I would say their decision to walk away strikes at the heart of "who" they really are more so than the person who accepted Christ.

I am happy to continue clarifying, and look forward to reading your thoughts.

Kurieuo wrote:I said previously a person can not lose their salvation. The Anthony illustration above should answer "why", as I see "the person" as the whole of their life. However, what about from a purely temporal perspective of a person who accepts Christ and then later on walks away from Christ and dies. Now from my own perspective I see that they did not ever lose or walk away from their salvation because they never had it. Yet, looking at it from a purely temporal perspective it was not like they "lost" salvation either. I do not know who began using the term "lost", but someone who turns away from Christ does not just lose salvation as though it fell out of their pocket. Rather they gave salvation up by knowingly walking away from Christ. And I would say their decision to walk away strikes at the heart of "who" they really are more so than the person who accepted Christ.

I believe that people can fall into this category. That never believed, and they were just using religion to try to get what they want. It did not work for them so they walked away.

But I also believe there are those who are saved and they cross the line of God's mercy. This does not mean they are no loger saved it just means that God will no longer use them in the capacity that they were previously being used. For many of these people in this situation, they may feel as though they no longer have salvation, because nothing they do for God seems to stick. But they are still saved, although they will not receive many, if any, rewards in heaven.

But then there is the person the claims he once believed and then no longer believes. I am guessing this is the tough one, where all this discussion is centered. Right? I think each circumstance here would be different. I think some of these are saved people, but let themselves be influenced by bad teaching. But some other probably believed in vain, (they thought they beleived, but were believing the wrong thing) and were therefore never saved. I do not think there can be a blanket ruling for all people in this category. Only the person and God knows what they actually believed. And sometimes the person does not even know what they believed - I think this happens a lot. Some people call themselves Christians because they do all the same things that Christians do. Therefore they believe they are a Christian. But they may have never heard or understood the Gospel of grace. These are not saved although they may claim to be and even believe that they are saved. But one day they may no longer claim to believe.

But the person that has actually believed the Gospel, can never lose that even if they decide they want to go to hell instead. I think Paul talks about this. He says if it were possible, he would go to hell for his Jewish brothers who have not accepted Christ if they would receive Christ. (I have forgotten the verse, you all are probably familiar with it, I need to reboot my computer before I can look it up - I'll edit this post when I find it)

Ok, regarding the first issue ("ontological faith"):

Perhaps it is better to speak of your view as the continuum of faith rather that continuance of faith? It is not actually the faith of the person in question, but the person themselves in question. Do they have "faith" (which is a continuum) or not? It seems to be impossible to have a "once-off" faith in your view, because such a faith is excluded in your definition.

I'm pretty sure I follow your line of thought. I am just trying to get the semantics down.

I do have one specific request for clarification here. Let's consider your example of Anthony being always saved. Do you mean he was always saved from the point of acceptance of Christ at 10, or do you mean that He was "born saved" because . . . why . . . maybe God knew he would develop into a person of faith?

Let me change the time line just a LITTLE bit. Let's move everything back ten years. Anthony accepts at 20, becomes an atheist at 30. He returns at 55. You say he was "always saved". I just want to find out how you meant that. What if he had died at 19? Or what if he had died at 54?

If I am right above, then I see your distinction. But I'm speaking from a bit more practical level that philosophical as I'm trying to clarify what I see will be a point of disagreement coming down the line. Let me use an analogy to get my question across better.

Calvinists believe that a person cannot lose their salvation. If a person professes belief and later dies in unbelief, then it proves they never genuinely believed in the first place. Arminians believe that we can lose our salvation--that a person can genuinely be saved and have everlasting life, but a relapse into sin can cause us to lose that salvation. Thus, in Arminian theology, in the timeline I suggested for Anthony, if he dies at 29 he goes to heaven. At 31-54 he goes to hell. At 55 plus he goes to heaven.

Here's my point: from a practical level, these two systems teach exactly the same thing. It is six and one half a dozen. It is little comfort for a person to die and say, "Well, I may be in Hell, but at least I didn't lose my salvation. I guess I just never had it!" The end result for both systems is that for a person to be saved, their faith must still be in Christ at the time of their . . . ah . . . expiration. in short form, they both believe that perseverene is necessary for salvation. Arminians say we have to do it. Calvinists say that God does it for us. But the doctrine is the same.

OK, so let's apply that same thinking to your view. For you, the issue may not be the perseverence of faith, but the end result of your system and that of Arminianism/Calvinism is exactly the same, is it not? If a person professes faith and later rejects that faith, i.e., Dan Barker, then regardless of if they lost their salvation, or if they proved they never had it because 1) God didn't elect them (Calvinism) or 2) they weren't the type of person who truly believed (Kism ), the end result is just the same. So, while I recognize the differences in each of your systems (we could even throw Catholicism in there for further comparison!), the final doctrine is agreed on--that to be saved, a person must have faith in some form of fashion until they die. Your reasons for this are different, but practically speaking, you are all saying the same thing. Am I right on this?

Regarding the second issue ("exclusivity of the belief systems"):

You have my view right, I think. Do you agree that what we are suggesting are mutually exclusive ideas? Obviously, I believe you are wrong, but can you see that in my view, like YLT pointed out, a person who rejects "once-off faith" as you call it is actually rejecting the Gospel in view of the fact that, in my understanding of things, "faith" is absolutely nothing more than believing a propositio to be true?

On the third and final issue ("doctrine of assurance"):

I can certainly understand you not being able to fathom disbelieving Christ. I am in the same boat. But I can accept the logical possibility that I may fall from the faith at some point in the future. Of course, in my view, that doesn't change the fact that I still know I am going to be in heaven. Thus, I can say I have 100% assurance of my salvation.

Can you recognize the fact that, while it may be foreign to you, that it is possible that you could prove to be a person, through development, who does not in fact believe? Is it a logical possibility that you are, in fact, not saved, and that you may yet still end up in Hell? How sure would you say you are that you are going to heaven? 50%? 75%? 99.995%?

If I can understand exactly where you are coming from on these issues, we can move on to discuss which view is biblically supported, I think. But obviously I need to know where your mind is first.

Thanks much.

YLTYLT wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:I said previously a person can not lose their salvation. The Anthony illustration above should answer "why", as I see "the person" as the whole of their life. However, what about from a purely temporal perspective of a person who accepts Christ and then later on walks away from Christ and dies. Now from my own perspective I see that they did not ever lose or walk away from their salvation because they never had it. Yet, looking at it from a purely temporal perspective it was not like they "lost" salvation either. I do not know who began using the term "lost", but someone who turns away from Christ does not just lose salvation as though it fell out of their pocket. Rather they gave salvation up by knowingly walking away from Christ. And I would say their decision to walk away strikes at the heart of "who" they really are more so than the person who accepted Christ.

I believe that people can fall into this category. That never believed, and they were just using religion to try to get what they want. It did not work for them so they walked away.

But I also believe there are those who are saved and they cross the line of God's mercy. This does not mean they are no loger saved it just means that God will no longer use them in the capacity that they were previously being used. For many of these people in this situation, they may feel as though they no longer have salvation, because nothing they do for God seems to stick. But they are still saved, although they will not receive many, if any, rewards in heaven.

But then there is the person the claims he once believed and then no longer believes. I am guessing this is the tough one, where all this discussion is centered. Right? I think each circumstance here would be different. I think some of these are saved people, but let themselves be influenced by bad teaching. But some other probably believed in vain, (they thought they beleived, but were believing the wrong thing) and were therefore never saved. I do not think there can be a blanket ruling for all people in this category. Only the person and God knows what they actually believed. And sometimes the person does not even know what they believed - I think this happens a lot. Some people call themselves Christians because they do all the same things that Christians do. Therefore they believe they are a Christian. But they may have never heard or understood the Gospel of grace. These are not saved although they may claim to be and even believe that they are saved. But one day they may no longer claim to believe.

But the person that has actually believed the Gospel, can never lose that even if they decide they want to go to hell instead. I think Paul talks about this. He says if it were possible, he would go to hell for his Jewish brothers who have not accepted Christ if they would receive Christ. (I have forgotten the verse, you all are probably familiar with it, I need to reboot my computer before I can look it up - I'll edit this post when I find it)

You are talking about the opening verses of Romans 9. I just wanted to say ths post is outstanding. The bolded part above is the all important distinction to me. Good suff.