Evidence for God from Science

I started this thread based on a question posed by Proinsias in this thread. http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 73#p148673

Proinsias wrote: I tend towards the dictionary definition, or more simply use the label Christian for anyone identifying as such. The internal Christian idea always seemed a little hazy to me in that one who later denounces Christianity was never a true Christian in the first place meaning to me, that one's current Christian status is dependent upon one's future pov. I gather you went from a rather comitted athiest to Christian, from what I understand if in x amount of years you revert back to atheism and stick with it until death then your current Christianity would be false? Any clarification is welcome as I know you biblical knowledge far outstrips mine.

Pro,
I use to hold that definition, but later rejected it, because, in my estimation, it is wrong. You are going to get several opinions on this one. But the main point you are addressing is whether someone who once proclaimed faith and then later renounces this faith can still be considered 'Christian.' I started a new thread to keep from getting off topic on the other thread.

The term Christian is a label, but not one the bible itself applies. Believer and saint are the terms used in the Bible. A believer is someone who has trusted the Gospel. Whether they are or are not believing the gospel at THIS very moment may change. Now, many would disagree with this assessment, but you've wisely pointed out some flaws with this thinking. We know that there are several things that can affect belief. We also know the Bible deals with 'believers' who fall away from the faith. Does this mean they "lose" their salvation? Some would say, yes, and others, no. Jac has pointed out even recently that our understanding of faith itself may be the problem. Some, equate belief to committment. Not me. One's level of commitment to a particular belief doesn't make it true. I believe that if someone rightly trust the gospel for their salvation, then they are saved. The power is not in the one believing, but in what/who they are placing their faith. The object of faith is the source of power. Therefore the Gospel (the message of Christ) is the power of God to salvation. But, it is this only for those who believe. Those who believe cannot and will not lose it, even if they deny in the future of ever having believed it. Otherwise, salvation is contingent on us, which I think contradicts the very definition of belief itlsef. It also moves the power from the object (Christ) and places it on the person believing.

I do think it is highly unlikely that someone who rightly trusts the Gospel will whole heartedly reject this notion in their inner man. But I don't deny that they can.

I went through a very dark period in my life, where I began to question my salvation, and even began to question the basic foundational tenets of my faith. In those darkest moments you would hard pressed to identify me as "Christian." I would not have tried to share Christ with you. I might have even said things contradictory to my confession of Christ. But, I was still a "Christian," if that is the word we must use. I was saved. When I began to doubt, I cannot then at the same time say I was trusting the Gospel at that very moment. In fact, even though I can say right now, that I do believe the gospel, I am not any more saved than I was the moment I first believed. Neither do I believe I am any more saved now than when I was really struggling with doubt. However, current faith does provide me with assurance. And herein lies the difference. Assurance and security really are two different things. Security of salvation is based on whether one has ever rightly believed the Gospel. This person is securely saved. However, if they later begin to doubt or reject, then they will lose their assurance. Assurance and security are 100% available to the believer. Assurance however, is conditional on what one is believing at the time.

FWIW, if someone is rejecting faith in the Gospel at this moment, then I have no reason to assume they are saved, regardless of what they say about the past. This isn't judging them. It is simply accepting their current testimony at face value. Now, whether they actually received Christ in the past is 100% between them and God. If someone says they once were a Christian and are not anymore, then I for one think there are plenty of reasons to doubt their answer. The first thing I would want to know is, what do you mean by 'Christian?' I often find that asking this simple question helps clarify the matter quickly.

As we can read in the other thead, we already lack a consensus on the matter. (Likely even among...., uhh, Christians) For example, I know many people here in the South who grew up in church. They went any time the doors were open. They can name the books of the Bible and recount many Bible stories. They likely claim to be Christian. But does this mean they are a saved person? No. You can ask the question, "what do you mean by Christian?" And they may say, "I'm a member of this or that church." But, that doesn't make them a born again, believer? No,because it doesn't mean they have trusted Christ. So, sure, they can be a nominal Christian. And any atheist is going to use this to their advantage. And more specifically is any atheist who claims to have once been a Christian. As one who has served in ministry for over 12 years, I run into people who grew up in the church their whole lives and still do NOT understand the gospel. How is one saved, you ask? And they will provide all kinds of answers. Get baptized. Live a life that pleases God. Join the church. Commit your life to following Christ. And yet, every one of those reasons is a false Gospel, which has no power to save.

Another example is one of my friends growing up. He knew that I was a beleiver, and one day a group of us guys were having a discussion. Someone asked him if he was a Christian. His answer was interesting. He said, "Well, I believe it, just in case it might be true." I didn't know how to respond to this. He wasn't rejecting Christianity, but neither was he saying that He was actually convinced that Christ died for his sins, and was raised.

Like jlay said, there's certainly no consensus on what a "Christian" is. I happen to agree with jlay here.

I just have one thing that I need to clarify with what jlay said here:

Assurance and security really are two different things. Security of salvation is based on whether one has ever rightly believed the Gospel. This person is securely saved. However, if they later begin to doubt or reject, then they will lose their assurance. Assurance and security are 100% available to the believer. Assurance however, is conditional on what one is believing at the time.

I agree that assurance as jlay means it here, is different than security. This kind of assurance is a kind of assurance that a believer feels. A believer feels assured that he has salvation, because he is presently trusting in Christ.

But there is a kind of assurance that is synonymous with security. This kind of assurance is not a feeling, but a promise from God. He gives one who has trusted in Christ, His assurance. Or His promise. So in that sense, anyone who has trusted Christ, always has God's assurance of salvation. He has God's promise.

I think jlay pretty much nailed it here.

That is a great point Rick, and I'm glad you pointed it out. It did briefly cross my mind to make the distinction.

Yes, we have assurance from the scripture that has nothing to do with what we feel, or think at any given moment. And, we also have personal assurance (what I initially referred to) regarding what we feel or know. So, if a beleiver has fallen into doubt, they are not experiencing assurance, even though the scripture assures them completely. They are doubting what the scripture plainly teaches.

Feel free to add to or correct these definitions.
Assurance: promise from the scripture that if we have trusted the Gospel, then we are saved.
Security: That if we have trusted the Gospel, then our salvation is secure and cannot be lost.

jlay wrote:
Feel free to add to or correct these definitions.
Assurance: promise from the scripture that if we have trusted the Gospel, then we are saved.
Security: That if we have trusted the Gospel, then our salvation is secure and cannot be lost.

Wouldn't change a thing.

Thanks for a thoughtful and detailed reponse jlay, and happy Christmas!

Would it be fair to say, presuming the Christian faith is the true faith, that amongst reasoning and rational adults those who end up in heaven are true Christians and those who do not are false? I appreciate there may be exceptions for people who have never heard the gospel, blasphemy etc but as a general sort of rule.....your explanation seems to be in a large part an exercise in determining whether or not a person can reasonably expect to be saved or enter the kingdon of God from which we can detemine the likelihood of them being a true Christian.

As we can read in the other thead, we already lack a consensus on the matter. (Likely even among...., uhh, Christians) For example, I know many people here in the South who grew up in church. They went any time the doors were open. They can name the books of the Bible and recount many Bible stories. They likely claim to be Christian. But does this mean they are a saved person? No. You can ask the question, "what do you mean by Christian?" And they may say, "I'm a member of this or that church." But, that doesn't make them a born again, believer? No,because it doesn't mean they have trusted Christ. So, sure, they can be a nominal Christian.

Nominal Christian may be the prase I'm looking for. "I'm a member of this or that church" seems like a pretty reasonable answer. The idea of a true Christian really appears to be something that will be decided by the afterlife, or the return of Christ. I know someone like William Craig Lane could wax lyrical all day in a resonable and logical fashion as to what it means to be a true Christian but he seems no less a contender for being saved in the Christian sense to someone who works 9 to 5, raises a family, has never had any time for theology or philosphy and words answers to the big questions awkwardly or in ways that send alarm bells ringing for those well versed in biblical studies and greek philospophy.

Personally I think I will stick with using the label Christian for most who identify as such, going much further seems to require both belief in Christianity and the ability to then detect real or genuine faith both of which are beyond my reach.

Proinsias wrote:Thanks for a thoughtful and detailed reponse jlay, and happy Christmas!

Would it be fair to say, presuming the Christian faith is the true faith, that amongst reasoning and rational adults those who end up in heaven are true Christians and those who do not are false?

Yes. It is a good thing that I have the role!

jlay wrote:

Proinsias wrote:Thanks for a thoughtful and detailed reponse jlay, and happy Christmas!

Would it be fair to say, presuming the Christian faith is the true faith, that amongst reasoning and rational adults those who end up in heaven are true Christians and those who do not are false?

Yes. It is a good thing that I have the role!

Really?? Jesus, is that you?? Have you really returned!?