So how do you, Mothra, know if you aren't fooling yourself?Mothra said:90sBear said:I'm honestly asking your opinion.Mothra said:90sBear said:Again, for us that is the gift of hindsight. And as pointed out since there are plenty of former God-loving pastors and priests out there, it's not a hypothetical.Mothra said:90sBear said:But had you asked them at an earlier time, they could have honestly said absolutely 100% they were believers.Mothra said:90sBear said:Can the Thief on the Cross scenario happen in reverse? That is, what in your opinion would happen to someone who spent most of their life as a believer but then towards the end decided in their heart of hearts that God doesn't exist and the stuff about Jesus is a bunch of BS?Mothra said:A few things...Realitybites said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Take any person - when they hear the gospel, and at that moment they believe in Jesus with all their heart and trust in him for their salvation, is their faith "dead" until they perform their first work?
Your question presupposes that salvation is an event. Since salvation is not an event, it is a meaningless construct like daynight would be.
Salvation begins when you are reconciled with God when you come to believe in Jesus' death. It continues as you pick up your cross and follow him. It ends when you fall asleep in the Lord after serving him faithfully. Given this, though the *reconciliation* of every Christian with God begins at the same place, the *salvation* of every one who begins the Christian life looks different.
For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you."
1st Corinthians 12
Until you can get past this idea that salvation is an event, you won't be able to understand it.Quote:
How do we know? The thief could have lived for hours, or even a couple of days. Do we know that he didn't sin in the hours or days that followed? A simple thought could have crossed his mind
We know that Dismas didn't live for days because Luke 23:43. As far as what thoughts crossed his mind in his final hours, I think you'll agree that being nailed to a cross next to Jesus and being a first person witness to the crucifixion has a way of clarifying one's thoughts.
1) The idea that salvation is a process simply isn't a position supported by scripture. I've seen you cite several verses in support of that position, including in this post. None of those verses actually say, much less suggest, that salvation occurs over time. You seem to be confusing salvation and sanctification.
I think those who "lose their faith" were never actual converts to begin with. See the parable of the sower.
You are now saying that with the gift of hindsight, but in that earlier moment they believed.
Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_DeWitt
Here is an entire organization created for former pastors and clergy who no longer believe.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Clergy_Project&wprov=rarw1
Don't you think a lot of people in this group could have told you at one point they 100% believed in God, Jesus, and that they were saved?
Perhaps they deceived themselves, certainly. But Christ is clear it wasn't a true conversion.
I'm just curious, what is the point of your comments? Do you believe that this hypothetical somehow supports a workspace face or lost salvation?
If these former once God-loving people can choose to turn their backs on their once strong faith, can't any of us?
Indeed it is the gift of hindsight, which is why we may not know who is saved until the day of judgment. Christ himself suggested we may be surprised by whose name is not written in the book of life.
But again, my question: What is your point?
So to make sure I have got it right, IYO not one of us knows for certain we are saved (I would agree with this) until the day of judgment.
So in your opinion do we have the freedom to change our mind about God's existence and whether or not Jesus died for our sins?
Incorrect. I think busy states it well. Once you are saved - there is no going back. There might be some who think they're saved who are fooling themselves - like the seed sewn in shallow soil. Adversity hits and they fall away from the faith.
Contemporary Evangelical Church Discussion
18,828 Views |
566 Replies |
Last: 7 hrs ago by BusyTarpDuster2017
It could be a depressing prospect, yes, but there are obviously plenty of once God-loving people who are now potentially facing that if they change their minds and decide God isn't real.Mothra said:90sBear said:So here we are with hindsight again. How does any one of us know that we have "seen red" given that many said they once saw it clear as day but now cannot?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It's my firm belief that anyone who truly believes, can never un-believe. It's be like seeing the color red and then later not believing in it. Once you've seen it, you can never un-see it. If someone says they saw it, but now doesn't believe in it, it's because they never really saw it in the first place.90sBear said:But had you asked them at an earlier time, they could have honestly said absolutely 100% they were believers.Mothra said:90sBear said:Can the Thief on the Cross scenario happen in reverse? That is, what in your opinion would happen to someone who spent most of their life as a believer but then towards the end decided in their heart of hearts that God doesn't exist and the stuff about Jesus is a bunch of BS?Mothra said:A few things...Realitybites said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Take any person - when they hear the gospel, and at that moment they believe in Jesus with all their heart and trust in him for their salvation, is their faith "dead" until they perform their first work?
Your question presupposes that salvation is an event. Since salvation is not an event, it is a meaningless construct like daynight would be.
Salvation begins when you are reconciled with God when you come to believe in Jesus' death. It continues as you pick up your cross and follow him. It ends when you fall asleep in the Lord after serving him faithfully. Given this, though the *reconciliation* of every Christian with God begins at the same place, the *salvation* of every one who begins the Christian life looks different.
For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you."
1st Corinthians 12
Until you can get past this idea that salvation is an event, you won't be able to understand it.Quote:
How do we know? The thief could have lived for hours, or even a couple of days. Do we know that he didn't sin in the hours or days that followed? A simple thought could have crossed his mind
We know that Dismas didn't live for days because Luke 23:43. As far as what thoughts crossed his mind in his final hours, I think you'll agree that being nailed to a cross next to Jesus and being a first person witness to the crucifixion has a way of clarifying one's thoughts.
1) The idea that salvation is a process simply isn't a position supported by scripture. I've seen you cite several verses in support of that position, including in this post. None of those verses actually say, much less suggest, that salvation occurs over time. You seem to be confusing salvation and sanctification.
I think those who "lose their faith" were never actual converts to begin with. See the parable of the sower.
You are now saying that with the gift of hindsight, but in that earlier moment they believed.
Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_DeWitt
Here is an entire organization created for former pastors and clergy who no longer believe.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Clergy_Project&wprov=rarw1
Don't you think a lot of people in this group could have told you at one point they 100% believed in God, Jesus, and that they were saved?
Scripture supports the view that "believers" who become unbelievers were never true believers to begin with:
"Didn't we do such and such in your name?" Jesus: "I never knew you" - Matthew 7:22-23 paraphrased.
"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us" - 1 John 2:19
I've always found the works-based faith of Catholics that your post alludes to tragic. The idea that you must continually work and strive in the hope of attaining salvation that you can never be certain about is depressing. As in the example I posted above, for a person who has experienced Christ's grace and lived a life for him only to be derailed by a last minute sinful thought before death which will condemn him to an eternity in hell is depressing (in addition to being anti-biblical) to say the least.
As for works, I don't find them tragic at all. I'm not Catholic, but If we are being realistic - without works by previous Christians none of us would be having this conversation today.
When I read Jesus say, "Believe in Me" I take him to mean everything including his teachings. My faith includes faith in living the way he taught including the works he told us to do. IMO if all that mattered out of Jesus' life was that he died for us then he could have just skipped all the teaching about how to live and just gone straight to the dying.
I think works can be viewed as a gift from God. They are an opportunity to serve and to expand God's Kingdom. They can serve as a boost in faith that can help in more trying times. A way to stay spiritually in shape so to speak.
If someone says they believe and yet never attempt to do any works I usually think to myself, "Yes..technically..I suppose." Like an obese person sitting on their couch living off pizza and soda saying that's all they need to survive. Yes..technically..I suppose.
Yes, we should all have belief and appreciation that Jesus died for us and it is only through God's grace that we may be saved. But that's just a start. Otherwise we risk limiting ourselves to a Santa Claus level of love for what Jesus did. "Thanks for the free gift." Works help put our faith into action and give us an opportunity to do more, grow more, and appreciate more what Jesus did for us. IMO if our faith isn't active, it is in danger of failing to the point of disbelief. Maybe not for all, but at least for some.
I promise I'm not trying to make works the magic cure-all. I'm sure all those priests and pastors did plenty in their time. But I just don't view works as tragic. I find works to be a blessing that I strive to do because of what Jesus did for us.
Today you SAY you believe just as there were many days they SAID they believe.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Many SAID they believed.90sBear said:Gotcha.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It's not that they now can not see it, they're saying they don't believe in it's existence. It means they never saw it. If you've seen it, you've seen it, and there's no way you can NOT believe in it.90sBear said:So here we are with hindsight again. How does any one of us know that we have "seen red" given that many said they once saw it clear as day but now cannot?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It's my firm belief that anyone who truly believes, can never un-believe. It's be like seeing the color red and then later not believing in it. Once you've seen it, you can never un-see it. If someone says they saw it, but now doesn't believe in it, it's because they never really saw it in the first place.90sBear said:But had you asked them at an earlier time, they could have honestly said absolutely 100% they were believers.Mothra said:90sBear said:Can the Thief on the Cross scenario happen in reverse? That is, what in your opinion would happen to someone who spent most of their life as a believer but then towards the end decided in their heart of hearts that God doesn't exist and the stuff about Jesus is a bunch of BS?Mothra said:A few things...Realitybites said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Take any person - when they hear the gospel, and at that moment they believe in Jesus with all their heart and trust in him for their salvation, is their faith "dead" until they perform their first work?
Your question presupposes that salvation is an event. Since salvation is not an event, it is a meaningless construct like daynight would be.
Salvation begins when you are reconciled with God when you come to believe in Jesus' death. It continues as you pick up your cross and follow him. It ends when you fall asleep in the Lord after serving him faithfully. Given this, though the *reconciliation* of every Christian with God begins at the same place, the *salvation* of every one who begins the Christian life looks different.
For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you."
1st Corinthians 12
Until you can get past this idea that salvation is an event, you won't be able to understand it.Quote:
How do we know? The thief could have lived for hours, or even a couple of days. Do we know that he didn't sin in the hours or days that followed? A simple thought could have crossed his mind
We know that Dismas didn't live for days because Luke 23:43. As far as what thoughts crossed his mind in his final hours, I think you'll agree that being nailed to a cross next to Jesus and being a first person witness to the crucifixion has a way of clarifying one's thoughts.
1) The idea that salvation is a process simply isn't a position supported by scripture. I've seen you cite several verses in support of that position, including in this post. None of those verses actually say, much less suggest, that salvation occurs over time. You seem to be confusing salvation and sanctification.
I think those who "lose their faith" were never actual converts to begin with. See the parable of the sower.
You are now saying that with the gift of hindsight, but in that earlier moment they believed.
Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_DeWitt
Here is an entire organization created for former pastors and clergy who no longer believe.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Clergy_Project&wprov=rarw1
Don't you think a lot of people in this group could have told you at one point they 100% believed in God, Jesus, and that they were saved?
Scripture supports the view that "believers" who become unbelievers were never true believers to begin with:
"Didn't we do such and such in your name?" Jesus: "I never knew you" - Matthew 7:22-23 paraphrased.
"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us" - 1 John 2:19
But again, many have said they believed, and now they don't.
I understand you are saying that obviously (with the gift of hindsight) they didn't actually see red. But had you asked them earlier they would have clearly reported all the symptoms of someone who had seen red.
Just because they reported seeing red, doesn't mean they did. If they are now saying they don't believe in it, it's evident they never saw it. Because if they did, they couldn't deny it. Ask yourself - can you, having experienced color, ever deny that it exists? There's no hindsight involved here.
I'm quite certain many of those pastors and priests at one time thought there could be no way they could ever "deny color exists." At least from our human perspective there is absolutely hindsight.
If they truly thought there was no way they could ever deny that color exists, but now they do, then it means they either 1) actually see color, but are denying it exists even though they know it does, OR 2) they just SAID they could see colors but they really couldn't, and now they are honestly denying it exists because they never truly saw it.90sBear said:Today you SAY you believe just as there were many days they SAID they believe.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Many SAID they believed.90sBear said:Gotcha.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It's not that they now can not see it, they're saying they don't believe in it's existence. It means they never saw it. If you've seen it, you've seen it, and there's no way you can NOT believe in it.90sBear said:So here we are with hindsight again. How does any one of us know that we have "seen red" given that many said they once saw it clear as day but now cannot?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It's my firm belief that anyone who truly believes, can never un-believe. It's be like seeing the color red and then later not believing in it. Once you've seen it, you can never un-see it. If someone says they saw it, but now doesn't believe in it, it's because they never really saw it in the first place.90sBear said:But had you asked them at an earlier time, they could have honestly said absolutely 100% they were believers.Mothra said:90sBear said:Can the Thief on the Cross scenario happen in reverse? That is, what in your opinion would happen to someone who spent most of their life as a believer but then towards the end decided in their heart of hearts that God doesn't exist and the stuff about Jesus is a bunch of BS?Mothra said:A few things...Realitybites said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Take any person - when they hear the gospel, and at that moment they believe in Jesus with all their heart and trust in him for their salvation, is their faith "dead" until they perform their first work?
Your question presupposes that salvation is an event. Since salvation is not an event, it is a meaningless construct like daynight would be.
Salvation begins when you are reconciled with God when you come to believe in Jesus' death. It continues as you pick up your cross and follow him. It ends when you fall asleep in the Lord after serving him faithfully. Given this, though the *reconciliation* of every Christian with God begins at the same place, the *salvation* of every one who begins the Christian life looks different.
For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you."
1st Corinthians 12
Until you can get past this idea that salvation is an event, you won't be able to understand it.Quote:
How do we know? The thief could have lived for hours, or even a couple of days. Do we know that he didn't sin in the hours or days that followed? A simple thought could have crossed his mind
We know that Dismas didn't live for days because Luke 23:43. As far as what thoughts crossed his mind in his final hours, I think you'll agree that being nailed to a cross next to Jesus and being a first person witness to the crucifixion has a way of clarifying one's thoughts.
1) The idea that salvation is a process simply isn't a position supported by scripture. I've seen you cite several verses in support of that position, including in this post. None of those verses actually say, much less suggest, that salvation occurs over time. You seem to be confusing salvation and sanctification.
I think those who "lose their faith" were never actual converts to begin with. See the parable of the sower.
You are now saying that with the gift of hindsight, but in that earlier moment they believed.
Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_DeWitt
Here is an entire organization created for former pastors and clergy who no longer believe.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Clergy_Project&wprov=rarw1
Don't you think a lot of people in this group could have told you at one point they 100% believed in God, Jesus, and that they were saved?
Scripture supports the view that "believers" who become unbelievers were never true believers to begin with:
"Didn't we do such and such in your name?" Jesus: "I never knew you" - Matthew 7:22-23 paraphrased.
"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us" - 1 John 2:19
But again, many have said they believed, and now they don't.
I understand you are saying that obviously (with the gift of hindsight) they didn't actually see red. But had you asked them earlier they would have clearly reported all the symptoms of someone who had seen red.
Just because they reported seeing red, doesn't mean they did. If they are now saying they don't believe in it, it's evident they never saw it. Because if they did, they couldn't deny it. Ask yourself - can you, having experienced color, ever deny that it exists? There's no hindsight involved here.
I'm quite certain many of those pastors and priests at one time thought there could be no way they could ever "deny color exists." At least from our human perspective there is absolutely hindsight.
Either way, they are liars. No one who truly sees color could ever honestly deny that color exists.
To lie is to make an intentionally false statement. I'm quite certain plenty of them had full belief in their faith at one point.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If they truly thought there was no way they could ever deny that color exists, but now they do, then it means they either 1) actually see color, but are denying it exists even though they know it does, OR 2) they just SAID they could see colors but they really couldn't, and now they are honestly denying it exists because they never truly saw it.90sBear said:Today you SAY you believe just as there were many days they SAID they believe.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Many SAID they believed.90sBear said:Gotcha.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It's not that they now can not see it, they're saying they don't believe in it's existence. It means they never saw it. If you've seen it, you've seen it, and there's no way you can NOT believe in it.90sBear said:So here we are with hindsight again. How does any one of us know that we have "seen red" given that many said they once saw it clear as day but now cannot?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It's my firm belief that anyone who truly believes, can never un-believe. It's be like seeing the color red and then later not believing in it. Once you've seen it, you can never un-see it. If someone says they saw it, but now doesn't believe in it, it's because they never really saw it in the first place.90sBear said:But had you asked them at an earlier time, they could have honestly said absolutely 100% they were believers.Mothra said:90sBear said:Can the Thief on the Cross scenario happen in reverse? That is, what in your opinion would happen to someone who spent most of their life as a believer but then towards the end decided in their heart of hearts that God doesn't exist and the stuff about Jesus is a bunch of BS?Mothra said:A few things...Realitybites said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Take any person - when they hear the gospel, and at that moment they believe in Jesus with all their heart and trust in him for their salvation, is their faith "dead" until they perform their first work?
Your question presupposes that salvation is an event. Since salvation is not an event, it is a meaningless construct like daynight would be.
Salvation begins when you are reconciled with God when you come to believe in Jesus' death. It continues as you pick up your cross and follow him. It ends when you fall asleep in the Lord after serving him faithfully. Given this, though the *reconciliation* of every Christian with God begins at the same place, the *salvation* of every one who begins the Christian life looks different.
For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you."
1st Corinthians 12
Until you can get past this idea that salvation is an event, you won't be able to understand it.Quote:
How do we know? The thief could have lived for hours, or even a couple of days. Do we know that he didn't sin in the hours or days that followed? A simple thought could have crossed his mind
We know that Dismas didn't live for days because Luke 23:43. As far as what thoughts crossed his mind in his final hours, I think you'll agree that being nailed to a cross next to Jesus and being a first person witness to the crucifixion has a way of clarifying one's thoughts.
1) The idea that salvation is a process simply isn't a position supported by scripture. I've seen you cite several verses in support of that position, including in this post. None of those verses actually say, much less suggest, that salvation occurs over time. You seem to be confusing salvation and sanctification.
I think those who "lose their faith" were never actual converts to begin with. See the parable of the sower.
You are now saying that with the gift of hindsight, but in that earlier moment they believed.
Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_DeWitt
Here is an entire organization created for former pastors and clergy who no longer believe.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Clergy_Project&wprov=rarw1
Don't you think a lot of people in this group could have told you at one point they 100% believed in God, Jesus, and that they were saved?
Scripture supports the view that "believers" who become unbelievers were never true believers to begin with:
"Didn't we do such and such in your name?" Jesus: "I never knew you" - Matthew 7:22-23 paraphrased.
"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us" - 1 John 2:19
But again, many have said they believed, and now they don't.
I understand you are saying that obviously (with the gift of hindsight) they didn't actually see red. But had you asked them earlier they would have clearly reported all the symptoms of someone who had seen red.
Just because they reported seeing red, doesn't mean they did. If they are now saying they don't believe in it, it's evident they never saw it. Because if they did, they couldn't deny it. Ask yourself - can you, having experienced color, ever deny that it exists? There's no hindsight involved here.
I'm quite certain many of those pastors and priests at one time thought there could be no way they could ever "deny color exists." At least from our human perspective there is absolutely hindsight.
Either way, they are liars. No one who truly sees color could ever honestly deny that color
Well, we're talking about the analogy with seeing color, right? They would be lying if they see color and deny its existence, or lying if they SAID they saw color but didn't. Both would be intentionally false statements.90sBear said:To lie is to make an intentionally false statement. I'm quite certain plenty of them had full belief in their faith at one point.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If they truly thought there was no way they could ever deny that color exists, but now they do, then it means they either 1) actually see color, but are denying it exists even though they know it does, OR 2) they just SAID they could see colors but they really couldn't, and now they are honestly denying it exists because they never truly saw it.90sBear said:Today you SAY you believe just as there were many days they SAID they believe.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Many SAID they believed.90sBear said:Gotcha.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It's not that they now can not see it, they're saying they don't believe in it's existence. It means they never saw it. If you've seen it, you've seen it, and there's no way you can NOT believe in it.90sBear said:So here we are with hindsight again. How does any one of us know that we have "seen red" given that many said they once saw it clear as day but now cannot?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It's my firm belief that anyone who truly believes, can never un-believe. It's be like seeing the color red and then later not believing in it. Once you've seen it, you can never un-see it. If someone says they saw it, but now doesn't believe in it, it's because they never really saw it in the first place.90sBear said:But had you asked them at an earlier time, they could have honestly said absolutely 100% they were believers.Mothra said:90sBear said:Can the Thief on the Cross scenario happen in reverse? That is, what in your opinion would happen to someone who spent most of their life as a believer but then towards the end decided in their heart of hearts that God doesn't exist and the stuff about Jesus is a bunch of BS?Mothra said:A few things...Realitybites said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Take any person - when they hear the gospel, and at that moment they believe in Jesus with all their heart and trust in him for their salvation, is their faith "dead" until they perform their first work?
Your question presupposes that salvation is an event. Since salvation is not an event, it is a meaningless construct like daynight would be.
Salvation begins when you are reconciled with God when you come to believe in Jesus' death. It continues as you pick up your cross and follow him. It ends when you fall asleep in the Lord after serving him faithfully. Given this, though the *reconciliation* of every Christian with God begins at the same place, the *salvation* of every one who begins the Christian life looks different.
For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you."
1st Corinthians 12
Until you can get past this idea that salvation is an event, you won't be able to understand it.Quote:
How do we know? The thief could have lived for hours, or even a couple of days. Do we know that he didn't sin in the hours or days that followed? A simple thought could have crossed his mind
We know that Dismas didn't live for days because Luke 23:43. As far as what thoughts crossed his mind in his final hours, I think you'll agree that being nailed to a cross next to Jesus and being a first person witness to the crucifixion has a way of clarifying one's thoughts.
1) The idea that salvation is a process simply isn't a position supported by scripture. I've seen you cite several verses in support of that position, including in this post. None of those verses actually say, much less suggest, that salvation occurs over time. You seem to be confusing salvation and sanctification.
I think those who "lose their faith" were never actual converts to begin with. See the parable of the sower.
You are now saying that with the gift of hindsight, but in that earlier moment they believed.
Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_DeWitt
Here is an entire organization created for former pastors and clergy who no longer believe.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Clergy_Project&wprov=rarw1
Don't you think a lot of people in this group could have told you at one point they 100% believed in God, Jesus, and that they were saved?
Scripture supports the view that "believers" who become unbelievers were never true believers to begin with:
"Didn't we do such and such in your name?" Jesus: "I never knew you" - Matthew 7:22-23 paraphrased.
"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us" - 1 John 2:19
But again, many have said they believed, and now they don't.
I understand you are saying that obviously (with the gift of hindsight) they didn't actually see red. But had you asked them earlier they would have clearly reported all the symptoms of someone who had seen red.
Just because they reported seeing red, doesn't mean they did. If they are now saying they don't believe in it, it's evident they never saw it. Because if they did, they couldn't deny it. Ask yourself - can you, having experienced color, ever deny that it exists? There's no hindsight involved here.
I'm quite certain many of those pastors and priests at one time thought there could be no way they could ever "deny color exists." At least from our human perspective there is absolutely hindsight.
Either way, they are liars. No one who truly sees color could ever honestly deny that color
But referring to the actual topic - they might not be lying, they'd just deceived themselves. Just like I suppose someone who says they see color but actually doesn't, could also deceive themselves into thinking they are seeing color. But deceiving yourself is also a form of lying, so...
Because I understand what fooling myself feels like, as I did it for years. Was raised in the church, got baptized as a boy, and at least showed many of the outward signs of a Christian. But inwardly, I was as far from Christ as one can be, and while that didn't manifest itself in ways that people could see - i.e. didn't physically cheat on my wife, didn't steal from my business, didn't abuse my kids - I knew for almost two decades that something wasn't quite right. I had virtually no fruits of the spirit, had no desire to spread the good news of Christ, had no concern for the lost, was making provision for sin in my life, and just felt a general sense of malaise - at times questioning whether God was real.90sBear said:So how do you, Mothra, know if you aren't fooling yourself?Mothra said:90sBear said:I'm honestly asking your opinion.Mothra said:90sBear said:Again, for us that is the gift of hindsight. And as pointed out since there are plenty of former God-loving pastors and priests out there, it's not a hypothetical.Mothra said:90sBear said:But had you asked them at an earlier time, they could have honestly said absolutely 100% they were believers.Mothra said:90sBear said:Can the Thief on the Cross scenario happen in reverse? That is, what in your opinion would happen to someone who spent most of their life as a believer but then towards the end decided in their heart of hearts that God doesn't exist and the stuff about Jesus is a bunch of BS?Mothra said:A few things...Realitybites said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Take any person - when they hear the gospel, and at that moment they believe in Jesus with all their heart and trust in him for their salvation, is their faith "dead" until they perform their first work?
Your question presupposes that salvation is an event. Since salvation is not an event, it is a meaningless construct like daynight would be.
Salvation begins when you are reconciled with God when you come to believe in Jesus' death. It continues as you pick up your cross and follow him. It ends when you fall asleep in the Lord after serving him faithfully. Given this, though the *reconciliation* of every Christian with God begins at the same place, the *salvation* of every one who begins the Christian life looks different.
For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you."
1st Corinthians 12
Until you can get past this idea that salvation is an event, you won't be able to understand it.Quote:
How do we know? The thief could have lived for hours, or even a couple of days. Do we know that he didn't sin in the hours or days that followed? A simple thought could have crossed his mind
We know that Dismas didn't live for days because Luke 23:43. As far as what thoughts crossed his mind in his final hours, I think you'll agree that being nailed to a cross next to Jesus and being a first person witness to the crucifixion has a way of clarifying one's thoughts.
1) The idea that salvation is a process simply isn't a position supported by scripture. I've seen you cite several verses in support of that position, including in this post. None of those verses actually say, much less suggest, that salvation occurs over time. You seem to be confusing salvation and sanctification.
I think those who "lose their faith" were never actual converts to begin with. See the parable of the sower.
You are now saying that with the gift of hindsight, but in that earlier moment they believed.
Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_DeWitt
Here is an entire organization created for former pastors and clergy who no longer believe.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Clergy_Project&wprov=rarw1
Don't you think a lot of people in this group could have told you at one point they 100% believed in God, Jesus, and that they were saved?
Perhaps they deceived themselves, certainly. But Christ is clear it wasn't a true conversion.
I'm just curious, what is the point of your comments? Do you believe that this hypothetical somehow supports a workspace face or lost salvation?
If these former once God-loving people can choose to turn their backs on their once strong faith, can't any of us?
Indeed it is the gift of hindsight, which is why we may not know who is saved until the day of judgment. Christ himself suggested we may be surprised by whose name is not written in the book of life.
But again, my question: What is your point?
So to make sure I have got it right, IYO not one of us knows for certain we are saved (I would agree with this) until the day of judgment.
So in your opinion do we have the freedom to change our mind about God's existence and whether or not Jesus died for our sins?
Incorrect. I think busy states it well. Once you are saved - there is no going back. There might be some who think they're saved who are fooling themselves - like the seed sewn in shallow soil. Adversity hits and they fall away from the faith.
And then about 12 years ago, I had a brother in Christ approach me and point out many of these things the Holy Spirit had revealed to him about my life. After initially getting angry because of my hurt pride, it caused me to truly examine myself, and what I found over the course of several weeks is that I had for years been a false convert who never truly knew Christ. I was like the seed that fell on stony soil. And when the realization hit me, it was like the scales fell off. I got on my knees, asked for forgiveness, and gave my life to Christ that day.
I am still not perfect, and never will be while I am here. I still stumble from time to time, but I no longer dive head first into sin. I now have a heart for the lost, and a heart for my children to know the saving grace I do. I have a desire to do the will of the Holy Spirit, and I listen to him. I have a desire to be in the word on a daily basis.
Scripture doesn't say that once we are saved, we should dispense with self-examination. Instead, scripture says we are to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. But having done that, I now know that if I died today, like the thief on the cross I would be with Christ in heaven. I can have assurance that there is no work I can do to attain salvation. There are no amount of sacraments I can participate in that will save me. It is Christ alone, and it is his sacrifice alone that has paid the debt for my past, present and future sins.
I don't disagree in principle with anything you've said. I think sometimes the works-based faith "Christians" seem to be confused by what many evangelicals actually believe. Many think we believe that merely "believing" in Christ is all we need to do, and that we can go live a hedonistic lifestyle, like the Gnostics, where there is no fruit, and no outward signs we are actually saved. But no evangelical will tell you that works don't matter, and I am certainly not suggesting that. Indeed, God has called us to perform the works he set out for us.90sBear said:It could be a depressing prospect, yes, but there are obviously plenty of once God-loving people who are now potentially facing that if they change their minds and decide God isn't real.Mothra said:90sBear said:So here we are with hindsight again. How does any one of us know that we have "seen red" given that many said they once saw it clear as day but now cannot?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It's my firm belief that anyone who truly believes, can never un-believe. It's be like seeing the color red and then later not believing in it. Once you've seen it, you can never un-see it. If someone says they saw it, but now doesn't believe in it, it's because they never really saw it in the first place.90sBear said:But had you asked them at an earlier time, they could have honestly said absolutely 100% they were believers.Mothra said:90sBear said:Can the Thief on the Cross scenario happen in reverse? That is, what in your opinion would happen to someone who spent most of their life as a believer but then towards the end decided in their heart of hearts that God doesn't exist and the stuff about Jesus is a bunch of BS?Mothra said:A few things...Realitybites said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Take any person - when they hear the gospel, and at that moment they believe in Jesus with all their heart and trust in him for their salvation, is their faith "dead" until they perform their first work?
Your question presupposes that salvation is an event. Since salvation is not an event, it is a meaningless construct like daynight would be.
Salvation begins when you are reconciled with God when you come to believe in Jesus' death. It continues as you pick up your cross and follow him. It ends when you fall asleep in the Lord after serving him faithfully. Given this, though the *reconciliation* of every Christian with God begins at the same place, the *salvation* of every one who begins the Christian life looks different.
For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you."
1st Corinthians 12
Until you can get past this idea that salvation is an event, you won't be able to understand it.Quote:
How do we know? The thief could have lived for hours, or even a couple of days. Do we know that he didn't sin in the hours or days that followed? A simple thought could have crossed his mind
We know that Dismas didn't live for days because Luke 23:43. As far as what thoughts crossed his mind in his final hours, I think you'll agree that being nailed to a cross next to Jesus and being a first person witness to the crucifixion has a way of clarifying one's thoughts.
1) The idea that salvation is a process simply isn't a position supported by scripture. I've seen you cite several verses in support of that position, including in this post. None of those verses actually say, much less suggest, that salvation occurs over time. You seem to be confusing salvation and sanctification.
I think those who "lose their faith" were never actual converts to begin with. See the parable of the sower.
You are now saying that with the gift of hindsight, but in that earlier moment they believed.
Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_DeWitt
Here is an entire organization created for former pastors and clergy who no longer believe.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Clergy_Project&wprov=rarw1
Don't you think a lot of people in this group could have told you at one point they 100% believed in God, Jesus, and that they were saved?
Scripture supports the view that "believers" who become unbelievers were never true believers to begin with:
"Didn't we do such and such in your name?" Jesus: "I never knew you" - Matthew 7:22-23 paraphrased.
"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us" - 1 John 2:19
I've always found the works-based faith of Catholics that your post alludes to tragic. The idea that you must continually work and strive in the hope of attaining salvation that you can never be certain about is depressing. As in the example I posted above, for a person who has experienced Christ's grace and lived a life for him only to be derailed by a last minute sinful thought before death which will condemn him to an eternity in hell is depressing (in addition to being anti-biblical) to say the least.
As for works, I don't find them tragic at all. I'm not Catholic, but If we are being realistic - without works by previous Christians none of us would be having this conversation today.
When I read Jesus say, "Believe in Me" I take him to mean everything including his teachings. My faith includes faith in living the way he taught including the works he told us to do. IMO if all that mattered out of Jesus' life was that he died for us then he could have just skipped all the teaching about how to live and just gone straight to the dying.
I think works can be viewed as a gift from God. They are an opportunity to serve and to expand God's Kingdom. They can serve as a boost in faith that can help in more trying times. A way to stay spiritually in shape so to speak.
If someone says they believe and yet never attempt to do any works I usually think to myself, "Yes..technically..I suppose." Like an obese person sitting on their couch living off pizza and soda saying that's all they need to survive. Yes..technically..I suppose.
Yes, we should all have belief and appreciation that Jesus died for us and it is only through God's grace that we may be saved. But that's just a start. Otherwise we risk limiting ourselves to a Santa Claus level of love for what Jesus did. "Thanks for the free gift." Works help put our faith into action and give us an opportunity to do more, grow more, and appreciate more what Jesus did for us. IMO if our faith isn't active, it is in danger of failing to the point of disbelief. Maybe not for all, but at least for some.
I promise I'm not trying to make works the magic cure-all. I'm sure all those priests and pastors did plenty in their time. But I just don't view works as tragic. I find works to be a blessing that I strive to do because of what Jesus did for us.
The question is - and it sounds like this is where you and I disagree - do those works, combined with our faith, save us? And the answer to that question is definitively answered in scripture - absolutely not. There is no scriptural support, at all, for that position.
As long as you and I can agree on that, then we probably don't disagree on much - other than the fact that there is no scriptural support for the idea that our names can be blotted out from the book of life.
We can't control every impression that passes through our minds. That's different from "looking at a woman to lust after her," as Christ said. Admittedly there may be a fine line. This is why we're told to take every thought captive (2 Corinthians 10:5).Mothra said:Christ himself said even a lustful thought is as bad as the act in God's eyes, so I am not sure how you arrived at this conclusion.Sam Lowry said:
A simple thought crossing your mind isn't a mortal sin. It must be entertained with full deliberation and with knowledge of the seriousness of the matter. At least in that moment, it constitutes a rejection of Christ and your walk with him. It would be as if the thief was forgiven, then turned around and spat in Jesus' face. In that case we'd be talking about a whole different story.
Do you have any scripture you are relying on to reach this conclusion?
EDIT: In our previous hypothetical, you said the man who had been a Christian all his life who had a lustful thought right before having a stroke (for which he was unable to repent) would go to hell. Are you now saying that is not the case?
It doesn't matter whether you call it the RCC or not. There were plenty of heretical books circulating at the same time. If you believe the Bible is infallible, you're trusting in the authority of the church that established the canon.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The Bible was not given to us by the Roman Catholic Church. The RCC only correctly recognized what Christians had already recognized as authoritative ever since the beginning. The Old Testament is the Jewish Scriptures, and the Gospels were already being circulated as Scripture in first century. The letters of Paul already had authority as being original apostolic tradition. Each were authoritative by their own merit; they did not need promulgation by Roman Catholic decree. In fact, Catholicism has actually recognized the wrong bible by decree of Council, having added the deuterocanonical books and even anathematizing anyone who doesn't recognize them as part of canon. This is in spite of previous Catholic councils having recognized canons that did NOT include the deuterocanonicals. This is just more evidence against the infallibility of the Roman Catholic Church.Sam Lowry said:How untrustworthy can a tradition be that gave us the Bible? Even if you don't agree with everything that came later, you've at least acknowledged that Scripture is infallible. This implies that the Church spoke authoritatively as recently as the Council of Rome, when it established the canon that we have today. The early Church had had plenty to say on the subject of faith and works by that time.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:But not based on works. Evidence may or may not be present depending on the situation, like with the thief on the cross.Sam LowryYou're reading in an awful lot. There's no reason to assume he deviously altered the meaning of the word in the middle of a verse, much less that that's the "key" to understanding it. said:Evidenced in works, I might add.Quote:You'd really have to be unfaithful to Scripture to think that where it says "believe that" it means a belief only in facts and without faith.Quote:I'm not sure I understand your point. It says believe that...or you will die in your sins. Believe that...and the Father is your friend. Believe that...and you will find life in his name. Obviously those are synonymous with salvation. If you're arguing otherwise, then with all due respect I'd say that's just a whole other level of stubbornness.Quote:That IS the "stubbornly literal way" to read it, isn't it? Never does it literally say "believe THAT.... and you are saved".Quote:It does if one reads it in the stubbornly literal way that you tend to do. You take one verse as proof that works don't matter, but you're happy to read in the concept of faith if it supports your beliefs. This is completely arbitrary. The works verses are just as much a part of the context.Quote:No, they don't necessarily. You're making it so they do. "Believe that...or you will die in your sins" is not the same thing. And "Believe that....and by believing have life in his name" (actual verse) is not the same thing as "believe that.... and by believing that have life in his name" (what you're saying it means).Quote:Sure they do.Quote:We know that Jesus said repeatedly that faith in him is what saves. Those two verses you referenced say that as well, if you would just let them. They are not proof-texts of the contrary. They don't even say "believe that... and you will be saved".Quote:They do entail a belief with faith. There's just nothing in those verses that says so. My point is that anyone can play the proof-texting game. That's why we need context, tradition, and history to tell us what Christ's followers actually believed.Quote:
There's no deviousness, otherwise he would have just said "these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ and by believing that have life in his name."
There's no reason to assume the "believe thats" you're referencing don't entail a belief with faith.
And never have I said that "works don't matter". I've said what the bible repeatedly teaches, that works don't save, faith does. It isn't just one verse.
But we can disagree all day. It's almost as if we need an authoritative tradition to help us discern what Christians have historically believed.
We don't need an authoritative tradition when we have the authoritative written word. If the Holy Spirit does not make Scripture perspicuous for the "priesthood of all believers", then it certainly won't be so for man-appointed priests in a Christianity that compromised with pagan Rome.
Seriously, how trustworthy can a tradition that led to Marian idolatry and heresy be, anyway?
The thief on the cross argument is frivolous. He followed Jesus in the time that he had, which is what God asks of everyone. Whether it was five minutes or five decades is beside the point.
The point about the thief was that faith may not be evidenced by works in every case. But what it does evidence is that faith is what saves, not works.
Indeed, it is a very fine line you're talking about here. Just to be clear, it's your opinion that a person who has lived a life of knowing Christ and then dies before he can take a thought captive is doomed to Hell?Sam Lowry said:We can't control every impression that passes through our minds. That's different from "looking at a woman to lust after her," as Christ said. Admittedly there may be a fine line. This is why we're told to take every thought captive (2 Corinthians 10:5).Mothra said:Christ himself said even a lustful thought is as bad as the act in God's eyes, so I am not sure how you arrived at this conclusion.Sam Lowry said:
A simple thought crossing your mind isn't a mortal sin. It must be entertained with full deliberation and with knowledge of the seriousness of the matter. At least in that moment, it constitutes a rejection of Christ and your walk with him. It would be as if the thief was forgiven, then turned around and spat in Jesus' face. In that case we'd be talking about a whole different story.
Do you have any scripture you are relying on to reach this conclusion?
EDIT: In our previous hypothetical, you said the man who had been a Christian all his life who had a lustful thought right before having a stroke (for which he was unable to repent) would go to hell. Are you now saying that is not the case?
Maybe I'm struggling to explain it because it seems so obvious to me. Everyone has a different walk. I'm not saying one is better or worse. We're commanded to live righteously (i.e. not sin) and to serve God and neighbor.Mothra said:Pronouncing something frivolous because you can't reconcile Christ's words with Catholicism is an interesting position. More troublesome for your position, of course, is the woman at the well, who we know continued to live life following Christ's pronouncement that her faith had saved her.Sam Lowry said:The thief on the cross argument is frivolous. He followed Jesus in the time that he had, which is what God asks of everyone. Whether it was five minutes or five decades is beside the point.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:But not based on works. Evidence may or may not be present depending on the situation, like with the thief on the cross.Sam LowryYou're reading in an awful lot. There's no reason to assume he deviously altered the meaning of the word in the middle of a verse, much less that that's the "key" to understanding it. said:Evidenced in works, I might add.Quote:You'd really have to be unfaithful to Scripture to think that where it says "believe that" it means a belief only in facts and without faith.Quote:I'm not sure I understand your point. It says believe that...or you will die in your sins. Believe that...and the Father is your friend. Believe that...and you will find life in his name. Obviously those are synonymous with salvation. If you're arguing otherwise, then with all due respect I'd say that's just a whole other level of stubbornness.Quote:That IS the "stubbornly literal way" to read it, isn't it? Never does it literally say "believe THAT.... and you are saved".Quote:It does if one reads it in the stubbornly literal way that you tend to do. You take one verse as proof that works don't matter, but you're happy to read in the concept of faith if it supports your beliefs. This is completely arbitrary. The works verses are just as much a part of the context.Quote:No, they don't necessarily. You're making it so they do. "Believe that...or you will die in your sins" is not the same thing. And "Believe that....and by believing have life in his name" (actual verse) is not the same thing as "believe that.... and by believing that have life in his name" (what you're saying it means).Quote:Sure they do.Quote:We know that Jesus said repeatedly that faith in him is what saves. Those two verses you referenced say that as well, if you would just let them. They are not proof-texts of the contrary. They don't even say "believe that... and you will be saved".Quote:They do entail a belief with faith. There's just nothing in those verses that says so. My point is that anyone can play the proof-texting game. That's why we need context, tradition, and history to tell us what Christ's followers actually believed.Quote:
There's no deviousness, otherwise he would have just said "these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ and by believing that have life in his name."
There's no reason to assume the "believe thats" you're referencing don't entail a belief with faith.
And never have I said that "works don't matter". I've said what the bible repeatedly teaches, that works don't save, faith does. It isn't just one verse.
But we can disagree all day. It's almost as if we need an authoritative tradition to help us discern what Christians have historically believed.
We don't need an authoritative tradition when we have the authoritative written word. If the Holy Spirit does not make Scripture perspicuous for the "priesthood of all believers", then it certainly won't be so for man-appointed priests in a Christianity that compromised with pagan Rome.
Seriously, how trustworthy can a tradition that led to Marian idolatry and heresy be, anyway?
The idea that the thief's walk, or the woman at the well's walk, was better or different from other Christians is an interesting one. Unscriptural, but interesting.
Respectfully, I think some might say you are grasping at straws to try and justify Catholic dogma that has been proven inconsistent with scripture.
If someone goes to church, hears Jesus' command to feed the poor, and dies before he has a chance to act on it, he isn't condemned. That doesn't mean we don't have to act on it. TarpDuster seems to be saying it has to be one or the other, which is plain sophistry.
It's odd that you're equating belief in Christianity with belief in evidence of the senses. How does that leave any room for faith?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If they truly thought there was no way they could ever deny that color exists, but now they do, then it means they either 1) actually see color, but are denying it exists even though they know it does, OR 2) they just SAID they could see colors but they really couldn't, and now they are honestly denying it exists because they never truly saw it.90sBear said:Today you SAY you believe just as there were many days they SAID they believe.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Many SAID they believed.90sBear said:Gotcha.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It's not that they now can not see it, they're saying they don't believe in it's existence. It means they never saw it. If you've seen it, you've seen it, and there's no way you can NOT believe in it.90sBear said:So here we are with hindsight again. How does any one of us know that we have "seen red" given that many said they once saw it clear as day but now cannot?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It's my firm belief that anyone who truly believes, can never un-believe. It's be like seeing the color red and then later not believing in it. Once you've seen it, you can never un-see it. If someone says they saw it, but now doesn't believe in it, it's because they never really saw it in the first place.90sBear said:But had you asked them at an earlier time, they could have honestly said absolutely 100% they were believers.Mothra said:90sBear said:Can the Thief on the Cross scenario happen in reverse? That is, what in your opinion would happen to someone who spent most of their life as a believer but then towards the end decided in their heart of hearts that God doesn't exist and the stuff about Jesus is a bunch of BS?Mothra said:A few things...Realitybites said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Take any person - when they hear the gospel, and at that moment they believe in Jesus with all their heart and trust in him for their salvation, is their faith "dead" until they perform their first work?
Your question presupposes that salvation is an event. Since salvation is not an event, it is a meaningless construct like daynight would be.
Salvation begins when you are reconciled with God when you come to believe in Jesus' death. It continues as you pick up your cross and follow him. It ends when you fall asleep in the Lord after serving him faithfully. Given this, though the *reconciliation* of every Christian with God begins at the same place, the *salvation* of every one who begins the Christian life looks different.
For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you."
1st Corinthians 12
Until you can get past this idea that salvation is an event, you won't be able to understand it.Quote:
How do we know? The thief could have lived for hours, or even a couple of days. Do we know that he didn't sin in the hours or days that followed? A simple thought could have crossed his mind
We know that Dismas didn't live for days because Luke 23:43. As far as what thoughts crossed his mind in his final hours, I think you'll agree that being nailed to a cross next to Jesus and being a first person witness to the crucifixion has a way of clarifying one's thoughts.
1) The idea that salvation is a process simply isn't a position supported by scripture. I've seen you cite several verses in support of that position, including in this post. None of those verses actually say, much less suggest, that salvation occurs over time. You seem to be confusing salvation and sanctification.
I think those who "lose their faith" were never actual converts to begin with. See the parable of the sower.
You are now saying that with the gift of hindsight, but in that earlier moment they believed.
Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_DeWitt
Here is an entire organization created for former pastors and clergy who no longer believe.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Clergy_Project&wprov=rarw1
Don't you think a lot of people in this group could have told you at one point they 100% believed in God, Jesus, and that they were saved?
Scripture supports the view that "believers" who become unbelievers were never true believers to begin with:
"Didn't we do such and such in your name?" Jesus: "I never knew you" - Matthew 7:22-23 paraphrased.
"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us" - 1 John 2:19
But again, many have said they believed, and now they don't.
I understand you are saying that obviously (with the gift of hindsight) they didn't actually see red. But had you asked them earlier they would have clearly reported all the symptoms of someone who had seen red.
Just because they reported seeing red, doesn't mean they did. If they are now saying they don't believe in it, it's evident they never saw it. Because if they did, they couldn't deny it. Ask yourself - can you, having experienced color, ever deny that it exists? There's no hindsight involved here.
I'm quite certain many of those pastors and priests at one time thought there could be no way they could ever "deny color exists." At least from our human perspective there is absolutely hindsight.
Either way, they are liars. No one who truly sees color could ever honestly deny that color exists.
And yet, we know from scripture that it is impossible for even the believer to live a sin free life. We know even Paul himself talks about his struggle with sin, years after his encounter with Christ.Sam Lowry said:Maybe I'm struggling to explain it because it seems so obvious to me. Everyone has a different walk. I'm not saying one is better or worse. We're commanded to live righteously (i.e. not sin) and to serve God and neighbor.Mothra said:Pronouncing something frivolous because you can't reconcile Christ's words with Catholicism is an interesting position. More troublesome for your position, of course, is the woman at the well, who we know continued to live life following Christ's pronouncement that her faith had saved her.Sam Lowry said:The thief on the cross argument is frivolous. He followed Jesus in the time that he had, which is what God asks of everyone. Whether it was five minutes or five decades is beside the point.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:But not based on works. Evidence may or may not be present depending on the situation, like with the thief on the cross.Sam LowryYou're reading in an awful lot. There's no reason to assume he deviously altered the meaning of the word in the middle of a verse, much less that that's the "key" to understanding it. said:Evidenced in works, I might add.Quote:You'd really have to be unfaithful to Scripture to think that where it says "believe that" it means a belief only in facts and without faith.Quote:I'm not sure I understand your point. It says believe that...or you will die in your sins. Believe that...and the Father is your friend. Believe that...and you will find life in his name. Obviously those are synonymous with salvation. If you're arguing otherwise, then with all due respect I'd say that's just a whole other level of stubbornness.Quote:That IS the "stubbornly literal way" to read it, isn't it? Never does it literally say "believe THAT.... and you are saved".Quote:It does if one reads it in the stubbornly literal way that you tend to do. You take one verse as proof that works don't matter, but you're happy to read in the concept of faith if it supports your beliefs. This is completely arbitrary. The works verses are just as much a part of the context.Quote:No, they don't necessarily. You're making it so they do. "Believe that...or you will die in your sins" is not the same thing. And "Believe that....and by believing have life in his name" (actual verse) is not the same thing as "believe that.... and by believing that have life in his name" (what you're saying it means).Quote:Sure they do.Quote:We know that Jesus said repeatedly that faith in him is what saves. Those two verses you referenced say that as well, if you would just let them. They are not proof-texts of the contrary. They don't even say "believe that... and you will be saved".Quote:They do entail a belief with faith. There's just nothing in those verses that says so. My point is that anyone can play the proof-texting game. That's why we need context, tradition, and history to tell us what Christ's followers actually believed.Quote:
There's no deviousness, otherwise he would have just said "these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ and by believing that have life in his name."
There's no reason to assume the "believe thats" you're referencing don't entail a belief with faith.
And never have I said that "works don't matter". I've said what the bible repeatedly teaches, that works don't save, faith does. It isn't just one verse.
But we can disagree all day. It's almost as if we need an authoritative tradition to help us discern what Christians have historically believed.
We don't need an authoritative tradition when we have the authoritative written word. If the Holy Spirit does not make Scripture perspicuous for the "priesthood of all believers", then it certainly won't be so for man-appointed priests in a Christianity that compromised with pagan Rome.
Seriously, how trustworthy can a tradition that led to Marian idolatry and heresy be, anyway?
The idea that the thief's walk, or the woman at the well's walk, was better or different from other Christians is an interesting one. Unscriptural, but interesting.
Respectfully, I think some might say you are grasping at straws to try and justify Catholic dogma that has been proven inconsistent with scripture.
If someone goes to church, hears Jesus' command to feed the poor, and dies before he has a chance to act on it, he isn't condemned. That doesn't mean we don't have to act on it. TarpDuster seems to be saying it has to be one or the other, which is plain sophistry.
Again, the problem with your position remains the dearth of scriptural support for it.
Neither feeling they were mistaken that they saw color nor changing their mind that they saw color are lies. The problem with the analogy (and I understand analogies aren't perfect) is that faith is specifically described as confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. We are specifically not always able to see it, that's what makes it faith.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Well, we're talking about the analogy with seeing color, right? They would be lying if they see color and deny its existence, or lying if they SAID they saw color but didn't. Both would be intentionally false statements.90sBear said:To lie is to make an intentionally false statement. I'm quite certain plenty of them had full belief in their faith at one point.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If they truly thought there was no way they could ever deny that color exists, but now they do, then it means they either 1) actually see color, but are denying it exists even though they know it does, OR 2) they just SAID they could see colors but they really couldn't, and now they are honestly denying it exists because they never truly saw it.90sBear said:Today you SAY you believe just as there were many days they SAID they believe.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Many SAID they believed.90sBear said:Gotcha.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It's not that they now can not see it, they're saying they don't believe in it's existence. It means they never saw it. If you've seen it, you've seen it, and there's no way you can NOT believe in it.90sBear said:So here we are with hindsight again. How does any one of us know that we have "seen red" given that many said they once saw it clear as day but now cannot?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It's my firm belief that anyone who truly believes, can never un-believe. It's be like seeing the color red and then later not believing in it. Once you've seen it, you can never un-see it. If someone says they saw it, but now doesn't believe in it, it's because they never really saw it in the first place.90sBear said:But had you asked them at an earlier time, they could have honestly said absolutely 100% they were believers.Mothra said:90sBear said:Can the Thief on the Cross scenario happen in reverse? That is, what in your opinion would happen to someone who spent most of their life as a believer but then towards the end decided in their heart of hearts that God doesn't exist and the stuff about Jesus is a bunch of BS?Mothra said:A few things...Realitybites said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Take any person - when they hear the gospel, and at that moment they believe in Jesus with all their heart and trust in him for their salvation, is their faith "dead" until they perform their first work?
Your question presupposes that salvation is an event. Since salvation is not an event, it is a meaningless construct like daynight would be.
Salvation begins when you are reconciled with God when you come to believe in Jesus' death. It continues as you pick up your cross and follow him. It ends when you fall asleep in the Lord after serving him faithfully. Given this, though the *reconciliation* of every Christian with God begins at the same place, the *salvation* of every one who begins the Christian life looks different.
For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you."
1st Corinthians 12
Until you can get past this idea that salvation is an event, you won't be able to understand it.Quote:
How do we know? The thief could have lived for hours, or even a couple of days. Do we know that he didn't sin in the hours or days that followed? A simple thought could have crossed his mind
We know that Dismas didn't live for days because Luke 23:43. As far as what thoughts crossed his mind in his final hours, I think you'll agree that being nailed to a cross next to Jesus and being a first person witness to the crucifixion has a way of clarifying one's thoughts.
1) The idea that salvation is a process simply isn't a position supported by scripture. I've seen you cite several verses in support of that position, including in this post. None of those verses actually say, much less suggest, that salvation occurs over time. You seem to be confusing salvation and sanctification.
I think those who "lose their faith" were never actual converts to begin with. See the parable of the sower.
You are now saying that with the gift of hindsight, but in that earlier moment they believed.
Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_DeWitt
Here is an entire organization created for former pastors and clergy who no longer believe.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Clergy_Project&wprov=rarw1
Don't you think a lot of people in this group could have told you at one point they 100% believed in God, Jesus, and that they were saved?
Scripture supports the view that "believers" who become unbelievers were never true believers to begin with:
"Didn't we do such and such in your name?" Jesus: "I never knew you" - Matthew 7:22-23 paraphrased.
"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us" - 1 John 2:19
But again, many have said they believed, and now they don't.
I understand you are saying that obviously (with the gift of hindsight) they didn't actually see red. But had you asked them earlier they would have clearly reported all the symptoms of someone who had seen red.
Just because they reported seeing red, doesn't mean they did. If they are now saying they don't believe in it, it's evident they never saw it. Because if they did, they couldn't deny it. Ask yourself - can you, having experienced color, ever deny that it exists? There's no hindsight involved here.
I'm quite certain many of those pastors and priests at one time thought there could be no way they could ever "deny color exists." At least from our human perspective there is absolutely hindsight.
Either way, they are liars. No one who truly sees color could ever honestly deny that color
But referring to the actual topic - they might not be lying, they'd just deceived themselves. Just like I suppose someone who says they see color but actually doesn't, could also deceive themselves into thinking they are seeing color. But deceiving yourself is also a form of lying, so...
Even with your use of the word "deceive", there is a negative connotation and I just don't believe those people were necessarily doing something malicious as you imply.
First, and absolutely most importantly, thank you for sharing something personal about your faith. People are often hesitant to do that, worried about how it will be received, showing weakness etc. I think we inspire more people than we will ever know when we share something the way you did. So thank you for that.Mothra said:Because I understand what fooling myself feels like, as I did it for years. Was raised in the church, got baptized as a boy, and at least showed many of the outward signs of a Christian. But inwardly, I was as far from Christ as one can be, and while that didn't manifest itself in ways that people could see - i.e. didn't physically cheat on my wife, didn't steal from my business, didn't abuse my kids - I knew for almost two decades that something wasn't quite right. I had virtually no fruits of the spirit, had no desire to spread the good news of Christ, had no concern for the lost, was making provision for sin in my life, and just felt a general sense of malaise - at times questioning whether God was real.90sBear said:So how do you, Mothra, know if you aren't fooling yourself?Mothra said:90sBear said:I'm honestly asking your opinion.Mothra said:90sBear said:Again, for us that is the gift of hindsight. And as pointed out since there are plenty of former God-loving pastors and priests out there, it's not a hypothetical.Mothra said:90sBear said:But had you asked them at an earlier time, they could have honestly said absolutely 100% they were believers.Mothra said:90sBear said:Can the Thief on the Cross scenario happen in reverse? That is, what in your opinion would happen to someone who spent most of their life as a believer but then towards the end decided in their heart of hearts that God doesn't exist and the stuff about Jesus is a bunch of BS?Mothra said:A few things...Realitybites said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Take any person - when they hear the gospel, and at that moment they believe in Jesus with all their heart and trust in him for their salvation, is their faith "dead" until they perform their first work?
Your question presupposes that salvation is an event. Since salvation is not an event, it is a meaningless construct like daynight would be.
Salvation begins when you are reconciled with God when you come to believe in Jesus' death. It continues as you pick up your cross and follow him. It ends when you fall asleep in the Lord after serving him faithfully. Given this, though the *reconciliation* of every Christian with God begins at the same place, the *salvation* of every one who begins the Christian life looks different.
For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you."
1st Corinthians 12
Until you can get past this idea that salvation is an event, you won't be able to understand it.Quote:
How do we know? The thief could have lived for hours, or even a couple of days. Do we know that he didn't sin in the hours or days that followed? A simple thought could have crossed his mind
We know that Dismas didn't live for days because Luke 23:43. As far as what thoughts crossed his mind in his final hours, I think you'll agree that being nailed to a cross next to Jesus and being a first person witness to the crucifixion has a way of clarifying one's thoughts.
1) The idea that salvation is a process simply isn't a position supported by scripture. I've seen you cite several verses in support of that position, including in this post. None of those verses actually say, much less suggest, that salvation occurs over time. You seem to be confusing salvation and sanctification.
I think those who "lose their faith" were never actual converts to begin with. See the parable of the sower.
You are now saying that with the gift of hindsight, but in that earlier moment they believed.
Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_DeWitt
Here is an entire organization created for former pastors and clergy who no longer believe.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Clergy_Project&wprov=rarw1
Don't you think a lot of people in this group could have told you at one point they 100% believed in God, Jesus, and that they were saved?
Perhaps they deceived themselves, certainly. But Christ is clear it wasn't a true conversion.
I'm just curious, what is the point of your comments? Do you believe that this hypothetical somehow supports a workspace face or lost salvation?
If these former once God-loving people can choose to turn their backs on their once strong faith, can't any of us?
Indeed it is the gift of hindsight, which is why we may not know who is saved until the day of judgment. Christ himself suggested we may be surprised by whose name is not written in the book of life.
But again, my question: What is your point?
So to make sure I have got it right, IYO not one of us knows for certain we are saved (I would agree with this) until the day of judgment.
So in your opinion do we have the freedom to change our mind about God's existence and whether or not Jesus died for our sins?
Incorrect. I think busy states it well. Once you are saved - there is no going back. There might be some who think they're saved who are fooling themselves - like the seed sewn in shallow soil. Adversity hits and they fall away from the faith.
And then about 12 years ago, I had a brother in Christ approach me and point out many of these things the Holy Spirit had revealed to him about my life. After initially getting angry because of my hurt pride, it caused me to truly examine myself, and what I found over the course of several weeks is that I had for years been a false convert who never truly knew Christ. I was like the seed that fell on stony soil. And when the realization hit me, it was like the scales fell off. I got on my knees, asked for forgiveness, and gave my life to Christ that day.
I am still not perfect, and never will be while I am here. I still stumble from time to time, but I no longer dive head first into sin. I now have a heart for the lost, and a heart for my children to know the saving grace I do. I have a desire to do the will of the Holy Spirit, and I listen to him. I have a desire to be in the word on a daily basis.
Scripture doesn't say that once we are saved, we should dispense with self-examination. Instead, scripture says we are to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. But having done that, I now know that if I died today, like the thief on the cross I would be with Christ in heaven. I can have assurance that there is no work I can do to attain salvation. There are no amount of sacraments I can participate in that will save me. It is Christ alone, and it is his sacrifice alone that has paid the debt for my past, present and future sins.
It sounds like you are in a really good place and I am happy for you. My only comment would be that I think a lot of people reading that would describe what you shared as a "process". You may not describe it that way, and that's fine, but if I were sitting in on you sharing that testimony to a group of men and one of them leaned over to me and said, "What a remarkable faith process he has been through and is continuing" I would nod my head in agreement and feel that the room had been blessed by the experience. The exact use of the word "process" wouldn't bother me one way or the other.
So thank you again for sharing.
IMO God's grace and Jesus dying for our sins are what might save us. IMO our works will never be enough and our faith will never be perfect.Mothra said:I don't disagree in principle with anything you've said. I think sometimes the works-based faith "Christians" seem to be confused by what many evangelicals actually believe. Many think we believe that merely "believing" in Christ is all we need to do, and that we can go live a hedonistic lifestyle, like the Gnostics, where there is no fruit, and no outward signs we are actually saved. But no evangelical will tell you that works don't matter, and I am certainly not suggesting that. Indeed, God has called us to perform the works he set out for us.90sBear said:It could be a depressing prospect, yes, but there are obviously plenty of once God-loving people who are now potentially facing that if they change their minds and decide God isn't real.Mothra said:90sBear said:So here we are with hindsight again. How does any one of us know that we have "seen red" given that many said they once saw it clear as day but now cannot?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It's my firm belief that anyone who truly believes, can never un-believe. It's be like seeing the color red and then later not believing in it. Once you've seen it, you can never un-see it. If someone says they saw it, but now doesn't believe in it, it's because they never really saw it in the first place.90sBear said:But had you asked them at an earlier time, they could have honestly said absolutely 100% they were believers.Mothra said:90sBear said:Can the Thief on the Cross scenario happen in reverse? That is, what in your opinion would happen to someone who spent most of their life as a believer but then towards the end decided in their heart of hearts that God doesn't exist and the stuff about Jesus is a bunch of BS?Mothra said:A few things...Realitybites said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Take any person - when they hear the gospel, and at that moment they believe in Jesus with all their heart and trust in him for their salvation, is their faith "dead" until they perform their first work?
Your question presupposes that salvation is an event. Since salvation is not an event, it is a meaningless construct like daynight would be.
Salvation begins when you are reconciled with God when you come to believe in Jesus' death. It continues as you pick up your cross and follow him. It ends when you fall asleep in the Lord after serving him faithfully. Given this, though the *reconciliation* of every Christian with God begins at the same place, the *salvation* of every one who begins the Christian life looks different.
For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you."
1st Corinthians 12
Until you can get past this idea that salvation is an event, you won't be able to understand it.Quote:
How do we know? The thief could have lived for hours, or even a couple of days. Do we know that he didn't sin in the hours or days that followed? A simple thought could have crossed his mind
We know that Dismas didn't live for days because Luke 23:43. As far as what thoughts crossed his mind in his final hours, I think you'll agree that being nailed to a cross next to Jesus and being a first person witness to the crucifixion has a way of clarifying one's thoughts.
1) The idea that salvation is a process simply isn't a position supported by scripture. I've seen you cite several verses in support of that position, including in this post. None of those verses actually say, much less suggest, that salvation occurs over time. You seem to be confusing salvation and sanctification.
I think those who "lose their faith" were never actual converts to begin with. See the parable of the sower.
You are now saying that with the gift of hindsight, but in that earlier moment they believed.
Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_DeWitt
Here is an entire organization created for former pastors and clergy who no longer believe.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Clergy_Project&wprov=rarw1
Don't you think a lot of people in this group could have told you at one point they 100% believed in God, Jesus, and that they were saved?
Scripture supports the view that "believers" who become unbelievers were never true believers to begin with:
"Didn't we do such and such in your name?" Jesus: "I never knew you" - Matthew 7:22-23 paraphrased.
"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us" - 1 John 2:19
I've always found the works-based faith of Catholics that your post alludes to tragic. The idea that you must continually work and strive in the hope of attaining salvation that you can never be certain about is depressing. As in the example I posted above, for a person who has experienced Christ's grace and lived a life for him only to be derailed by a last minute sinful thought before death which will condemn him to an eternity in hell is depressing (in addition to being anti-biblical) to say the least.
As for works, I don't find them tragic at all. I'm not Catholic, but If we are being realistic - without works by previous Christians none of us would be having this conversation today.
When I read Jesus say, "Believe in Me" I take him to mean everything including his teachings. My faith includes faith in living the way he taught including the works he told us to do. IMO if all that mattered out of Jesus' life was that he died for us then he could have just skipped all the teaching about how to live and just gone straight to the dying.
I think works can be viewed as a gift from God. They are an opportunity to serve and to expand God's Kingdom. They can serve as a boost in faith that can help in more trying times. A way to stay spiritually in shape so to speak.
If someone says they believe and yet never attempt to do any works I usually think to myself, "Yes..technically..I suppose." Like an obese person sitting on their couch living off pizza and soda saying that's all they need to survive. Yes..technically..I suppose.
Yes, we should all have belief and appreciation that Jesus died for us and it is only through God's grace that we may be saved. But that's just a start. Otherwise we risk limiting ourselves to a Santa Claus level of love for what Jesus did. "Thanks for the free gift." Works help put our faith into action and give us an opportunity to do more, grow more, and appreciate more what Jesus did for us. IMO if our faith isn't active, it is in danger of failing to the point of disbelief. Maybe not for all, but at least for some.
I promise I'm not trying to make works the magic cure-all. I'm sure all those priests and pastors did plenty in their time. But I just don't view works as tragic. I find works to be a blessing that I strive to do because of what Jesus did for us.
The question is - and it sounds like this is where you and I disagree - do those works, combined with our faith, save us? And the answer to that question is definitively answered in scripture - absolutely not. There is no scriptural support, at all, for that position.
As long as you and I can agree on that, then we probably don't disagree on much - other than the fact that there is no scriptural support for the idea that our names can be blotted out from the book of life.
Thanks. However, I am not sure there is any scriptural support for the position that salvation is a process. Working through my false conversion was indeed a process, and it may be for others as well, but I believe the moment that I put my faith in Christ twelve years ago, I was saved at that instant - just like the thief on the cross.90sBear said:First, and absolutely most importantly, thank you for sharing something personal about your faith. People are often hesitant to do that, worried about how it will be received, showing weakness etc. I think we inspire more people than we will ever know when we share something the way you did. So thank you for that.Mothra said:Because I understand what fooling myself feels like, as I did it for years. Was raised in the church, got baptized as a boy, and at least showed many of the outward signs of a Christian. But inwardly, I was as far from Christ as one can be, and while that didn't manifest itself in ways that people could see - i.e. didn't physically cheat on my wife, didn't steal from my business, didn't abuse my kids - I knew for almost two decades that something wasn't quite right. I had virtually no fruits of the spirit, had no desire to spread the good news of Christ, had no concern for the lost, was making provision for sin in my life, and just felt a general sense of malaise - at times questioning whether God was real.90sBear said:So how do you, Mothra, know if you aren't fooling yourself?Mothra said:90sBear said:I'm honestly asking your opinion.Mothra said:90sBear said:Again, for us that is the gift of hindsight. And as pointed out since there are plenty of former God-loving pastors and priests out there, it's not a hypothetical.Mothra said:90sBear said:But had you asked them at an earlier time, they could have honestly said absolutely 100% they were believers.Mothra said:90sBear said:Can the Thief on the Cross scenario happen in reverse? That is, what in your opinion would happen to someone who spent most of their life as a believer but then towards the end decided in their heart of hearts that God doesn't exist and the stuff about Jesus is a bunch of BS?Mothra said:A few things...Realitybites said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Take any person - when they hear the gospel, and at that moment they believe in Jesus with all their heart and trust in him for their salvation, is their faith "dead" until they perform their first work?
Your question presupposes that salvation is an event. Since salvation is not an event, it is a meaningless construct like daynight would be.
Salvation begins when you are reconciled with God when you come to believe in Jesus' death. It continues as you pick up your cross and follow him. It ends when you fall asleep in the Lord after serving him faithfully. Given this, though the *reconciliation* of every Christian with God begins at the same place, the *salvation* of every one who begins the Christian life looks different.
For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you."
1st Corinthians 12
Until you can get past this idea that salvation is an event, you won't be able to understand it.Quote:
How do we know? The thief could have lived for hours, or even a couple of days. Do we know that he didn't sin in the hours or days that followed? A simple thought could have crossed his mind
We know that Dismas didn't live for days because Luke 23:43. As far as what thoughts crossed his mind in his final hours, I think you'll agree that being nailed to a cross next to Jesus and being a first person witness to the crucifixion has a way of clarifying one's thoughts.
1) The idea that salvation is a process simply isn't a position supported by scripture. I've seen you cite several verses in support of that position, including in this post. None of those verses actually say, much less suggest, that salvation occurs over time. You seem to be confusing salvation and sanctification.
I think those who "lose their faith" were never actual converts to begin with. See the parable of the sower.
You are now saying that with the gift of hindsight, but in that earlier moment they believed.
Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_DeWitt
Here is an entire organization created for former pastors and clergy who no longer believe.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Clergy_Project&wprov=rarw1
Don't you think a lot of people in this group could have told you at one point they 100% believed in God, Jesus, and that they were saved?
Perhaps they deceived themselves, certainly. But Christ is clear it wasn't a true conversion.
I'm just curious, what is the point of your comments? Do you believe that this hypothetical somehow supports a workspace face or lost salvation?
If these former once God-loving people can choose to turn their backs on their once strong faith, can't any of us?
Indeed it is the gift of hindsight, which is why we may not know who is saved until the day of judgment. Christ himself suggested we may be surprised by whose name is not written in the book of life.
But again, my question: What is your point?
So to make sure I have got it right, IYO not one of us knows for certain we are saved (I would agree with this) until the day of judgment.
So in your opinion do we have the freedom to change our mind about God's existence and whether or not Jesus died for our sins?
Incorrect. I think busy states it well. Once you are saved - there is no going back. There might be some who think they're saved who are fooling themselves - like the seed sewn in shallow soil. Adversity hits and they fall away from the faith.
And then about 12 years ago, I had a brother in Christ approach me and point out many of these things the Holy Spirit had revealed to him about my life. After initially getting angry because of my hurt pride, it caused me to truly examine myself, and what I found over the course of several weeks is that I had for years been a false convert who never truly knew Christ. I was like the seed that fell on stony soil. And when the realization hit me, it was like the scales fell off. I got on my knees, asked for forgiveness, and gave my life to Christ that day.
I am still not perfect, and never will be while I am here. I still stumble from time to time, but I no longer dive head first into sin. I now have a heart for the lost, and a heart for my children to know the saving grace I do. I have a desire to do the will of the Holy Spirit, and I listen to him. I have a desire to be in the word on a daily basis.
Scripture doesn't say that once we are saved, we should dispense with self-examination. Instead, scripture says we are to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. But having done that, I now know that if I died today, like the thief on the cross I would be with Christ in heaven. I can have assurance that there is no work I can do to attain salvation. There are no amount of sacraments I can participate in that will save me. It is Christ alone, and it is his sacrifice alone that has paid the debt for my past, present and future sins.
It sounds like you are in a really good place and I am happy for you. My only comment would be that I think a lot of people reading that would describe what you shared as a "process". You may not describe it that way, and that's fine, but if I were sitting in on you sharing that testimony to a group of men and one of them leaned over to me and said, "What a remarkable faith process he has been through and is continuing" I would nod my head in agreement and feel that the room had been blessed by the experience. The exact use of the word "process" wouldn't bother me one way or the other.
So thank you again for sharing.
The idea that we can't have some certainty about the work of Christ's grace in our lives just isn't one I can find any scriptural support for.
IMO, God's grace and Jesus dying are sufficient to save any man who puts his faith in Christ.90sBear said:IMO God's grace and Jesus dying for our sins are what might save us. IMO our works will never be enough and our faith will never be perfect.Mothra said:I don't disagree in principle with anything you've said. I think sometimes the works-based faith "Christians" seem to be confused by what many evangelicals actually believe. Many think we believe that merely "believing" in Christ is all we need to do, and that we can go live a hedonistic lifestyle, like the Gnostics, where there is no fruit, and no outward signs we are actually saved. But no evangelical will tell you that works don't matter, and I am certainly not suggesting that. Indeed, God has called us to perform the works he set out for us.90sBear said:It could be a depressing prospect, yes, but there are obviously plenty of once God-loving people who are now potentially facing that if they change their minds and decide God isn't real.Mothra said:90sBear said:So here we are with hindsight again. How does any one of us know that we have "seen red" given that many said they once saw it clear as day but now cannot?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It's my firm belief that anyone who truly believes, can never un-believe. It's be like seeing the color red and then later not believing in it. Once you've seen it, you can never un-see it. If someone says they saw it, but now doesn't believe in it, it's because they never really saw it in the first place.90sBear said:But had you asked them at an earlier time, they could have honestly said absolutely 100% they were believers.Mothra said:90sBear said:Can the Thief on the Cross scenario happen in reverse? That is, what in your opinion would happen to someone who spent most of their life as a believer but then towards the end decided in their heart of hearts that God doesn't exist and the stuff about Jesus is a bunch of BS?Mothra said:A few things...Realitybites said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Take any person - when they hear the gospel, and at that moment they believe in Jesus with all their heart and trust in him for their salvation, is their faith "dead" until they perform their first work?
Your question presupposes that salvation is an event. Since salvation is not an event, it is a meaningless construct like daynight would be.
Salvation begins when you are reconciled with God when you come to believe in Jesus' death. It continues as you pick up your cross and follow him. It ends when you fall asleep in the Lord after serving him faithfully. Given this, though the *reconciliation* of every Christian with God begins at the same place, the *salvation* of every one who begins the Christian life looks different.
For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you."
1st Corinthians 12
Until you can get past this idea that salvation is an event, you won't be able to understand it.Quote:
How do we know? The thief could have lived for hours, or even a couple of days. Do we know that he didn't sin in the hours or days that followed? A simple thought could have crossed his mind
We know that Dismas didn't live for days because Luke 23:43. As far as what thoughts crossed his mind in his final hours, I think you'll agree that being nailed to a cross next to Jesus and being a first person witness to the crucifixion has a way of clarifying one's thoughts.
1) The idea that salvation is a process simply isn't a position supported by scripture. I've seen you cite several verses in support of that position, including in this post. None of those verses actually say, much less suggest, that salvation occurs over time. You seem to be confusing salvation and sanctification.
I think those who "lose their faith" were never actual converts to begin with. See the parable of the sower.
You are now saying that with the gift of hindsight, but in that earlier moment they believed.
Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_DeWitt
Here is an entire organization created for former pastors and clergy who no longer believe.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Clergy_Project&wprov=rarw1
Don't you think a lot of people in this group could have told you at one point they 100% believed in God, Jesus, and that they were saved?
Scripture supports the view that "believers" who become unbelievers were never true believers to begin with:
"Didn't we do such and such in your name?" Jesus: "I never knew you" - Matthew 7:22-23 paraphrased.
"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us" - 1 John 2:19
I've always found the works-based faith of Catholics that your post alludes to tragic. The idea that you must continually work and strive in the hope of attaining salvation that you can never be certain about is depressing. As in the example I posted above, for a person who has experienced Christ's grace and lived a life for him only to be derailed by a last minute sinful thought before death which will condemn him to an eternity in hell is depressing (in addition to being anti-biblical) to say the least.
As for works, I don't find them tragic at all. I'm not Catholic, but If we are being realistic - without works by previous Christians none of us would be having this conversation today.
When I read Jesus say, "Believe in Me" I take him to mean everything including his teachings. My faith includes faith in living the way he taught including the works he told us to do. IMO if all that mattered out of Jesus' life was that he died for us then he could have just skipped all the teaching about how to live and just gone straight to the dying.
I think works can be viewed as a gift from God. They are an opportunity to serve and to expand God's Kingdom. They can serve as a boost in faith that can help in more trying times. A way to stay spiritually in shape so to speak.
If someone says they believe and yet never attempt to do any works I usually think to myself, "Yes..technically..I suppose." Like an obese person sitting on their couch living off pizza and soda saying that's all they need to survive. Yes..technically..I suppose.
Yes, we should all have belief and appreciation that Jesus died for us and it is only through God's grace that we may be saved. But that's just a start. Otherwise we risk limiting ourselves to a Santa Claus level of love for what Jesus did. "Thanks for the free gift." Works help put our faith into action and give us an opportunity to do more, grow more, and appreciate more what Jesus did for us. IMO if our faith isn't active, it is in danger of failing to the point of disbelief. Maybe not for all, but at least for some.
I promise I'm not trying to make works the magic cure-all. I'm sure all those priests and pastors did plenty in their time. But I just don't view works as tragic. I find works to be a blessing that I strive to do because of what Jesus did for us.
The question is - and it sounds like this is where you and I disagree - do those works, combined with our faith, save us? And the answer to that question is definitively answered in scripture - absolutely not. There is no scriptural support, at all, for that position.
As long as you and I can agree on that, then we probably don't disagree on much - other than the fact that there is no scriptural support for the idea that our names can be blotted out from the book of life.
Works play no role in the matter of salvation.
Fair enough. Thanks again for sharing.Mothra said:Thanks. However, I am not sure there is any scriptural support for the position that salvation is a process. Working through my false conversion was indeed a process, and it may be for others as well, but I believe the moment that I put my faith in Christ twelve years ago, I was saved at that instant - just like the thief on the cross.90sBear said:First, and absolutely most importantly, thank you for sharing something personal about your faith. People are often hesitant to do that, worried about how it will be received, showing weakness etc. I think we inspire more people than we will ever know when we share something the way you did. So thank you for that.Mothra said:Because I understand what fooling myself feels like, as I did it for years. Was raised in the church, got baptized as a boy, and at least showed many of the outward signs of a Christian. But inwardly, I was as far from Christ as one can be, and while that didn't manifest itself in ways that people could see - i.e. didn't physically cheat on my wife, didn't steal from my business, didn't abuse my kids - I knew for almost two decades that something wasn't quite right. I had virtually no fruits of the spirit, had no desire to spread the good news of Christ, had no concern for the lost, was making provision for sin in my life, and just felt a general sense of malaise - at times questioning whether God was real.90sBear said:So how do you, Mothra, know if you aren't fooling yourself?Mothra said:90sBear said:I'm honestly asking your opinion.Mothra said:90sBear said:Again, for us that is the gift of hindsight. And as pointed out since there are plenty of former God-loving pastors and priests out there, it's not a hypothetical.Mothra said:90sBear said:But had you asked them at an earlier time, they could have honestly said absolutely 100% they were believers.Mothra said:90sBear said:Can the Thief on the Cross scenario happen in reverse? That is, what in your opinion would happen to someone who spent most of their life as a believer but then towards the end decided in their heart of hearts that God doesn't exist and the stuff about Jesus is a bunch of BS?Mothra said:A few things...Realitybites said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Take any person - when they hear the gospel, and at that moment they believe in Jesus with all their heart and trust in him for their salvation, is their faith "dead" until they perform their first work?
Your question presupposes that salvation is an event. Since salvation is not an event, it is a meaningless construct like daynight would be.
Salvation begins when you are reconciled with God when you come to believe in Jesus' death. It continues as you pick up your cross and follow him. It ends when you fall asleep in the Lord after serving him faithfully. Given this, though the *reconciliation* of every Christian with God begins at the same place, the *salvation* of every one who begins the Christian life looks different.
For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you."
1st Corinthians 12
Until you can get past this idea that salvation is an event, you won't be able to understand it.Quote:
How do we know? The thief could have lived for hours, or even a couple of days. Do we know that he didn't sin in the hours or days that followed? A simple thought could have crossed his mind
We know that Dismas didn't live for days because Luke 23:43. As far as what thoughts crossed his mind in his final hours, I think you'll agree that being nailed to a cross next to Jesus and being a first person witness to the crucifixion has a way of clarifying one's thoughts.
1) The idea that salvation is a process simply isn't a position supported by scripture. I've seen you cite several verses in support of that position, including in this post. None of those verses actually say, much less suggest, that salvation occurs over time. You seem to be confusing salvation and sanctification.
I think those who "lose their faith" were never actual converts to begin with. See the parable of the sower.
You are now saying that with the gift of hindsight, but in that earlier moment they believed.
Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_DeWitt
Here is an entire organization created for former pastors and clergy who no longer believe.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Clergy_Project&wprov=rarw1
Don't you think a lot of people in this group could have told you at one point they 100% believed in God, Jesus, and that they were saved?
Perhaps they deceived themselves, certainly. But Christ is clear it wasn't a true conversion.
I'm just curious, what is the point of your comments? Do you believe that this hypothetical somehow supports a workspace face or lost salvation?
If these former once God-loving people can choose to turn their backs on their once strong faith, can't any of us?
Indeed it is the gift of hindsight, which is why we may not know who is saved until the day of judgment. Christ himself suggested we may be surprised by whose name is not written in the book of life.
But again, my question: What is your point?
So to make sure I have got it right, IYO not one of us knows for certain we are saved (I would agree with this) until the day of judgment.
So in your opinion do we have the freedom to change our mind about God's existence and whether or not Jesus died for our sins?
Incorrect. I think busy states it well. Once you are saved - there is no going back. There might be some who think they're saved who are fooling themselves - like the seed sewn in shallow soil. Adversity hits and they fall away from the faith.
And then about 12 years ago, I had a brother in Christ approach me and point out many of these things the Holy Spirit had revealed to him about my life. After initially getting angry because of my hurt pride, it caused me to truly examine myself, and what I found over the course of several weeks is that I had for years been a false convert who never truly knew Christ. I was like the seed that fell on stony soil. And when the realization hit me, it was like the scales fell off. I got on my knees, asked for forgiveness, and gave my life to Christ that day.
I am still not perfect, and never will be while I am here. I still stumble from time to time, but I no longer dive head first into sin. I now have a heart for the lost, and a heart for my children to know the saving grace I do. I have a desire to do the will of the Holy Spirit, and I listen to him. I have a desire to be in the word on a daily basis.
Scripture doesn't say that once we are saved, we should dispense with self-examination. Instead, scripture says we are to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. But having done that, I now know that if I died today, like the thief on the cross I would be with Christ in heaven. I can have assurance that there is no work I can do to attain salvation. There are no amount of sacraments I can participate in that will save me. It is Christ alone, and it is his sacrifice alone that has paid the debt for my past, present and future sins.
It sounds like you are in a really good place and I am happy for you. My only comment would be that I think a lot of people reading that would describe what you shared as a "process". You may not describe it that way, and that's fine, but if I were sitting in on you sharing that testimony to a group of men and one of them leaned over to me and said, "What a remarkable faith process he has been through and is continuing" I would nod my head in agreement and feel that the room had been blessed by the experience. The exact use of the word "process" wouldn't bother me one way or the other.
So thank you again for sharing.
The idea that we can't have some certainty about the work of Christ's grace in our lives just isn't one I can find any scriptural support for.
This authority of the RCC you speak of established a canon that I believe is incorrect. I do NOT believe in the infallibility of the RCC canon. The early church was not the RCC. The early church knew to reject heresies like Gnosticism. How? By adhering to only what the original apostles taught, and not on additional "tradition" like Gnosticism. In other words, sola scriptura.Sam Lowry said:It doesn't matter whether you call it the RCC or not. There were plenty of heretical books circulating at the same time. If you believe the Bible is infallible, you're trusting in the authority of the church that established the canon.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The Bible was not given to us by the Roman Catholic Church. The RCC only correctly recognized what Christians had already recognized as authoritative ever since the beginning. The Old Testament is the Jewish Scriptures, and the Gospels were already being circulated as Scripture in first century. The letters of Paul already had authority as being original apostolic tradition. Each were authoritative by their own merit; they did not need promulgation by Roman Catholic decree. In fact, Catholicism has actually recognized the wrong bible by decree of Council, having added the deuterocanonical books and even anathematizing anyone who doesn't recognize them as part of canon. This is in spite of previous Catholic councils having recognized canons that did NOT include the deuterocanonicals. This is just more evidence against the infallibility of the Roman Catholic Church.Sam Lowry said:How untrustworthy can a tradition be that gave us the Bible? Even if you don't agree with everything that came later, you've at least acknowledged that Scripture is infallible. This implies that the Church spoke authoritatively as recently as the Council of Rome, when it established the canon that we have today. The early Church had had plenty to say on the subject of faith and works by that time.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:But not based on works. Evidence may or may not be present depending on the situation, like with the thief on the cross.Sam LowryYou're reading in an awful lot. There's no reason to assume he deviously altered the meaning of the word in the middle of a verse, much less that that's the "key" to understanding it. said:Evidenced in works, I might add.Quote:You'd really have to be unfaithful to Scripture to think that where it says "believe that" it means a belief only in facts and without faith.Quote:I'm not sure I understand your point. It says believe that...or you will die in your sins. Believe that...and the Father is your friend. Believe that...and you will find life in his name. Obviously those are synonymous with salvation. If you're arguing otherwise, then with all due respect I'd say that's just a whole other level of stubbornness.Quote:That IS the "stubbornly literal way" to read it, isn't it? Never does it literally say "believe THAT.... and you are saved".Quote:It does if one reads it in the stubbornly literal way that you tend to do. You take one verse as proof that works don't matter, but you're happy to read in the concept of faith if it supports your beliefs. This is completely arbitrary. The works verses are just as much a part of the context.Quote:No, they don't necessarily. You're making it so they do. "Believe that...or you will die in your sins" is not the same thing. And "Believe that....and by believing have life in his name" (actual verse) is not the same thing as "believe that.... and by believing that have life in his name" (what you're saying it means).Quote:Sure they do.Quote:We know that Jesus said repeatedly that faith in him is what saves. Those two verses you referenced say that as well, if you would just let them. They are not proof-texts of the contrary. They don't even say "believe that... and you will be saved".Quote:They do entail a belief with faith. There's just nothing in those verses that says so. My point is that anyone can play the proof-texting game. That's why we need context, tradition, and history to tell us what Christ's followers actually believed.Quote:
There's no deviousness, otherwise he would have just said "these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ and by believing that have life in his name."
There's no reason to assume the "believe thats" you're referencing don't entail a belief with faith.
And never have I said that "works don't matter". I've said what the bible repeatedly teaches, that works don't save, faith does. It isn't just one verse.
But we can disagree all day. It's almost as if we need an authoritative tradition to help us discern what Christians have historically believed.
We don't need an authoritative tradition when we have the authoritative written word. If the Holy Spirit does not make Scripture perspicuous for the "priesthood of all believers", then it certainly won't be so for man-appointed priests in a Christianity that compromised with pagan Rome.
Seriously, how trustworthy can a tradition that led to Marian idolatry and heresy be, anyway?
The thief on the cross argument is frivolous. He followed Jesus in the time that he had, which is what God asks of everyone. Whether it was five minutes or five decades is beside the point.
The point about the thief was that faith may not be evidenced by works in every case. But what it does evidence is that faith is what saves, not works.
Analogies don't "equate" anything.Sam Lowry said:It's odd that you're equating belief in Christianity with belief in evidence of the senses. How does that leave any room for faith?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If they truly thought there was no way they could ever deny that color exists, but now they do, then it means they either 1) actually see color, but are denying it exists even though they know it does, OR 2) they just SAID they could see colors but they really couldn't, and now they are honestly denying it exists because they never truly saw it.90sBear said:Today you SAY you believe just as there were many days they SAID they believe.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Many SAID they believed.90sBear said:Gotcha.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It's not that they now can not see it, they're saying they don't believe in it's existence. It means they never saw it. If you've seen it, you've seen it, and there's no way you can NOT believe in it.90sBear said:So here we are with hindsight again. How does any one of us know that we have "seen red" given that many said they once saw it clear as day but now cannot?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It's my firm belief that anyone who truly believes, can never un-believe. It's be like seeing the color red and then later not believing in it. Once you've seen it, you can never un-see it. If someone says they saw it, but now doesn't believe in it, it's because they never really saw it in the first place.90sBear said:But had you asked them at an earlier time, they could have honestly said absolutely 100% they were believers.Mothra said:90sBear said:Can the Thief on the Cross scenario happen in reverse? That is, what in your opinion would happen to someone who spent most of their life as a believer but then towards the end decided in their heart of hearts that God doesn't exist and the stuff about Jesus is a bunch of BS?Mothra said:A few things...Realitybites said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Take any person - when they hear the gospel, and at that moment they believe in Jesus with all their heart and trust in him for their salvation, is their faith "dead" until they perform their first work?
Your question presupposes that salvation is an event. Since salvation is not an event, it is a meaningless construct like daynight would be.
Salvation begins when you are reconciled with God when you come to believe in Jesus' death. It continues as you pick up your cross and follow him. It ends when you fall asleep in the Lord after serving him faithfully. Given this, though the *reconciliation* of every Christian with God begins at the same place, the *salvation* of every one who begins the Christian life looks different.
For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you."
1st Corinthians 12
Until you can get past this idea that salvation is an event, you won't be able to understand it.Quote:
How do we know? The thief could have lived for hours, or even a couple of days. Do we know that he didn't sin in the hours or days that followed? A simple thought could have crossed his mind
We know that Dismas didn't live for days because Luke 23:43. As far as what thoughts crossed his mind in his final hours, I think you'll agree that being nailed to a cross next to Jesus and being a first person witness to the crucifixion has a way of clarifying one's thoughts.
1) The idea that salvation is a process simply isn't a position supported by scripture. I've seen you cite several verses in support of that position, including in this post. None of those verses actually say, much less suggest, that salvation occurs over time. You seem to be confusing salvation and sanctification.
I think those who "lose their faith" were never actual converts to begin with. See the parable of the sower.
You are now saying that with the gift of hindsight, but in that earlier moment they believed.
Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_DeWitt
Here is an entire organization created for former pastors and clergy who no longer believe.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Clergy_Project&wprov=rarw1
Don't you think a lot of people in this group could have told you at one point they 100% believed in God, Jesus, and that they were saved?
Scripture supports the view that "believers" who become unbelievers were never true believers to begin with:
"Didn't we do such and such in your name?" Jesus: "I never knew you" - Matthew 7:22-23 paraphrased.
"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us" - 1 John 2:19
But again, many have said they believed, and now they don't.
I understand you are saying that obviously (with the gift of hindsight) they didn't actually see red. But had you asked them earlier they would have clearly reported all the symptoms of someone who had seen red.
Just because they reported seeing red, doesn't mean they did. If they are now saying they don't believe in it, it's evident they never saw it. Because if they did, they couldn't deny it. Ask yourself - can you, having experienced color, ever deny that it exists? There's no hindsight involved here.
I'm quite certain many of those pastors and priests at one time thought there could be no way they could ever "deny color exists." At least from our human perspective there is absolutely hindsight.
Either way, they are liars. No one who truly sees color could ever honestly deny that color exists.
To be mistaken about such a thing, or to change one's mind about it after being firm about it involves self deception. Self deception is lying to oneself. Maybe it's not "malicious" in the way we usually understand lying to other people involves, but it's still harming oneself. Based on Mothra's excellent testimony, I bet he would tell you he was lying to himself in the beginning, and that it was leading to self harm.90sBearIt's my firm belief that anyone who truly believes, can never un-believe. It's be like seeing the color red and then later not believing in it. Once you've seen it, you can never un-see it. If someone says they saw it, but now doesn't believe in it, it's because they never really saw it in the first place. said:Neither feeling they were mistaken that they saw color nor changing their mind that they saw color are lies. The problem with the analogy (and I understand analogies aren't perfect) is that faith is specifically described as confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. We are specifically not always able to see it, that's what makes it faith.Quote:Well, we're talking about the analogy with seeing color, right? They would be lying if they see color and deny its existence, or lying if they SAID they saw color but didn't. Both would be intentionally false statements.Quote:To lie is to make an intentionally false statement. I'm quite certain plenty of them had full belief in their faith at one point.Quote:If they truly thought there was no way they could ever deny that color exists, but now they do, then it means they either 1) actually see color, but are denying it exists even though they know it does, OR 2) they just SAID they could see colors but they really couldn't, and now they are honestly denying it exists because they never truly saw it.Quote:Today you SAY you believe just as there were many days they SAID they believe.Quote:Many SAID they believed.Quote:Gotcha.Quote:It's not that they now can not see it, they're saying they don't believe in it's existence. It means they never saw it. If you've seen it, you've seen it, and there's no way you can NOT believe in it.Quote:So here we are with hindsight again. How does any one of us know that we have "seen red" given that many said they once saw it clear as day but now cannot?Quote:
Scripture supports the view that "believers" who become unbelievers were never true believers to begin with:
"Didn't we do such and such in your name?" Jesus: "I never knew you" - Matthew 7:22-23 paraphrased.
"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us" - 1 John 2:19
But again, many have said they believed, and now they don't.
I understand you are saying that obviously (with the gift of hindsight) they didn't actually see red. But had you asked them earlier they would have clearly reported all the symptoms of someone who had seen red.
Just because they reported seeing red, doesn't mean they did. If they are now saying they don't believe in it, it's evident they never saw it. Because if they did, they couldn't deny it. Ask yourself - can you, having experienced color, ever deny that it exists? There's no hindsight involved here.
I'm quite certain many of those pastors and priests at one time thought there could be no way they could ever "deny color exists." At least from our human perspective there is absolutely hindsight.
Either way, they are liars. No one who truly sees color could ever honestly deny that color
But referring to the actual topic - they might not be lying, they'd just deceived themselves. Just like I suppose someone who says they see color but actually doesn't, could also deceive themselves into thinking they are seeing color. But deceiving yourself is also a form of lying, so...
Even with your use of the word "deceive", there is a negative connotation and I just don't believe those people were necessarily doing something malicious as you imply.
Regardless, I think you're straying away from the original point, which was that once a person truly believes in Jesus, he/she can never really "unbelieve" it. It would mean they never really believed it in the first place, whether they realized it at the time or not.
So then there could be Christians on this board at this very moment that don't realize they don't actually believe as they profess to? And there is no way we as humans can know which is which or if we are one of them?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:To be mistaken about such a thing, or to change one's mind about it after being firm about it involves self deception. Self deception is lying to oneself. Maybe it's not "malicious" in the way we usually understand lying to other people involves, but it's still harming oneself. Based on Mothra's excellent testimony, I bet he would tell you he was lying to himself in the beginning, and that it was leading to self harm.90sBearIt's my firm belief that anyone who truly believes, can never un-believe. It's be like seeing the color red and then later not believing in it. Once you've seen it, you can never un-see it. If someone says they saw it, but now doesn't believe in it, it's because they never really saw it in the first place. said:Neither feeling they were mistaken that they saw color nor changing their mind that they saw color are lies. The problem with the analogy (and I understand analogies aren't perfect) is that faith is specifically described as confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. We are specifically not always able to see it, that's what makes it faith.Quote:Well, we're talking about the analogy with seeing color, right? They would be lying if they see color and deny its existence, or lying if they SAID they saw color but didn't. Both would be intentionally false statements.Quote:To lie is to make an intentionally false statement. I'm quite certain plenty of them had full belief in their faith at one point.Quote:If they truly thought there was no way they could ever deny that color exists, but now they do, then it means they either 1) actually see color, but are denying it exists even though they know it does, OR 2) they just SAID they could see colors but they really couldn't, and now they are honestly denying it exists because they never truly saw it.Quote:Today you SAY you believe just as there were many days they SAID they believe.Quote:Many SAID they believed.Quote:Gotcha.Quote:It's not that they now can not see it, they're saying they don't believe in it's existence. It means they never saw it. If you've seen it, you've seen it, and there's no way you can NOT believe in it.Quote:So here we are with hindsight again. How does any one of us know that we have "seen red" given that many said they once saw it clear as day but now cannot?Quote:
Scripture supports the view that "believers" who become unbelievers were never true believers to begin with:
"Didn't we do such and such in your name?" Jesus: "I never knew you" - Matthew 7:22-23 paraphrased.
"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us" - 1 John 2:19
But again, many have said they believed, and now they don't.
I understand you are saying that obviously (with the gift of hindsight) they didn't actually see red. But had you asked them earlier they would have clearly reported all the symptoms of someone who had seen red.
Just because they reported seeing red, doesn't mean they did. If they are now saying they don't believe in it, it's evident they never saw it. Because if they did, they couldn't deny it. Ask yourself - can you, having experienced color, ever deny that it exists? There's no hindsight involved here.
I'm quite certain many of those pastors and priests at one time thought there could be no way they could ever "deny color exists." At least from our human perspective there is absolutely hindsight.
Either way, they are liars. No one who truly sees color could ever honestly deny that color
But referring to the actual topic - they might not be lying, they'd just deceived themselves. Just like I suppose someone who says they see color but actually doesn't, could also deceive themselves into thinking they are seeing color. But deceiving yourself is also a form of lying, so...
Even with your use of the word "deceive", there is a negative connotation and I just don't believe those people were necessarily doing something malicious as you imply.
Regardless, I think you're straying away from the original point, which was that once a person truly believes in Jesus, he/she can never really "unbelieve" it. It would mean they never really believed it in the first place, whether they realized it at the time or not.
We are not floating in a sea of uncertainty as you're making it out to be. We can know if we're lying to ourselves, and sometimes it takes other people to reveal that to us. We each know what we really believe, if we are honest with ourselves.90sBear said:So then there could be Christians on this board at this very moment that don't realize they don't actually believe as they profess to? And there is no way we as humans can know which is which or if we are one of them?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:To be mistaken about such a thing, or to change one's mind about it after being firm about it involves self deception. Self deception is lying to oneself. Maybe it's not "malicious" in the way we usually understand lying to other people involves, but it's still harming oneself. Based on Mothra's excellent testimony, I bet he would tell you he was lying to himself in the beginning, and that it was leading to self harm.90sBearIt's my firm belief that anyone who truly believes, can never un-believe. It's be like seeing the color red and then later not believing in it. Once you've seen it, you can never un-see it. If someone says they saw it, but now doesn't believe in it, it's because they never really saw it in the first place. said:Neither feeling they were mistaken that they saw color nor changing their mind that they saw color are lies. The problem with the analogy (and I understand analogies aren't perfect) is that faith is specifically described as confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. We are specifically not always able to see it, that's what makes it faith.Quote:Well, we're talking about the analogy with seeing color, right? They would be lying if they see color and deny its existence, or lying if they SAID they saw color but didn't. Both would be intentionally false statements.Quote:To lie is to make an intentionally false statement. I'm quite certain plenty of them had full belief in their faith at one point.Quote:If they truly thought there was no way they could ever deny that color exists, but now they do, then it means they either 1) actually see color, but are denying it exists even though they know it does, OR 2) they just SAID they could see colors but they really couldn't, and now they are honestly denying it exists because they never truly saw it.Quote:Today you SAY you believe just as there were many days they SAID they believe.Quote:Many SAID they believed.Quote:Gotcha.Quote:It's not that they now can not see it, they're saying they don't believe in it's existence. It means they never saw it. If you've seen it, you've seen it, and there's no way you can NOT believe in it.Quote:So here we are with hindsight again. How does any one of us know that we have "seen red" given that many said they once saw it clear as day but now cannot?Quote:
Scripture supports the view that "believers" who become unbelievers were never true believers to begin with:
"Didn't we do such and such in your name?" Jesus: "I never knew you" - Matthew 7:22-23 paraphrased.
"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us" - 1 John 2:19
But again, many have said they believed, and now they don't.
I understand you are saying that obviously (with the gift of hindsight) they didn't actually see red. But had you asked them earlier they would have clearly reported all the symptoms of someone who had seen red.
Just because they reported seeing red, doesn't mean they did. If they are now saying they don't believe in it, it's evident they never saw it. Because if they did, they couldn't deny it. Ask yourself - can you, having experienced color, ever deny that it exists? There's no hindsight involved here.
I'm quite certain many of those pastors and priests at one time thought there could be no way they could ever "deny color exists." At least from our human perspective there is absolutely hindsight.
Either way, they are liars. No one who truly sees color could ever honestly deny that color
But referring to the actual topic - they might not be lying, they'd just deceived themselves. Just like I suppose someone who says they see color but actually doesn't, could also deceive themselves into thinking they are seeing color. But deceiving yourself is also a form of lying, so...
Even with your use of the word "deceive", there is a negative connotation and I just don't believe those people were necessarily doing something malicious as you imply.
Regardless, I think you're straying away from the original point, which was that once a person truly believes in Jesus, he/she can never really "unbelieve" it. It would mean they never really believed it in the first place, whether they realized it at the time or not.
You just said before that they might not realize it at the time.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:We are not floating in a sea of uncertainty as you're making it out to be. We can know if we're lying to ourselves, and sometimes it takes other people to reveal that to us. We each know what we really believe, if we are honest with ourselves.90sBear said:So then there could be Christians on this board at this very moment that don't realize they don't actually believe as they profess to? And there is no way we as humans can know which is which or if we are one of them?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:To be mistaken about such a thing, or to change one's mind about it after being firm about it involves self deception. Self deception is lying to oneself. Maybe it's not "malicious" in the way we usually understand lying to other people involves, but it's still harming oneself. Based on Mothra's excellent testimony, I bet he would tell you he was lying to himself in the beginning, and that it was leading to self harm.90sBearIt's my firm belief that anyone who truly believes, can never un-believe. It's be like seeing the color red and then later not believing in it. Once you've seen it, you can never un-see it. If someone says they saw it, but now doesn't believe in it, it's because they never really saw it in the first place. said:Neither feeling they were mistaken that they saw color nor changing their mind that they saw color are lies. The problem with the analogy (and I understand analogies aren't perfect) is that faith is specifically described as confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. We are specifically not always able to see it, that's what makes it faith.Quote:Well, we're talking about the analogy with seeing color, right? They would be lying if they see color and deny its existence, or lying if they SAID they saw color but didn't. Both would be intentionally false statements.Quote:To lie is to make an intentionally false statement. I'm quite certain plenty of them had full belief in their faith at one point.Quote:If they truly thought there was no way they could ever deny that color exists, but now they do, then it means they either 1) actually see color, but are denying it exists even though they know it does, OR 2) they just SAID they could see colors but they really couldn't, and now they are honestly denying it exists because they never truly saw it.Quote:Today you SAY you believe just as there were many days they SAID they believe.Quote:Many SAID they believed.Quote:Gotcha.Quote:It's not that they now can not see it, they're saying they don't believe in it's existence. It means they never saw it. If you've seen it, you've seen it, and there's no way you can NOT believe in it.Quote:So here we are with hindsight again. How does any one of us know that we have "seen red" given that many said they once saw it clear as day but now cannot?Quote:
Scripture supports the view that "believers" who become unbelievers were never true believers to begin with:
"Didn't we do such and such in your name?" Jesus: "I never knew you" - Matthew 7:22-23 paraphrased.
"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us" - 1 John 2:19
But again, many have said they believed, and now they don't.
I understand you are saying that obviously (with the gift of hindsight) they didn't actually see red. But had you asked them earlier they would have clearly reported all the symptoms of someone who had seen red.
Just because they reported seeing red, doesn't mean they did. If they are now saying they don't believe in it, it's evident they never saw it. Because if they did, they couldn't deny it. Ask yourself - can you, having experienced color, ever deny that it exists? There's no hindsight involved here.
I'm quite certain many of those pastors and priests at one time thought there could be no way they could ever "deny color exists." At least from our human perspective there is absolutely hindsight.
Either way, they are liars. No one who truly sees color could ever honestly deny that color
But referring to the actual topic - they might not be lying, they'd just deceived themselves. Just like I suppose someone who says they see color but actually doesn't, could also deceive themselves into thinking they are seeing color. But deceiving yourself is also a form of lying, so...
Even with your use of the word "deceive", there is a negative connotation and I just don't believe those people were necessarily doing something malicious as you imply.
Regardless, I think you're straying away from the original point, which was that once a person truly believes in Jesus, he/she can never really "unbelieve" it. It would mean they never really believed it in the first place, whether they realized it at the time or not.
Again, IMO this isn't necessarily self-deception. As the learned scholar Mike Tyson once said, "Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth."
Right, because they're deceiving themselves. Only later do they realize it - when they decide to be honest.90sBear said:You just said before that they might not realize it at the time.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:We are not floating in a sea of uncertainty as you're making it out to be. We can know if we're lying to ourselves, and sometimes it takes other people to reveal that to us. We each know what we really believe, if we are honest with ourselves.90sBear said:So then there could be Christians on this board at this very moment that don't realize they don't actually believe as they profess to? And there is no way we as humans can know which is which or if we are one of them?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:To be mistaken about such a thing, or to change one's mind about it after being firm about it involves self deception. Self deception is lying to oneself. Maybe it's not "malicious" in the way we usually understand lying to other people involves, but it's still harming oneself. Based on Mothra's excellent testimony, I bet he would tell you he was lying to himself in the beginning, and that it was leading to self harm.90sBearIt's my firm belief that anyone who truly believes, can never un-believe. It's be like seeing the color red and then later not believing in it. Once you've seen it, you can never un-see it. If someone says they saw it, but now doesn't believe in it, it's because they never really saw it in the first place. said:Neither feeling they were mistaken that they saw color nor changing their mind that they saw color are lies. The problem with the analogy (and I understand analogies aren't perfect) is that faith is specifically described as confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. We are specifically not always able to see it, that's what makes it faith.Quote:Well, we're talking about the analogy with seeing color, right? They would be lying if they see color and deny its existence, or lying if they SAID they saw color but didn't. Both would be intentionally false statements.Quote:To lie is to make an intentionally false statement. I'm quite certain plenty of them had full belief in their faith at one point.Quote:If they truly thought there was no way they could ever deny that color exists, but now they do, then it means they either 1) actually see color, but are denying it exists even though they know it does, OR 2) they just SAID they could see colors but they really couldn't, and now they are honestly denying it exists because they never truly saw it.Quote:Today you SAY you believe just as there were many days they SAID they believe.Quote:Many SAID they believed.Quote:Gotcha.Quote:It's not that they now can not see it, they're saying they don't believe in it's existence. It means they never saw it. If you've seen it, you've seen it, and there's no way you can NOT believe in it.Quote:So here we are with hindsight again. How does any one of us know that we have "seen red" given that many said they once saw it clear as day but now cannot?Quote:
Scripture supports the view that "believers" who become unbelievers were never true believers to begin with:
"Didn't we do such and such in your name?" Jesus: "I never knew you" - Matthew 7:22-23 paraphrased.
"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us" - 1 John 2:19
But again, many have said they believed, and now they don't.
I understand you are saying that obviously (with the gift of hindsight) they didn't actually see red. But had you asked them earlier they would have clearly reported all the symptoms of someone who had seen red.
Just because they reported seeing red, doesn't mean they did. If they are now saying they don't believe in it, it's evident they never saw it. Because if they did, they couldn't deny it. Ask yourself - can you, having experienced color, ever deny that it exists? There's no hindsight involved here.
I'm quite certain many of those pastors and priests at one time thought there could be no way they could ever "deny color exists." At least from our human perspective there is absolutely hindsight.
Either way, they are liars. No one who truly sees color could ever honestly deny that color
But referring to the actual topic - they might not be lying, they'd just deceived themselves. Just like I suppose someone who says they see color but actually doesn't, could also deceive themselves into thinking they are seeing color. But deceiving yourself is also a form of lying, so...
Even with your use of the word "deceive", there is a negative connotation and I just don't believe those people were necessarily doing something malicious as you imply.
Regardless, I think you're straying away from the original point, which was that once a person truly believes in Jesus, he/she can never really "unbelieve" it. It would mean they never really believed it in the first place, whether they realized it at the time or not.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Right, because they're deceiving themselves. Only later do they realize it.90sBear said:You just said before that they might not realize it at the time.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:We are not floating in a sea of uncertainty as you're making it out to be. We can know if we're lying to ourselves, and sometimes it takes other people to reveal that to us. We each know what we really believe, if we are honest with ourselves.90sBear said:So then there could be Christians on this board at this very moment that don't realize they don't actually believe as they profess to? And there is no way we as humans can know which is which or if we are one of them?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:To be mistaken about such a thing, or to change one's mind about it after being firm about it involves self deception. Self deception is lying to oneself. Maybe it's not "malicious" in the way we usually understand lying to other people involves, but it's still harming oneself. Based on Mothra's excellent testimony, I bet he would tell you he was lying to himself in the beginning, and that it was leading to self harm.90sBearIt's my firm belief that anyone who truly believes, can never un-believe. It's be like seeing the color red and then later not believing in it. Once you've seen it, you can never un-see it. If someone says they saw it, but now doesn't believe in it, it's because they never really saw it in the first place. said:Neither feeling they were mistaken that they saw color nor changing their mind that they saw color are lies. The problem with the analogy (and I understand analogies aren't perfect) is that faith is specifically described as confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. We are specifically not always able to see it, that's what makes it faith.Quote:Well, we're talking about the analogy with seeing color, right? They would be lying if they see color and deny its existence, or lying if they SAID they saw color but didn't. Both would be intentionally false statements.Quote:To lie is to make an intentionally false statement. I'm quite certain plenty of them had full belief in their faith at one point.Quote:If they truly thought there was no way they could ever deny that color exists, but now they do, then it means they either 1) actually see color, but are denying it exists even though they know it does, OR 2) they just SAID they could see colors but they really couldn't, and now they are honestly denying it exists because they never truly saw it.Quote:Today you SAY you believe just as there were many days they SAID they believe.Quote:Many SAID they believed.Quote:Gotcha.Quote:It's not that they now can not see it, they're saying they don't believe in it's existence. It means they never saw it. If you've seen it, you've seen it, and there's no way you can NOT believe in it.Quote:So here we are with hindsight again. How does any one of us know that we have "seen red" given that many said they once saw it clear as day but now cannot?Quote:
Scripture supports the view that "believers" who become unbelievers were never true believers to begin with:
"Didn't we do such and such in your name?" Jesus: "I never knew you" - Matthew 7:22-23 paraphrased.
"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us" - 1 John 2:19
But again, many have said they believed, and now they don't.
I understand you are saying that obviously (with the gift of hindsight) they didn't actually see red. But had you asked them earlier they would have clearly reported all the symptoms of someone who had seen red.
Just because they reported seeing red, doesn't mean they did. If they are now saying they don't believe in it, it's evident they never saw it. Because if they did, they couldn't deny it. Ask yourself - can you, having experienced color, ever deny that it exists? There's no hindsight involved here.
I'm quite certain many of those pastors and priests at one time thought there could be no way they could ever "deny color exists." At least from our human perspective there is absolutely hindsight.
Either way, they are liars. No one who truly sees color could ever honestly deny that color
But referring to the actual topic - they might not be lying, they'd just deceived themselves. Just like I suppose someone who says they see color but actually doesn't, could also deceive themselves into thinking they are seeing color. But deceiving yourself is also a form of lying, so...
Even with your use of the word "deceive", there is a negative connotation and I just don't believe those people were necessarily doing something malicious as you imply.
Regardless, I think you're straying away from the original point, which was that once a person truly believes in Jesus, he/she can never really "unbelieve" it. It would mean they never really believed it in the first place, whether they realized it at the time or not.
Or something happens to them.
As the learned scholar Mike Tyson once said, "Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth."
Only with hindsight would they realize that their faith was not as strong as they thought.
You could be deceiving yourself right now and just haven't been spiritually punched in the mouth yet.
If something happens to them and it causes them to unbelieve, then what happened brought their self-deception to light. That's why sometimes those bad things that happen are actually good.90sBearWe are not floating in a sea of uncertainty as you're making it out to be. We can know if we're lying to ourselves, and sometimes it takes other people to reveal that to us. We each know what we really believe, if we are honest with ourselves. said:Quote:Right, because they're deceiving themselves. Only later do they realize it.Quote:
You just said before that they might not realize it at the time.
Or something happens to them.
As the learned scholar Mike Tyson once said, "Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth."
You could be deceiving yourself right now and just haven't been spiritually punched in the mouth yet.
The truth of Jesus doesn't depend on what happens in one's life. If you believe that it did, that it really was that tenuous, then your belief in it was self-deception.
It's not rare for a believer to be "punched in the mouth" and have their faith shaken. But if they are a true believer, it's only shaken, it doesn't fall (Psalm 37:22-23).
Could be:90sBear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Right, because they're deceiving themselves. Only later do they realize it.90sBear said:You just said before that they might not realize it at the time.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:We are not floating in a sea of uncertainty as you're making it out to be. We can know if we're lying to ourselves, and sometimes it takes other people to reveal that to us. We each know what we really believe, if we are honest with ourselves.90sBear said:So then there could be Christians on this board at this very moment that don't realize they don't actually believe as they profess to? And there is no way we as humans can know which is which or if we are one of them?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:To be mistaken about such a thing, or to change one's mind about it after being firm about it involves self deception. Self deception is lying to oneself. Maybe it's not "malicious" in the way we usually understand lying to other people involves, but it's still harming oneself. Based on Mothra's excellent testimony, I bet he would tell you he was lying to himself in the beginning, and that it was leading to self harm.90sBearIt's my firm belief that anyone who truly believes, can never un-believe. It's be like seeing the color red and then later not believing in it. Once you've seen it, you can never un-see it. If someone says they saw it, but now doesn't believe in it, it's because they never really saw it in the first place. said:Neither feeling they were mistaken that they saw color nor changing their mind that they saw color are lies. The problem with the analogy (and I understand analogies aren't perfect) is that faith is specifically described as confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. We are specifically not always able to see it, that's what makes it faith.Quote:Well, we're talking about the analogy with seeing color, right? They would be lying if they see color and deny its existence, or lying if they SAID they saw color but didn't. Both would be intentionally false statements.Quote:To lie is to make an intentionally false statement. I'm quite certain plenty of them had full belief in their faith at one point.Quote:If they truly thought there was no way they could ever deny that color exists, but now they do, then it means they either 1) actually see color, but are denying it exists even though they know it does, OR 2) they just SAID they could see colors but they really couldn't, and now they are honestly denying it exists because they never truly saw it.Quote:Today you SAY you believe just as there were many days they SAID they believe.Quote:Many SAID they believed.Quote:Gotcha.Quote:It's not that they now can not see it, they're saying they don't believe in it's existence. It means they never saw it. If you've seen it, you've seen it, and there's no way you can NOT believe in it.Quote:So here we are with hindsight again. How does any one of us know that we have "seen red" given that many said they once saw it clear as day but now cannot?Quote:
Scripture supports the view that "believers" who become unbelievers were never true believers to begin with:
"Didn't we do such and such in your name?" Jesus: "I never knew you" - Matthew 7:22-23 paraphrased.
"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us" - 1 John 2:19
But again, many have said they believed, and now they don't.
I understand you are saying that obviously (with the gift of hindsight) they didn't actually see red. But had you asked them earlier they would have clearly reported all the symptoms of someone who had seen red.
Just because they reported seeing red, doesn't mean they did. If they are now saying they don't believe in it, it's evident they never saw it. Because if they did, they couldn't deny it. Ask yourself - can you, having experienced color, ever deny that it exists? There's no hindsight involved here.
I'm quite certain many of those pastors and priests at one time thought there could be no way they could ever "deny color exists." At least from our human perspective there is absolutely hindsight.
Either way, they are liars. No one who truly sees color could ever honestly deny that color
But referring to the actual topic - they might not be lying, they'd just deceived themselves. Just like I suppose someone who says they see color but actually doesn't, could also deceive themselves into thinking they are seeing color. But deceiving yourself is also a form of lying, so...
Even with your use of the word "deceive", there is a negative connotation and I just don't believe those people were necessarily doing something malicious as you imply.
Regardless, I think you're straying away from the original point, which was that once a person truly believes in Jesus, he/she can never really "unbelieve" it. It would mean they never really believed it in the first place, whether they realized it at the time or not.
Only with hindsight would they realize that their faith was not as strong as they thought.
- 1 Peter 1:6-7: "These trials will show that your faith is genuine. It is being tested as fire tests and purifies gold".
- James 1:2-3: "Count it all joy, my brothers, when you fall into various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience".
I am curious, is the testing of our faith evidence that salvation is a process, in your book? Is there any work required, in your mind, to pass the test and obtain salvation?
Or does it instead perhaps mean that they will learn they were never saved to begin with?
That's why we have to keep seeking forgiveness. "Your sins are forgiven" means just that. It doesn't mean all sins you might commit in the future.Mothra said:And yet, we know from scripture that it is impossible for even the believer to live a sin free life. We know even Paul himself talks about his struggle with sin, years after his encounter with Christ.Sam Lowry said:Maybe I'm struggling to explain it because it seems so obvious to me. Everyone has a different walk. I'm not saying one is better or worse. We're commanded to live righteously (i.e. not sin) and to serve God and neighbor.Mothra said:Pronouncing something frivolous because you can't reconcile Christ's words with Catholicism is an interesting position. More troublesome for your position, of course, is the woman at the well, who we know continued to live life following Christ's pronouncement that her faith had saved her.Sam Lowry said:The thief on the cross argument is frivolous. He followed Jesus in the time that he had, which is what God asks of everyone. Whether it was five minutes or five decades is beside the point.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:But not based on works. Evidence may or may not be present depending on the situation, like with the thief on the cross.Sam LowryYou're reading in an awful lot. There's no reason to assume he deviously altered the meaning of the word in the middle of a verse, much less that that's the "key" to understanding it. said:Evidenced in works, I might add.Quote:You'd really have to be unfaithful to Scripture to think that where it says "believe that" it means a belief only in facts and without faith.Quote:I'm not sure I understand your point. It says believe that...or you will die in your sins. Believe that...and the Father is your friend. Believe that...and you will find life in his name. Obviously those are synonymous with salvation. If you're arguing otherwise, then with all due respect I'd say that's just a whole other level of stubbornness.Quote:That IS the "stubbornly literal way" to read it, isn't it? Never does it literally say "believe THAT.... and you are saved".Quote:It does if one reads it in the stubbornly literal way that you tend to do. You take one verse as proof that works don't matter, but you're happy to read in the concept of faith if it supports your beliefs. This is completely arbitrary. The works verses are just as much a part of the context.Quote:No, they don't necessarily. You're making it so they do. "Believe that...or you will die in your sins" is not the same thing. And "Believe that....and by believing have life in his name" (actual verse) is not the same thing as "believe that.... and by believing that have life in his name" (what you're saying it means).Quote:Sure they do.Quote:We know that Jesus said repeatedly that faith in him is what saves. Those two verses you referenced say that as well, if you would just let them. They are not proof-texts of the contrary. They don't even say "believe that... and you will be saved".Quote:They do entail a belief with faith. There's just nothing in those verses that says so. My point is that anyone can play the proof-texting game. That's why we need context, tradition, and history to tell us what Christ's followers actually believed.Quote:
There's no deviousness, otherwise he would have just said "these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ and by believing that have life in his name."
There's no reason to assume the "believe thats" you're referencing don't entail a belief with faith.
And never have I said that "works don't matter". I've said what the bible repeatedly teaches, that works don't save, faith does. It isn't just one verse.
But we can disagree all day. It's almost as if we need an authoritative tradition to help us discern what Christians have historically believed.
We don't need an authoritative tradition when we have the authoritative written word. If the Holy Spirit does not make Scripture perspicuous for the "priesthood of all believers", then it certainly won't be so for man-appointed priests in a Christianity that compromised with pagan Rome.
Seriously, how trustworthy can a tradition that led to Marian idolatry and heresy be, anyway?
The idea that the thief's walk, or the woman at the well's walk, was better or different from other Christians is an interesting one. Unscriptural, but interesting.
Respectfully, I think some might say you are grasping at straws to try and justify Catholic dogma that has been proven inconsistent with scripture.
If someone goes to church, hears Jesus' command to feed the poor, and dies before he has a chance to act on it, he isn't condemned. That doesn't mean we don't have to act on it. TarpDuster seems to be saying it has to be one or the other, which is plain sophistry.
Again, the problem with your position remains the dearth of scriptural support for it.
If there's a problem, it's that we interpret Scripture differently. You say Christ is clear that baptism isn't required, that once we accept him we're saved once and for all, that anyone who falls away from the faith never truly believed, etc. I don't see any of these things taught in Scripture. I consider them to be human traditions added many centuries later.
Was there no legitimate Bible until the Reformation, then?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:This authority of the RCC you speak of established a canon that I believe is incorrect. I do NOT believe in the infallibility of the RCC canon. The early church was not the RCC. The early church knew to reject heresies like Gnosticism. How? By adhering to only what the original apostles taught, and not on additional "tradition" like Gnosticism. In other words, sola scriptura.Sam Lowry said:It doesn't matter whether you call it the RCC or not. There were plenty of heretical books circulating at the same time. If you believe the Bible is infallible, you're trusting in the authority of the church that established the canon.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The Bible was not given to us by the Roman Catholic Church. The RCC only correctly recognized what Christians had already recognized as authoritative ever since the beginning. The Old Testament is the Jewish Scriptures, and the Gospels were already being circulated as Scripture in first century. The letters of Paul already had authority as being original apostolic tradition. Each were authoritative by their own merit; they did not need promulgation by Roman Catholic decree. In fact, Catholicism has actually recognized the wrong bible by decree of Council, having added the deuterocanonical books and even anathematizing anyone who doesn't recognize them as part of canon. This is in spite of previous Catholic councils having recognized canons that did NOT include the deuterocanonicals. This is just more evidence against the infallibility of the Roman Catholic Church.Sam Lowry said:How untrustworthy can a tradition be that gave us the Bible? Even if you don't agree with everything that came later, you've at least acknowledged that Scripture is infallible. This implies that the Church spoke authoritatively as recently as the Council of Rome, when it established the canon that we have today. The early Church had had plenty to say on the subject of faith and works by that time.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:But not based on works. Evidence may or may not be present depending on the situation, like with the thief on the cross.Sam LowryYou're reading in an awful lot. There's no reason to assume he deviously altered the meaning of the word in the middle of a verse, much less that that's the "key" to understanding it. said:Evidenced in works, I might add.Quote:You'd really have to be unfaithful to Scripture to think that where it says "believe that" it means a belief only in facts and without faith.Quote:I'm not sure I understand your point. It says believe that...or you will die in your sins. Believe that...and the Father is your friend. Believe that...and you will find life in his name. Obviously those are synonymous with salvation. If you're arguing otherwise, then with all due respect I'd say that's just a whole other level of stubbornness.Quote:That IS the "stubbornly literal way" to read it, isn't it? Never does it literally say "believe THAT.... and you are saved".Quote:It does if one reads it in the stubbornly literal way that you tend to do. You take one verse as proof that works don't matter, but you're happy to read in the concept of faith if it supports your beliefs. This is completely arbitrary. The works verses are just as much a part of the context.Quote:No, they don't necessarily. You're making it so they do. "Believe that...or you will die in your sins" is not the same thing. And "Believe that....and by believing have life in his name" (actual verse) is not the same thing as "believe that.... and by believing that have life in his name" (what you're saying it means).Quote:Sure they do.Quote:We know that Jesus said repeatedly that faith in him is what saves. Those two verses you referenced say that as well, if you would just let them. They are not proof-texts of the contrary. They don't even say "believe that... and you will be saved".Quote:They do entail a belief with faith. There's just nothing in those verses that says so. My point is that anyone can play the proof-texting game. That's why we need context, tradition, and history to tell us what Christ's followers actually believed.Quote:
There's no deviousness, otherwise he would have just said "these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ and by believing that have life in his name."
There's no reason to assume the "believe thats" you're referencing don't entail a belief with faith.
And never have I said that "works don't matter". I've said what the bible repeatedly teaches, that works don't save, faith does. It isn't just one verse.
But we can disagree all day. It's almost as if we need an authoritative tradition to help us discern what Christians have historically believed.
We don't need an authoritative tradition when we have the authoritative written word. If the Holy Spirit does not make Scripture perspicuous for the "priesthood of all believers", then it certainly won't be so for man-appointed priests in a Christianity that compromised with pagan Rome.
Seriously, how trustworthy can a tradition that led to Marian idolatry and heresy be, anyway?
The thief on the cross argument is frivolous. He followed Jesus in the time that he had, which is what God asks of everyone. Whether it was five minutes or five decades is beside the point.
The point about the thief was that faith may not be evidenced by works in every case. But what it does evidence is that faith is what saves, not works.
How did sola scriptura tell the early church (or anyone else) what to accept or reject as Scripture?
Sure, but again it sometimes is only with human hindsight that this may be revealed.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If something happens to them and it causes them to unbelieve, then what happened brought their self-deception to light. That's why sometimes those bad things that happen are actually good.90sBearWe are not floating in a sea of uncertainty as you're making it out to be. We can know if we're lying to ourselves, and sometimes it takes other people to reveal that to us. We each know what we really believe, if we are honest with ourselves. said:Quote:Right, because they're deceiving themselves. Only later do they realize it.Quote:
You just said before that they might not realize it at the time.
Or something happens to them.
As the learned scholar Mike Tyson once said, "Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth."
You could be deceiving yourself right now and just haven't been spiritually punched in the mouth yet.
The truth of Jesus doesn't depend on what happens in one's life. If you believe that it did, that it really was that tenuous, then your belief in it was self-deception.
It's not rare for a believer to be "punched in the mouth" and have their faith shaken. But if they are a true believer, it's only shaken, it doesn't fall (Psalm 37:22-23).
Again, you could be deceiving yourself right now and just haven't been spiritually punched in the mouth yet.
Could be either of those.Mothra said:Could be:90sBear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Right, because they're deceiving themselves. Only later do they realize it.90sBear said:You just said before that they might not realize it at the time.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:We are not floating in a sea of uncertainty as you're making it out to be. We can know if we're lying to ourselves, and sometimes it takes other people to reveal that to us. We each know what we really believe, if we are honest with ourselves.90sBear said:So then there could be Christians on this board at this very moment that don't realize they don't actually believe as they profess to? And there is no way we as humans can know which is which or if we are one of them?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:To be mistaken about such a thing, or to change one's mind about it after being firm about it involves self deception. Self deception is lying to oneself. Maybe it's not "malicious" in the way we usually understand lying to other people involves, but it's still harming oneself. Based on Mothra's excellent testimony, I bet he would tell you he was lying to himself in the beginning, and that it was leading to self harm.90sBearIt's my firm belief that anyone who truly believes, can never un-believe. It's be like seeing the color red and then later not believing in it. Once you've seen it, you can never un-see it. If someone says they saw it, but now doesn't believe in it, it's because they never really saw it in the first place. said:Neither feeling they were mistaken that they saw color nor changing their mind that they saw color are lies. The problem with the analogy (and I understand analogies aren't perfect) is that faith is specifically described as confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. We are specifically not always able to see it, that's what makes it faith.Quote:Well, we're talking about the analogy with seeing color, right? They would be lying if they see color and deny its existence, or lying if they SAID they saw color but didn't. Both would be intentionally false statements.Quote:To lie is to make an intentionally false statement. I'm quite certain plenty of them had full belief in their faith at one point.Quote:If they truly thought there was no way they could ever deny that color exists, but now they do, then it means they either 1) actually see color, but are denying it exists even though they know it does, OR 2) they just SAID they could see colors but they really couldn't, and now they are honestly denying it exists because they never truly saw it.Quote:Today you SAY you believe just as there were many days they SAID they believe.Quote:Many SAID they believed.Quote:Gotcha.Quote:It's not that they now can not see it, they're saying they don't believe in it's existence. It means they never saw it. If you've seen it, you've seen it, and there's no way you can NOT believe in it.Quote:So here we are with hindsight again. How does any one of us know that we have "seen red" given that many said they once saw it clear as day but now cannot?Quote:
Scripture supports the view that "believers" who become unbelievers were never true believers to begin with:
"Didn't we do such and such in your name?" Jesus: "I never knew you" - Matthew 7:22-23 paraphrased.
"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us" - 1 John 2:19
But again, many have said they believed, and now they don't.
I understand you are saying that obviously (with the gift of hindsight) they didn't actually see red. But had you asked them earlier they would have clearly reported all the symptoms of someone who had seen red.
Just because they reported seeing red, doesn't mean they did. If they are now saying they don't believe in it, it's evident they never saw it. Because if they did, they couldn't deny it. Ask yourself - can you, having experienced color, ever deny that it exists? There's no hindsight involved here.
I'm quite certain many of those pastors and priests at one time thought there could be no way they could ever "deny color exists." At least from our human perspective there is absolutely hindsight.
Either way, they are liars. No one who truly sees color could ever honestly deny that color
But referring to the actual topic - they might not be lying, they'd just deceived themselves. Just like I suppose someone who says they see color but actually doesn't, could also deceive themselves into thinking they are seeing color. But deceiving yourself is also a form of lying, so...
Even with your use of the word "deceive", there is a negative connotation and I just don't believe those people were necessarily doing something malicious as you imply.
Regardless, I think you're straying away from the original point, which was that once a person truly believes in Jesus, he/she can never really "unbelieve" it. It would mean they never really believed it in the first place, whether they realized it at the time or not.
Only with hindsight would they realize that their faith was not as strong as they thought.
- 1 Peter 1:6-7: "These trials will show that your faith is genuine. It is being tested as fire tests and purifies gold".
- James 1:2-3: "Count it all joy, my brothers, when you fall into various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience".
I am curious, is the testing of our faith evidence that salvation is a process, in your book? Is there any work required, in your mind, to pass the test and obtain salvation?
Or does it instead perhaps mean that they will learn they were never saved to begin with?
I think everyone's faith is tested to a degree at some point. Jesus himself was tested in the desert and the garden. And I think those tests have been a part of everyone's faith journey. Some, though not many, report a road to Damascus type experience but more report a more gradual or stair step faith journey with milestones along the way. Both experiences will continue to face tests for the rest of their lives, however long that might be.
I think many different types of works could absolutely be helpful in times of tested faith. I don't think that any particular one is specifically required to pass a test of faith.
In this regard (to risk an analogy) works could be seen as the symptom of the disease not the disease itself. But that symptom is present in almost all cases. So if you aren't presenting the symptoms, it is reasonable to question if one is actually infected. As I said before, I personally tie works into my faith perhaps in different ways than others.
However I view something like the sacrament of baptism as an outward and visible sign of an inward spiritual change and not as only a work. So if you're asking if I think the water dunk is required for salvation, I would say no. But the inward spiritual change part of it might be a different story.
God's Word existed long before the Reformation. Even Roman Catholics knew the deuterocanon was not part of canon. In fact, that was the prevailing view of Roman Catholic scholars and theologians in the medieval period.Sam LowryYou'd really have to be unfaithful to Scripture to think that where it says "believe that" it means a belief only in facts and without faith. said:Was there no legitimate Bible until the Reformation, then?Quote:This authority of the RCC you speak of established a canon that I believe is incorrect. I do NOT believe in the infallibility of the RCC canon. The early church was not the RCC. The early church knew to reject heresies like Gnosticism. How? By adhering to only what the original apostles taught, and not on additional "tradition" like Gnosticism. In other words, sola scriptura.Quote:It doesn't matter whether you call it the RCC or not. There were plenty of heretical books circulating at the same time. If you believe the Bible is infallible, you're trusting in the authority of the church that established the canon.Quote:The Bible was not given to us by the Roman Catholic Church. The RCC only correctly recognized what Christians had already recognized as authoritative ever since the beginning. The Old Testament is the Jewish Scriptures, and the Gospels were already being circulated as Scripture in first century. The letters of Paul already had authority as being original apostolic tradition. Each were authoritative by their own merit; they did not need promulgation by Roman Catholic decree. In fact, Catholicism has actually recognized the wrong bible by decree of Council, having added the deuterocanonical books and even anathematizing anyone who doesn't recognize them as part of canon. This is in spite of previous Catholic councils having recognized canons that did NOT include the deuterocanonicals. This is just more evidence against the infallibility of the Roman Catholic Church.Quote:How untrustworthy can a tradition be that gave us the Bible? Even if you don't agree with everything that came later, you've at least acknowledged that Scripture is infallible. This implies that the Church spoke authoritatively as recently as the Council of Rome, when it established the canon that we have today. The early Church had had plenty to say on the subject of faith and works by that time.Quote:But not based on works. Evidence may or may not be present depending on the situation, like with the thief on the cross.Quote:
Evidenced in works, I might add.
But we can disagree all day. It's almost as if we need an authoritative tradition to help us discern what Christians have historically believed.
We don't need an authoritative tradition when we have the authoritative written word. If the Holy Spirit does not make Scripture perspicuous for the "priesthood of all believers", then it certainly won't be so for man-appointed priests in a Christianity that compromised with pagan Rome.
Seriously, how trustworthy can a tradition that led to Marian idolatry and heresy be, anyway?
The thief on the cross argument is frivolous. He followed Jesus in the time that he had, which is what God asks of everyone. Whether it was five minutes or five decades is beside the point.
The point about the thief was that faith may not be evidenced by works in every case. But what it does evidence is that faith is what saves, not works.
How did sola scriptura tell the early church (or anyone else) what to accept or reject as Scripture?
Sola scriptura is based on original apostolic authority, and that is what determined scripture for the early church, as well as for anyone else.