Whether it's revealed by hindsight or not, or whether I'm personally deceiving myself right now or not, really doesn't have anything to do with the fact that a true believer can't really ever "unbelieve", any more than someone can "unsee" color after one has already seen it.90sBear said: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.
Contemporary Evangelical Church Discussion
18,729 Views |
566 Replies |
Last: 6 hrs ago by BusyTarpDuster2017
I don't even understand what you're saying here. It certainly doesn't sound like anything at all I've been saying.Sam Lowry said: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.
We base our faith on a conviction of things unseen. There is no seeing color. Anything tangible cannot be compared to faith.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Whether it's revealed by hindsight or not, or whether I'm personally deceiving myself right now or not, really doesn't have anything to do with the fact that a true believer can't really ever "unbelieve", any more than someone can "unsee" color after one has already seen it.90sBear said: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.
Faith is confidence in what we hope for. You hope and have confidence that you will be saved. But by your own statement you could be deceiving yourself right now but as humans we don't know if you are what you consider a "true believer" without the gift of hindsight.
90sBear said: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.
Do you believe any of these works are required for salvation and if so, which ones?
I would say I answered that question in what you just quoted. I also already stated that IMO God's grace and Jesus dying for our sins are what is required.Mothra said:90sBear said: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.
Do you believe any of these works are required for salvation and if so, which ones?
You're making the same mistake Sam Lowry is making. The color analogy is just an analogy. I'm not making an exact comparison. You even noted this yourself, and now you're going back on it, presumably just to be argumentative.90sBear said:We base our faith on a conviction of things unseen. There is no seeing color. Anything tangible cannot be compared to faith.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Whether it's revealed by hindsight or not, or whether I'm personally deceiving myself right now or not, really doesn't have anything to do with the fact that a true believer can't really ever "unbelieve", any more than someone can "unsee" color after one has already seen it.90sBear said: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.
Faith is confidence in what we hope for. You hope and have confidence that you will be saved. But by your own statement you could be deceiving yourself right now but as humans we don't know if you are what you consider a "true believer" without the gift of hindsight.
The fact remains that true believers can't really ever "unbelieve". Your "hindsight" point is just a "what if" scenario, and has nothing to do with this fact.
The problem is your analogy is explicitly incorrect according to the Bible's definition of faith. In what way is quoting how the Bible defines faith in a discussion on faith just being argumentative?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You're making the same mistake Sam Lowry is making. The color analogy is just an analogy. I'm not making an exact comparison. You even noted this yourself, and now you're going back on it, presumably just to be argumentative.90sBear said:We base our faith on a conviction of things unseen. There is no seeing color. Anything tangible cannot be compared to faith.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Whether it's revealed by hindsight or not, or whether I'm personally deceiving myself right now or not, really doesn't have anything to do with the fact that a true believer can't really ever "unbelieve", any more than someone can "unsee" color after one has already seen it.90sBear said: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.
Faith is confidence in what we hope for. You hope and have confidence that you will be saved. But by your own statement you could be deceiving yourself right now but as humans we don't know if you are what you consider a "true believer" without the gift of hindsight.
The fact remains that true believers can't really ever "unbelieve". Your "hindsight" point is just a "what if" scenario, and has nothing to do with this fact.
I understand that your point was not seeing the color but rather the personal and potentially permanent change that came after an event. But it must be clarified that there is no tangible event the way there is when you see a color. If it is faith, it is intangible. And IMO that is an important distinction.
"True believers" as you describe them can't tangibly know if they truly believe and are changed the way they know they saw the color red because there is no tangible aspect to faith.
Again, it is confidence in what we hope for.
The analogy was not about faith. It was about the unlikelihood of true belief becoming unbelief. If you can't understand the analogy, then make your point relevant by explaining how what you're saying has to do with the fact that a true believer can never really un-believe.90sBear said:The problem is your analogy is explicitly incorrect according to the Bible's definition of faith. In what way is quoting how the Bible defines faith in a discussion on faith just being argumentative?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You're making the same mistake Sam Lowry is making. The color analogy is just an analogy. I'm not making an exact comparison. You even noted this yourself, and now you're going back on it, presumably just to be argumentative.90sBear said:We base our faith on a conviction of things unseen. There is no seeing color. Anything tangible cannot be compared to faith.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Whether it's revealed by hindsight or not, or whether I'm personally deceiving myself right now or not, really doesn't have anything to do with the fact that a true believer can't really ever "unbelieve", any more than someone can "unsee" color after one has already seen it.90sBear said: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.
Faith is confidence in what we hope for. You hope and have confidence that you will be saved. But by your own statement you could be deceiving yourself right now but as humans we don't know if you are what you consider a "true believer" without the gift of hindsight.
The fact remains that true believers can't really ever "unbelieve". Your "hindsight" point is just a "what if" scenario, and has nothing to do with this fact.
I understand that your point was not seeing the color but rather the personal and potentially permanent change that came after an event. But it must be clarified that there is no tangible event the way there is when you see a color. If it is faith, it is intangible. And IMO that is an important distinction.
"True believers" as you describe them can't tangibly know if they truly believe and are changed the way they know they saw the color red because there is no tangible aspect to faith.
Again, it is confidence in what we hope for.
Respectfully, your statements remain a bit vague, perhaps purposely so - which is the reason for the ask. You say "I don't think that any particular one is specifically required," which suggests you believe some works may be generally required. Are you not willing to go on record and say no works are required for salvation, and if not, why not?90sBear said:I would say I answered that question in what you just quoted. I also already stated that IMO God's grace and Jesus dying for our sins are what is required.Mothra said:90sBear said: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.
Do you believe any of these works are required for salvation and if so, which ones?
I am not entirely following your analogy. Perhaps you're saying that lack of works demonstrates lack of faith. I don't disagree with that, but again, I am not sure what you're saying, nor once again does that necessarily answer the question posed.
Edit: I am also curious what scripture you rely on for the opinion that salvation is a process.
Are works required for salvation? Works (or fruit, if you prefer the word) are the evidence of saving faith.
"What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Depart in peace, be warmed and filled," but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead." (James 2:14-17)
The Lord demands a return on the talents he gives you: "cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (Matthew 25:30).
Matthew 24:13, for example, straight from the horse's mouth so to speak. Obviously Jesus isn't saying that those who persevere till they get to the end of the sinner's prayer are saved. Those who persevere to the end of their lives are saved.
The whole "walk the aisle, pray the sinner's prayer, do business with God, get your boarding pass for your flight to heaven" gospel that has been so prevalent in evangelicalism is unbiblical. It has created a lot of false disciples, and is in large part responsible for the collapse of the evangelical church. Even Ray Comfort identifies this problem in his sermon "Hell's Best Kept Secret" though he doesn't continue to the logical/biblically supported conclusion.
"What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Depart in peace, be warmed and filled," but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead." (James 2:14-17)
The Lord demands a return on the talents he gives you: "cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (Matthew 25:30).
Mothra said:
Edit: I am also curious what scripture you rely on for the opinion that salvation is a process.
Matthew 24:13, for example, straight from the horse's mouth so to speak. Obviously Jesus isn't saying that those who persevere till they get to the end of the sinner's prayer are saved. Those who persevere to the end of their lives are saved.
The whole "walk the aisle, pray the sinner's prayer, do business with God, get your boarding pass for your flight to heaven" gospel that has been so prevalent in evangelicalism is unbiblical. It has created a lot of false disciples, and is in large part responsible for the collapse of the evangelical church. Even Ray Comfort identifies this problem in his sermon "Hell's Best Kept Secret" though he doesn't continue to the logical/biblically supported conclusion.
As I mentioned above, you - like many of your Catholic brethren - seem to have a severe misconception about evangelical belief. You seem to be laboring under the misconception that evangelicals believe merely saying a prayer evidences salvation, and that the individual can go on to live whatever manner of lifestyle he or she wants because he or she has a "get out of jail" free card, so to speak. As I tried to explain above, that is a misunderstanding of evangelical belief. We are not Gnostics, who believe merely saying a prayer and then living a hedonistic lifestyle contrary to the Word of God makes one saved.Realitybites said:
Are works required for salvation? Works (or fruit, if you prefer the word) are the evidence of saving faith. So yes, works are required. The Lord demands a return on the talents he gives you.Mothra said:
Edit: I am also curious what scripture you rely on for the opinion that salvation is a process.
Matthew 24:13, for example, straight from the horse's mouth so to speak. Obviously Jesus isn't saying that those who persevere till they get to the end of the sinner's prayer are saved. Those who persevere to the end of their lives are saved.
The whole "walk the aisle, pray the sinner's prayer, do business with God, get your boarding pass for your flight to heaven" gospel that has been so prevalent in evangelicalism is unbiblical. It has created a lot of false disciples, and is in large part responsible for the collapse of the evangelical church. Even Ray Comfort identifies this problem in his sermon "Hell's Best Kept Secret" though he doesn't continue to the logical/biblically supported conclusion.
To the contrary, evangelicals believe that works are an outcropping of true conversion, and are evidence that the person is a true convert, instead of the seed that falls in rocky soil. In other words, works demonstrate a changed heart and true conversion.
So, the question isn't whether works are important. The question is, are works necessary, and as the thief on the cross demonstrated, indeed they are not. Any view that holds as such is diametrically opposed to the explicit words of scripture that it is by grace alone we are saved, and not by works.
As for Matt 24:13, unfortunately you are misunderstanding what Christ is saying here. If you read Matthew 24:13 in context, you will see Christ is talking about the trials Christians will experience in life. It is a simple statement that there are struggles and trials. This text is stated in the context of the destruction of Jerusalem in particular, and it is an exhortation to persevere. When someone is given an exhortation, it does not mean there is necessarily a doubt as to their future destiny. And he is certainly not explicitly stating that any work is necessary.
As for Ray, I am quite familiar with him. If you understood what he is saying, it does not logically flow that works are necessary to save man from condemnation. That is you once again interpreting his words through your Catholic works-based prism. He is discussing what I said above, which you have clearly misunderstood.
How many times can the NT writers tell you Catholics that it is by grace, and not by works we are saved before you actually believe them?
Mothra said:
As I mentioned above, you - like many of your Catholic brethren - seem to have a severe misconception about evangelical belief. You seem to be laboring under the misconception that evangelicals believe merely saying a prayer evidences salvation, and that the individual can go on to live whatever manner of lifestyle he or she wants because he or she has a "get out of jail" free card, so to speak.?
I'm not Catholic.
What you claim is a misunderstanding of the evangelical position is in fact the gospel that some here are promoting using 1st Corinthians 3:15 as a proof text for it.
Given all the scripture I cited in my previous post indicating that fruit is a part of salvation as evidence of faith (though not reconciliation, what I guess a Catholic would call justification), trying to fall back on the thief on the cross as normative is a pretty weak position.
However, I am absolutely willing to grant that for someone who professes faith in Christ while actively being executed the only fruit of that faith is his profession. It's also quite obvious that no Christian reading this thread is in that position.
I haven't misunderstood what Ray Comfort said, which is why I said that while he correctly identified the problem inherent in the evangelical gospel, he was unable to continue on to the obvious conclusion.
Nobody on this thread has claimed anything of the sort. I think you're being a bit disingenuous here.Realitybites said:Mothra said:
As I mentioned above, you - like many of your Catholic brethren - seem to have a severe misconception about evangelical belief. You seem to be laboring under the misconception that evangelicals believe merely saying a prayer evidences salvation, and that the individual can go on to live whatever manner of lifestyle he or she wants because he or she has a "get out of jail" free card, so to speak.?
I'm not Catholic.
What you claim is a misunderstanding of the evangelical position is in fact the gospel that some here are promoting using 1st Corinthians 3:15 as a proof text for it.
Given all the scripture I cited in my previous post indicating that fruit is a part of salvation as evidence of faith (though not reconciliation, what I guess a Catholic would call justification), trying to fall back on the thief on the cross as normative is a pretty weak position.
However, I am absolutely willing to grant that for someone who professes faith in Christ while actively being executed the only fruit of that faith is his profession. It's also quite obvious that no Christian reading this thread is in that position.
I haven't misunderstood what Ray Comfort said, which is why I said that while he correctly identified the problem inherent in the evangelical gospel, he was unable to continue on to the obvious conclusion.
Moreover, none of the scripture you cited - and I mean zero, zilch, nada - stands for the proposition that works are required to be saved. You've attempted to make that misinterpretation to fit a narrative you would like to propagate.
Your inability to get around the thief on the cross is the weak position. You have no way around that one.
As for Ray Comfort, I agree there is an obvious conclusion, consistent with scripture. You just fail to grasp it because of your dogma.
Respectfully, yours is an extremely flimsy, unsupported position, regardless of whether you are Catholic or a member of some other works-based sect.
Belief: trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The analogy was not about faith. It was about the unlikelihood of true belief becoming unbelief. If you can't understand the analogy, then make your point relevant by explaining how what you're saying has to do with the fact that a true believer can never really un-believe.90sBear said:The problem is your analogy is explicitly incorrect according to the Bible's definition of faith. In what way is quoting how the Bible defines faith in a discussion on faith just being argumentative?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You're making the same mistake Sam Lowry is making. The color analogy is just an analogy. I'm not making an exact comparison. You even noted this yourself, and now you're going back on it, presumably just to be argumentative.90sBear said:We base our faith on a conviction of things unseen. There is no seeing color. Anything tangible cannot be compared to faith.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Whether it's revealed by hindsight or not, or whether I'm personally deceiving myself right now or not, really doesn't have anything to do with the fact that a true believer can't really ever "unbelieve", any more than someone can "unsee" color after one has already seen it.90sBear said: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.
Faith is confidence in what we hope for. You hope and have confidence that you will be saved. But by your own statement you could be deceiving yourself right now but as humans we don't know if you are what you consider a "true believer" without the gift of hindsight.
The fact remains that true believers can't really ever "unbelieve". Your "hindsight" point is just a "what if" scenario, and has nothing to do with this fact.
I understand that your point was not seeing the color but rather the personal and potentially permanent change that came after an event. But it must be clarified that there is no tangible event the way there is when you see a color. If it is faith, it is intangible. And IMO that is an important distinction.
"True believers" as you describe them can't tangibly know if they truly believe and are changed the way they know they saw the color red because there is no tangible aspect to faith.
Again, it is confidence in what we hope for.
Again, I think the passage is relevant.
Imagine someone's surprise if they got to the pearly gates and St. Peter said, "Yes, you showed unwavering faith in your life. But what you don't realize is that if your wife had stepped in front of a bus you actually would have gone into a spiral and eventually denied God. Sorry, no heaven for you."
How was this person to ever know they weren't a "True" believer since their wife never stepped in front of a bus?
You seem to equate your use of "True" believer with "Objective knower".
An objective knower can have any number of tests done to determine if they saw the color red. After the fact if they decide they didn't see the color red, a piece of paper can be shown confirming they did.
If someone takes a polygraph (yes I know they aren't scientifically perfect) asking if they believe in God at that moment and they pass, does that confirm they are "True" believers? If not, how were they to know otherwise at that moment?
The challenge is no human objectively knows they are what you call a "True" believer until God says so and we don't when that is. Until then IMO there are no Annie's Secret Circle of True Believers, there are just believers with varying levels of faith.
Just the way some are concerned about believers trying to rely on works to get into heaven, I worry that belief in Annie's Secret Circle of True Believers would lead to a false presumption that they are members.
That's why it is called faith and not fact.
Sorry, I thought "I don't think any particular one is specifically required" was pretty clear. None is required. I also said IMO God's grace and Jesus dying for our sins are what is required. IMO - those are the things required. If God wants me in heaven, I will be in heaven. Ergo, God's grace is the necessary ingredient.Mothra said:Respectfully, your statements remain a bit vague, perhaps purposely so - which is the reason for the ask. You say "I don't think that any particular one is specifically required," which suggests you believe some works may be generally required. Are you not willing to go on record and say no works are required for salvation, and if not, why not?90sBear said:I would say I answered that question in what you just quoted. I also already stated that IMO God's grace and Jesus dying for our sins are what is required.Mothra said:90sBear said: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.
Do you believe any of these works are required for salvation and if so, which ones?
I am not entirely following your analogy. Perhaps you're saying that lack of works demonstrates lack of faith. I don't disagree with that, but again, I am not sure what you're saying, nor once again does that necessarily answer the question posed.
Edit: I am also curious what scripture you rely on for the opinion that salvation is a process.
Yes, IMO a lack of any effort towards works of any kind likely shows a lack of faith. Most of us don't die within hours of meeting Jesus in the flesh upon the cross. And even that guy chose to speak out loud, could have complained about the agony he was going through after receiving Jesus' blessing, or changed his mind after hanging there for a while. He did what he could for as long as he could, so I don't even know that he qualifies as someone who didn't show any works.
1 Corinthians 9:24-27 would be the inspiration, but mostly I'm honestly basing it on the self-reporting from believers. In most research done asking people how they came about their faith, most report either a gradual process or one with stair step milestones. Fewer report a road to Damascus type event. Also there is the question of free will. IMO free will isn't really thoroughly discussed in the Bible. But if someone has the freedom to choose to love someone, that implicitly states there is freedom to stop loving someone. Again, my opinion.
Many points to address here. First of all, you keep wanting to take my analogy as an making an equivalence between faith(true belief) and seeing color. That isn't what it's doing. Rather, it's likening the impossibility of true belief becoming unbelief with the impossibility of seeing color then "unseeing" color. You are then carrying this misunderstanding further when you claim that I'm equating true belief and seeing color in that they both can be objectively verified. This isn't the case either. "True belief" just means that your belief is true - whether you know it is true or not is irrelevant. The claim is that "true belief" - regardless of whether one objectively knows it is indeed true or not - can never become "unbelief". I'm not hearing any argument by you against this.90sBear said:Belief: trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The analogy was not about faith. It was about the unlikelihood of true belief becoming unbelief. If you can't understand the analogy, then make your point relevant by explaining how what you're saying has to do with the fact that a true believer can never really un-believe.90sBear said:The problem is your analogy is explicitly incorrect according to the Bible's definition of faith. In what way is quoting how the Bible defines faith in a discussion on faith just being argumentative?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You're making the same mistake Sam Lowry is making. The color analogy is just an analogy. I'm not making an exact comparison. You even noted this yourself, and now you're going back on it, presumably just to be argumentative.90sBear said:We base our faith on a conviction of things unseen. There is no seeing color. Anything tangible cannot be compared to faith.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Whether it's revealed by hindsight or not, or whether I'm personally deceiving myself right now or not, really doesn't have anything to do with the fact that a true believer can't really ever "unbelieve", any more than someone can "unsee" color after one has already seen it.90sBear said: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.
Faith is confidence in what we hope for. You hope and have confidence that you will be saved. But by your own statement you could be deceiving yourself right now but as humans we don't know if you are what you consider a "true believer" without the gift of hindsight.
The fact remains that true believers can't really ever "unbelieve". Your "hindsight" point is just a "what if" scenario, and has nothing to do with this fact.
I understand that your point was not seeing the color but rather the personal and potentially permanent change that came after an event. But it must be clarified that there is no tangible event the way there is when you see a color. If it is faith, it is intangible. And IMO that is an important distinction.
"True believers" as you describe them can't tangibly know if they truly believe and are changed the way they know they saw the color red because there is no tangible aspect to faith.
Again, it is confidence in what we hope for.
Again, I think the passage is relevant.
Imagine someone's surprise if they got to the pearly gates and St. Peter said, "Yes, you showed unwavering faith in your life. But what you don't realize is that if your wife had stepped in front of a bus you actually would have gone into a spiral and eventually denied God. Sorry, no heaven for you."
How was this person to ever know they weren't a "True" believer since their wife never stepped in front of a bus?
You seem to equate your use of "True" believer with "Objective knower".
An objective knower can have any number of tests done to determine if they saw the color red. After the fact if they decide they didn't see the color red, a piece of paper can be shown confirming they did.
If someone takes a polygraph (yes I know they aren't scientifically perfect) asking if they believe in God at that moment and they pass, does that confirm they are "True" believers? If not, how were they to know otherwise at that moment?
The challenge is no human objectively knows they are what you call a "True" believer until God says so and we don't when that is. Until then IMO there are no Annie's Secret Circle of True Believers, there are just believers with varying levels of faith.
Just the way some are concerned about believers trying to rely on works to get into heaven, I worry that belief in Annie's Secret Circle of True Believers would lead to a false presumption that they are members.
That's why it is called faith and not fact.
Rather, you're focusing on whether we can ever really know if we are a true believer or not, because we could be tested to the extreme and stop believing as a result. I don't think anyone is really denying that this possibility exists with some people. And yes, there will be people who thought they believed, but then find out at the end their belief was false when Jesus says to them, "Depart from me. I never knew you." That's why we each have to really humble ourselves, and examine ourselves with honesty and with "fear and trembling".
But the idea that we can never really know in our lifetime whether we have true faith or not is false, and it is unscriptural. Firstly, you know what you believe, if you humbly examine yourself with honesty. It isn't a guessing game. Thinking you believe something when you really don't is self deception. God didn't leave us in the cold to guess about our status, He tells us that if we ask, seek, and knock that He will answer and open the door, and we will find (Matthew 7:7). When you truly believe, God gives you the Holy Spirit as a seal, a guarantee, and as an assurance that you belong to Him (Romans 8:16, 1 Corinthians 1:22, 1 Corinthians 5:5, Ephesians 1:13-14). When you are a true believer, you find yourself running to God everytime you have a problem, like a child runs to his "daddy" (Galatians 4:6 - "Abba" means something like "daddy"). You try your best to keep Jesus' commandments (1 John 2:5). You exhibit love for God over wordly things (1 John 2:15). You have a love for all other Christians (1 John 3:14). You don't just say you love others, you actually do something (1 John 3:18-19). These are just some of the signs that the Bible tells us that our faith is real.
I do all of those things...sometimes. I don't see how anyone can honestly say they do all of them all of the time. So the question remains, how do I know whether I'm in the super secret club?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:When you are a true believer, you find yourself running to God everytime you have a problem, like a child runs to his "daddy" (Galatians 4:6 - "Abba" means something like "daddy"). You try your best to keep Jesus' commandments (1 John 2:5). You exhibit love for God over wordly things (1 John 2:15). You have a love for all other Christians (1 John 3:14). You don't just say you love others, you actually do something (1 John 3:18-19). These are just some of the signs that the Bible tells us that our faith is real.90sBear said:Belief: trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The analogy was not about faith. It was about the unlikelihood of true belief becoming unbelief. If you can't understand the analogy, then make your point relevant by explaining how what you're saying has to do with the fact that a true believer can never really un-believe.90sBear said:The problem is your analogy is explicitly incorrect according to the Bible's definition of faith. In what way is quoting how the Bible defines faith in a discussion on faith just being argumentative?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You're making the same mistake Sam Lowry is making. The color analogy is just an analogy. I'm not making an exact comparison. You even noted this yourself, and now you're going back on it, presumably just to be argumentative.90sBear said:We base our faith on a conviction of things unseen. There is no seeing color. Anything tangible cannot be compared to faith.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Whether it's revealed by hindsight or not, or whether I'm personally deceiving myself right now or not, really doesn't have anything to do with the fact that a true believer can't really ever "unbelieve", any more than someone can "unsee" color after one has already seen it.90sBear said: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.
Faith is confidence in what we hope for. You hope and have confidence that you will be saved. But by your own statement you could be deceiving yourself right now but as humans we don't know if you are what you consider a "true believer" without the gift of hindsight.
The fact remains that true believers can't really ever "unbelieve". Your "hindsight" point is just a "what if" scenario, and has nothing to do with this fact.
I understand that your point was not seeing the color but rather the personal and potentially permanent change that came after an event. But it must be clarified that there is no tangible event the way there is when you see a color. If it is faith, it is intangible. And IMO that is an important distinction.
"True believers" as you describe them can't tangibly know if they truly believe and are changed the way they know they saw the color red because there is no tangible aspect to faith.
Again, it is confidence in what we hope for.
Again, I think the passage is relevant.
Imagine someone's surprise if they got to the pearly gates and St. Peter said, "Yes, you showed unwavering faith in your life. But what you don't realize is that if your wife had stepped in front of a bus you actually would have gone into a spiral and eventually denied God. Sorry, no heaven for you."
How was this person to ever know they weren't a "True" believer since their wife never stepped in front of a bus?
You seem to equate your use of "True" believer with "Objective knower".
An objective knower can have any number of tests done to determine if they saw the color red. After the fact if they decide they didn't see the color red, a piece of paper can be shown confirming they did.
If someone takes a polygraph (yes I know they aren't scientifically perfect) asking if they believe in God at that moment and they pass, does that confirm they are "True" believers? If not, how were they to know otherwise at that moment?
The challenge is no human objectively knows they are what you call a "True" believer until God says so and we don't when that is. Until then IMO there are no Annie's Secret Circle of True Believers, there are just believers with varying levels of faith.
Just the way some are concerned about believers trying to rely on works to get into heaven, I worry that belief in Annie's Secret Circle of True Believers would lead to a false presumption that they are members.
That's why it is called faith and not fact.
It seems a lot simpler just to admit I have work to do.
Work to do for what?Sam Lowry said:I do all of those things...sometimes. I don't see how anyone can honestly say they do all of them all of the time. So the question remains, how do I know whether I'm in the super secret club?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:When you are a true believer, you find yourself running to God everytime you have a problem, like a child runs to his "daddy" (Galatians 4:6 - "Abba" means something like "daddy"). You try your best to keep Jesus' commandments (1 John 2:5). You exhibit love for God over wordly things (1 John 2:15). You have a love for all other Christians (1 John 3:14). You don't just say you love others, you actually do something (1 John 3:18-19). These are just some of the signs that the Bible tells us that our faith is real.90sBear said:Belief: trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The analogy was not about faith. It was about the unlikelihood of true belief becoming unbelief. If you can't understand the analogy, then make your point relevant by explaining how what you're saying has to do with the fact that a true believer can never really un-believe.90sBear said:The problem is your analogy is explicitly incorrect according to the Bible's definition of faith. In what way is quoting how the Bible defines faith in a discussion on faith just being argumentative?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You're making the same mistake Sam Lowry is making. The color analogy is just an analogy. I'm not making an exact comparison. You even noted this yourself, and now you're going back on it, presumably just to be argumentative.90sBear said:We base our faith on a conviction of things unseen. There is no seeing color. Anything tangible cannot be compared to faith.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Whether it's revealed by hindsight or not, or whether I'm personally deceiving myself right now or not, really doesn't have anything to do with the fact that a true believer can't really ever "unbelieve", any more than someone can "unsee" color after one has already seen it.90sBear said: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.
Faith is confidence in what we hope for. You hope and have confidence that you will be saved. But by your own statement you could be deceiving yourself right now but as humans we don't know if you are what you consider a "true believer" without the gift of hindsight.
The fact remains that true believers can't really ever "unbelieve". Your "hindsight" point is just a "what if" scenario, and has nothing to do with this fact.
I understand that your point was not seeing the color but rather the personal and potentially permanent change that came after an event. But it must be clarified that there is no tangible event the way there is when you see a color. If it is faith, it is intangible. And IMO that is an important distinction.
"True believers" as you describe them can't tangibly know if they truly believe and are changed the way they know they saw the color red because there is no tangible aspect to faith.
Again, it is confidence in what we hope for.
Again, I think the passage is relevant.
Imagine someone's surprise if they got to the pearly gates and St. Peter said, "Yes, you showed unwavering faith in your life. But what you don't realize is that if your wife had stepped in front of a bus you actually would have gone into a spiral and eventually denied God. Sorry, no heaven for you."
How was this person to ever know they weren't a "True" believer since their wife never stepped in front of a bus?
You seem to equate your use of "True" believer with "Objective knower".
An objective knower can have any number of tests done to determine if they saw the color red. After the fact if they decide they didn't see the color red, a piece of paper can be shown confirming they did.
If someone takes a polygraph (yes I know they aren't scientifically perfect) asking if they believe in God at that moment and they pass, does that confirm they are "True" believers? If not, how were they to know otherwise at that moment?
The challenge is no human objectively knows they are what you call a "True" believer until God says so and we don't when that is. Until then IMO there are no Annie's Secret Circle of True Believers, there are just believers with varying levels of faith.
Just the way some are concerned about believers trying to rely on works to get into heaven, I worry that belief in Annie's Secret Circle of True Believers would lead to a false presumption that they are members.
That's why it is called faith and not fact.
It seems a lot simpler just to admit I have work to do.
Sam Lowry said:I do all of those things...sometimes. I don't see how anyone can honestly say they do all of them all of the time. So the question remains, how do I know whether I'm in the super secret club?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:When you are a true believer, you find yourself running to God everytime you have a problem, like a child runs to his "daddy" (Galatians 4:6 - "Abba" means something like "daddy"). You try your best to keep Jesus' commandments (1 John 2:5). You exhibit love for God over wordly things (1 John 2:15). You have a love for all other Christians (1 John 3:14). You don't just say you love others, you actually do something (1 John 3:18-19). These are just some of the signs that the Bible tells us that our faith is real.90sBear said:Belief: trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The analogy was not about faith. It was about the unlikelihood of true belief becoming unbelief. If you can't understand the analogy, then make your point relevant by explaining how what you're saying has to do with the fact that a true believer can never really un-believe.90sBear said:The problem is your analogy is explicitly incorrect according to the Bible's definition of faith. In what way is quoting how the Bible defines faith in a discussion on faith just being argumentative?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You're making the same mistake Sam Lowry is making. The color analogy is just an analogy. I'm not making an exact comparison. You even noted this yourself, and now you're going back on it, presumably just to be argumentative.90sBear said:We base our faith on a conviction of things unseen. There is no seeing color. Anything tangible cannot be compared to faith.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Whether it's revealed by hindsight or not, or whether I'm personally deceiving myself right now or not, really doesn't have anything to do with the fact that a true believer can't really ever "unbelieve", any more than someone can "unsee" color after one has already seen it.90sBear said: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.
Faith is confidence in what we hope for. You hope and have confidence that you will be saved. But by your own statement you could be deceiving yourself right now but as humans we don't know if you are what you consider a "true believer" without the gift of hindsight.
The fact remains that true believers can't really ever "unbelieve". Your "hindsight" point is just a "what if" scenario, and has nothing to do with this fact.
I understand that your point was not seeing the color but rather the personal and potentially permanent change that came after an event. But it must be clarified that there is no tangible event the way there is when you see a color. If it is faith, it is intangible. And IMO that is an important distinction.
"True believers" as you describe them can't tangibly know if they truly believe and are changed the way they know they saw the color red because there is no tangible aspect to faith.
Again, it is confidence in what we hope for.
Again, I think the passage is relevant.
Imagine someone's surprise if they got to the pearly gates and St. Peter said, "Yes, you showed unwavering faith in your life. But what you don't realize is that if your wife had stepped in front of a bus you actually would have gone into a spiral and eventually denied God. Sorry, no heaven for you."
How was this person to ever know they weren't a "True" believer since their wife never stepped in front of a bus?
You seem to equate your use of "True" believer with "Objective knower".
An objective knower can have any number of tests done to determine if they saw the color red. After the fact if they decide they didn't see the color red, a piece of paper can be shown confirming they did.
If someone takes a polygraph (yes I know they aren't scientifically perfect) asking if they believe in God at that moment and they pass, does that confirm they are "True" believers? If not, how were they to know otherwise at that moment?
The challenge is no human objectively knows they are what you call a "True" believer until God says so and we don't when that is. Until then IMO there are no Annie's Secret Circle of True Believers, there are just believers with varying levels of faith.
Just the way some are concerned about believers trying to rely on works to get into heaven, I worry that belief in Annie's Secret Circle of True Believers would lead to a false presumption that they are members.
That's why it is called faith and not fact.
It seems a lot simpler just to admit I have work to do.
No matter what "work" we do, we wouldn't be able to "know" from the works we might do that we are saved.
We can never be good enough to earn or to deserve to be with God. However, when we accept the free gift of eternal life, we become children of God. This is not based on what we do, what we have done or what we will do. The good works that we do cannot change the nature of our relationship with God. God's gift changes us from an enemy of God into a child of God.
Well, Roman Catholics don't run to daddy, they run to "mommy". That's the problem.Sam Lowry said:I do all of those things...sometimes. I don't see how anyone can honestly say they do all of them all of the time. So the question remains, how do I know whether I'm in the super secret club?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:When you are a true believer, you find yourself running to God everytime you have a problem, like a child runs to his "daddy" (Galatians 4:6 - "Abba" means something like "daddy"). You try your best to keep Jesus' commandments (1 John 2:5). You exhibit love for God over wordly things (1 John 2:15). You have a love for all other Christians (1 John 3:14). You don't just say you love others, you actually do something (1 John 3:18-19). These are just some of the signs that the Bible tells us that our faith is real.90sBear said:Belief: trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The analogy was not about faith. It was about the unlikelihood of true belief becoming unbelief. If you can't understand the analogy, then make your point relevant by explaining how what you're saying has to do with the fact that a true believer can never really un-believe.90sBear said:The problem is your analogy is explicitly incorrect according to the Bible's definition of faith. In what way is quoting how the Bible defines faith in a discussion on faith just being argumentative?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You're making the same mistake Sam Lowry is making. The color analogy is just an analogy. I'm not making an exact comparison. You even noted this yourself, and now you're going back on it, presumably just to be argumentative.90sBear said:We base our faith on a conviction of things unseen. There is no seeing color. Anything tangible cannot be compared to faith.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Whether it's revealed by hindsight or not, or whether I'm personally deceiving myself right now or not, really doesn't have anything to do with the fact that a true believer can't really ever "unbelieve", any more than someone can "unsee" color after one has already seen it.90sBear said: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.
Faith is confidence in what we hope for. You hope and have confidence that you will be saved. But by your own statement you could be deceiving yourself right now but as humans we don't know if you are what you consider a "true believer" without the gift of hindsight.
The fact remains that true believers can't really ever "unbelieve". Your "hindsight" point is just a "what if" scenario, and has nothing to do with this fact.
I understand that your point was not seeing the color but rather the personal and potentially permanent change that came after an event. But it must be clarified that there is no tangible event the way there is when you see a color. If it is faith, it is intangible. And IMO that is an important distinction.
"True believers" as you describe them can't tangibly know if they truly believe and are changed the way they know they saw the color red because there is no tangible aspect to faith.
Again, it is confidence in what we hope for.
Again, I think the passage is relevant.
Imagine someone's surprise if they got to the pearly gates and St. Peter said, "Yes, you showed unwavering faith in your life. But what you don't realize is that if your wife had stepped in front of a bus you actually would have gone into a spiral and eventually denied God. Sorry, no heaven for you."
How was this person to ever know they weren't a "True" believer since their wife never stepped in front of a bus?
You seem to equate your use of "True" believer with "Objective knower".
An objective knower can have any number of tests done to determine if they saw the color red. After the fact if they decide they didn't see the color red, a piece of paper can be shown confirming they did.
If someone takes a polygraph (yes I know they aren't scientifically perfect) asking if they believe in God at that moment and they pass, does that confirm they are "True" believers? If not, how were they to know otherwise at that moment?
The challenge is no human objectively knows they are what you call a "True" believer until God says so and we don't when that is. Until then IMO there are no Annie's Secret Circle of True Believers, there are just believers with varying levels of faith.
Just the way some are concerned about believers trying to rely on works to get into heaven, I worry that belief in Annie's Secret Circle of True Believers would lead to a false presumption that they are members.
That's why it is called faith and not fact.
It seems a lot simpler just to admit I have work to do.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Well, Roman Catholics don't run to daddy, they run to "mommy". That's the problem.Sam Lowry said:I do all of those things...sometimes. I don't see how anyone can honestly say they do all of them all of the time. So the question remains, how do I know whether I'm in the super secret club?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:When you are a true believer, you find yourself running to God everytime you have a problem, like a child runs to his "daddy" (Galatians 4:6 - "Abba" means something like "daddy"). You try your best to keep Jesus' commandments (1 John 2:5). You exhibit love for God over wordly things (1 John 2:15). You have a love for all other Christians (1 John 3:14). You don't just say you love others, you actually do something (1 John 3:18-19). These are just some of the signs that the Bible tells us that our faith is real.90sBear said:Belief: trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The analogy was not about faith. It was about the unlikelihood of true belief becoming unbelief. If you can't understand the analogy, then make your point relevant by explaining how what you're saying has to do with the fact that a true believer can never really un-believe.90sBear said:The problem is your analogy is explicitly incorrect according to the Bible's definition of faith. In what way is quoting how the Bible defines faith in a discussion on faith just being argumentative?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You're making the same mistake Sam Lowry is making. The color analogy is just an analogy. I'm not making an exact comparison. You even noted this yourself, and now you're going back on it, presumably just to be argumentative.90sBear said:We base our faith on a conviction of things unseen. There is no seeing color. Anything tangible cannot be compared to faith.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Whether it's revealed by hindsight or not, or whether I'm personally deceiving myself right now or not, really doesn't have anything to do with the fact that a true believer can't really ever "unbelieve", any more than someone can "unsee" color after one has already seen it.90sBear said: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.
Faith is confidence in what we hope for. You hope and have confidence that you will be saved. But by your own statement you could be deceiving yourself right now but as humans we don't know if you are what you consider a "true believer" without the gift of hindsight.
The fact remains that true believers can't really ever "unbelieve". Your "hindsight" point is just a "what if" scenario, and has nothing to do with this fact.
I understand that your point was not seeing the color but rather the personal and potentially permanent change that came after an event. But it must be clarified that there is no tangible event the way there is when you see a color. If it is faith, it is intangible. And IMO that is an important distinction.
"True believers" as you describe them can't tangibly know if they truly believe and are changed the way they know they saw the color red because there is no tangible aspect to faith.
Again, it is confidence in what we hope for.
Again, I think the passage is relevant.
Imagine someone's surprise if they got to the pearly gates and St. Peter said, "Yes, you showed unwavering faith in your life. But what you don't realize is that if your wife had stepped in front of a bus you actually would have gone into a spiral and eventually denied God. Sorry, no heaven for you."
How was this person to ever know they weren't a "True" believer since their wife never stepped in front of a bus?
You seem to equate your use of "True" believer with "Objective knower".
An objective knower can have any number of tests done to determine if they saw the color red. After the fact if they decide they didn't see the color red, a piece of paper can be shown confirming they did.
If someone takes a polygraph (yes I know they aren't scientifically perfect) asking if they believe in God at that moment and they pass, does that confirm they are "True" believers? If not, how were they to know otherwise at that moment?
The challenge is no human objectively knows they are what you call a "True" believer until God says so and we don't when that is. Until then IMO there are no Annie's Secret Circle of True Believers, there are just believers with varying levels of faith.
Just the way some are concerned about believers trying to rely on works to get into heaven, I worry that belief in Annie's Secret Circle of True Believers would lead to a false presumption that they are members.
That's why it is called faith and not fact.
It seems a lot simpler just to admit I have work to do.
That's absurd.
Have a nice day.
Thanks. Good thoughts.90sBear said:Sorry, I thought "I don't think any particular one is specifically required" was pretty clear. None is required. I also said IMO God's grace and Jesus dying for our sins are what is required. IMO - those are the things required. If God wants me in heaven, I will be in heaven. Ergo, God's grace is the necessary ingredient.Mothra said:Respectfully, your statements remain a bit vague, perhaps purposely so - which is the reason for the ask. You say "I don't think that any particular one is specifically required," which suggests you believe some works may be generally required. Are you not willing to go on record and say no works are required for salvation, and if not, why not?90sBear said:I would say I answered that question in what you just quoted. I also already stated that IMO God's grace and Jesus dying for our sins are what is required.Mothra said:90sBear said: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.
Do you believe any of these works are required for salvation and if so, which ones?
I am not entirely following your analogy. Perhaps you're saying that lack of works demonstrates lack of faith. I don't disagree with that, but again, I am not sure what you're saying, nor once again does that necessarily answer the question posed.
Edit: I am also curious what scripture you rely on for the opinion that salvation is a process.
Yes, IMO a lack of any effort towards works of any kind likely shows a lack of faith. Most of us don't die within hours of meeting Jesus in the flesh upon the cross. And even that guy chose to speak out loud, could have complained about the agony he was going through after receiving Jesus' blessing, or changed his mind after hanging there for a while. He did what he could for as long as he could, so I don't even know that he qualifies as someone who didn't show any works.
1 Corinthians 9:24-27 would be the inspiration, but mostly I'm honestly basing it on the self-reporting from believers. In most research done asking people how they came about their faith, most report either a gradual process or one with stair step milestones. Fewer report a road to Damascus type event. Also there is the question of free will. IMO free will isn't really thoroughly discussed in the Bible. But if someone has the freedom to choose to love someone, that implicitly states there is freedom to stop loving someone. Again, my opinion.
You think the "simpler" position is: "I have a lot of work to do to be saved. Don't know if it will be enough, but I sure hope so"?Sam Lowry said:I do all of those things...sometimes. I don't see how anyone can honestly say they do all of them all of the time. So the question remains, how do I know whether I'm in the super secret club?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:When you are a true believer, you find yourself running to God everytime you have a problem, like a child runs to his "daddy" (Galatians 4:6 - "Abba" means something like "daddy"). You try your best to keep Jesus' commandments (1 John 2:5). You exhibit love for God over wordly things (1 John 2:15). You have a love for all other Christians (1 John 3:14). You don't just say you love others, you actually do something (1 John 3:18-19). These are just some of the signs that the Bible tells us that our faith is real.90sBear said:Belief: trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The analogy was not about faith. It was about the unlikelihood of true belief becoming unbelief. If you can't understand the analogy, then make your point relevant by explaining how what you're saying has to do with the fact that a true believer can never really un-believe.90sBear said:The problem is your analogy is explicitly incorrect according to the Bible's definition of faith. In what way is quoting how the Bible defines faith in a discussion on faith just being argumentative?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You're making the same mistake Sam Lowry is making. The color analogy is just an analogy. I'm not making an exact comparison. You even noted this yourself, and now you're going back on it, presumably just to be argumentative.90sBear said:We base our faith on a conviction of things unseen. There is no seeing color. Anything tangible cannot be compared to faith.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Whether it's revealed by hindsight or not, or whether I'm personally deceiving myself right now or not, really doesn't have anything to do with the fact that a true believer can't really ever "unbelieve", any more than someone can "unsee" color after one has already seen it.90sBear said: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.
Faith is confidence in what we hope for. You hope and have confidence that you will be saved. But by your own statement you could be deceiving yourself right now but as humans we don't know if you are what you consider a "true believer" without the gift of hindsight.
The fact remains that true believers can't really ever "unbelieve". Your "hindsight" point is just a "what if" scenario, and has nothing to do with this fact.
I understand that your point was not seeing the color but rather the personal and potentially permanent change that came after an event. But it must be clarified that there is no tangible event the way there is when you see a color. If it is faith, it is intangible. And IMO that is an important distinction.
"True believers" as you describe them can't tangibly know if they truly believe and are changed the way they know they saw the color red because there is no tangible aspect to faith.
Again, it is confidence in what we hope for.
Again, I think the passage is relevant.
Imagine someone's surprise if they got to the pearly gates and St. Peter said, "Yes, you showed unwavering faith in your life. But what you don't realize is that if your wife had stepped in front of a bus you actually would have gone into a spiral and eventually denied God. Sorry, no heaven for you."
How was this person to ever know they weren't a "True" believer since their wife never stepped in front of a bus?
You seem to equate your use of "True" believer with "Objective knower".
An objective knower can have any number of tests done to determine if they saw the color red. After the fact if they decide they didn't see the color red, a piece of paper can be shown confirming they did.
If someone takes a polygraph (yes I know they aren't scientifically perfect) asking if they believe in God at that moment and they pass, does that confirm they are "True" believers? If not, how were they to know otherwise at that moment?
The challenge is no human objectively knows they are what you call a "True" believer until God says so and we don't when that is. Until then IMO there are no Annie's Secret Circle of True Believers, there are just believers with varying levels of faith.
Just the way some are concerned about believers trying to rely on works to get into heaven, I worry that belief in Annie's Secret Circle of True Believers would lead to a false presumption that they are members.
That's why it is called faith and not fact.
It seems a lot simpler just to admit I have work to do.
Wow. To me, that kind of faith is absolutely crazy-making when you consider the repercussions. It's not a matter of life or death, but heaven or hell for eternity. What if I die before failing to take a lustful thought captive? What if I get unjustifiably angry before suffering a widow-maker heart attack, and didn't have a chance to confess or perform a sacrament? Or perhaps, what if I simply didn't engage in enough sacraments and God deems me unworthy?
There is absolutely nothing simple, or biblical, about that position. It also demonstrates misplaced motives and an incredible misunderstanding about works. If we are performing works because we are hoping and praying that it will be enough to get us into Heaven, then we are doing it for all the wrong reasons. Works should be an outcropping of our salvation - our faith and trust in Christ, love for our fellow man, and our desire to save the lost. If we are merely going through the motions in the hope it will be enough to save us, that is not what God had in mind.
It was a snarky comment, but not entirely inaccurate. My Catholic friends are often times just as apt to pray to Mary as they are to God.KaiBear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Well, Roman Catholics don't run to daddy, they run to "mommy". That's the problem.Sam Lowry said:I do all of those things...sometimes. I don't see how anyone can honestly say they do all of them all of the time. So the question remains, how do I know whether I'm in the super secret club?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:When you are a true believer, you find yourself running to God everytime you have a problem, like a child runs to his "daddy" (Galatians 4:6 - "Abba" means something like "daddy"). You try your best to keep Jesus' commandments (1 John 2:5). You exhibit love for God over wordly things (1 John 2:15). You have a love for all other Christians (1 John 3:14). You don't just say you love others, you actually do something (1 John 3:18-19). These are just some of the signs that the Bible tells us that our faith is real.90sBear said:Belief: trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The analogy was not about faith. It was about the unlikelihood of true belief becoming unbelief. If you can't understand the analogy, then make your point relevant by explaining how what you're saying has to do with the fact that a true believer can never really un-believe.90sBear said:The problem is your analogy is explicitly incorrect according to the Bible's definition of faith. In what way is quoting how the Bible defines faith in a discussion on faith just being argumentative?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You're making the same mistake Sam Lowry is making. The color analogy is just an analogy. I'm not making an exact comparison. You even noted this yourself, and now you're going back on it, presumably just to be argumentative.90sBear said:We base our faith on a conviction of things unseen. There is no seeing color. Anything tangible cannot be compared to faith.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Whether it's revealed by hindsight or not, or whether I'm personally deceiving myself right now or not, really doesn't have anything to do with the fact that a true believer can't really ever "unbelieve", any more than someone can "unsee" color after one has already seen it.90sBear said: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.
Faith is confidence in what we hope for. You hope and have confidence that you will be saved. But by your own statement you could be deceiving yourself right now but as humans we don't know if you are what you consider a "true believer" without the gift of hindsight.
The fact remains that true believers can't really ever "unbelieve". Your "hindsight" point is just a "what if" scenario, and has nothing to do with this fact.
I understand that your point was not seeing the color but rather the personal and potentially permanent change that came after an event. But it must be clarified that there is no tangible event the way there is when you see a color. If it is faith, it is intangible. And IMO that is an important distinction.
"True believers" as you describe them can't tangibly know if they truly believe and are changed the way they know they saw the color red because there is no tangible aspect to faith.
Again, it is confidence in what we hope for.
Again, I think the passage is relevant.
Imagine someone's surprise if they got to the pearly gates and St. Peter said, "Yes, you showed unwavering faith in your life. But what you don't realize is that if your wife had stepped in front of a bus you actually would have gone into a spiral and eventually denied God. Sorry, no heaven for you."
How was this person to ever know they weren't a "True" believer since their wife never stepped in front of a bus?
You seem to equate your use of "True" believer with "Objective knower".
An objective knower can have any number of tests done to determine if they saw the color red. After the fact if they decide they didn't see the color red, a piece of paper can be shown confirming they did.
If someone takes a polygraph (yes I know they aren't scientifically perfect) asking if they believe in God at that moment and they pass, does that confirm they are "True" believers? If not, how were they to know otherwise at that moment?
The challenge is no human objectively knows they are what you call a "True" believer until God says so and we don't when that is. Until then IMO there are no Annie's Secret Circle of True Believers, there are just believers with varying levels of faith.
Just the way some are concerned about believers trying to rely on works to get into heaven, I worry that belief in Annie's Secret Circle of True Believers would lead to a false presumption that they are members.
That's why it is called faith and not fact.
It seems a lot simpler just to admit I have work to do.
That's absurd.
Have a nice day.
I just think your analogy isn't really helpful here. If there are "true" believers, we don't know who they are or when they became "true" believers. So for me their potential existence isn't really instructive no matter how strong their faith is and whether or not it could be broken. IMO from our human perspective, we are just believers with faith which is not defined as "true belief."BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Many points to address here. First of all, you keep wanting to take my analogy as an making an equivalence between faith(true belief) and seeing color. That isn't what it's doing. Rather, it's likening the impossibility of true belief becoming unbelief with the impossibility of seeing color then "unseeing" color. You are then carrying this misunderstanding further when you claim that I'm equating true belief and seeing color in that they both can be objectively verified. This isn't the case either. "True belief" just means that your belief is true - whether you know it is true or not is irrelevant. The claim is that "true belief" - regardless of whether one objectively knows it is indeed true or not - can never become "unbelief". I'm not hearing any argument by you against this.90sBear said:Belief: trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The analogy was not about faith. It was about the unlikelihood of true belief becoming unbelief. If you can't understand the analogy, then make your point relevant by explaining how what you're saying has to do with the fact that a true believer can never really un-believe.90sBear said:The problem is your analogy is explicitly incorrect according to the Bible's definition of faith. In what way is quoting how the Bible defines faith in a discussion on faith just being argumentative?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You're making the same mistake Sam Lowry is making. The color analogy is just an analogy. I'm not making an exact comparison. You even noted this yourself, and now you're going back on it, presumably just to be argumentative.90sBear said:We base our faith on a conviction of things unseen. There is no seeing color. Anything tangible cannot be compared to faith.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Whether it's revealed by hindsight or not, or whether I'm personally deceiving myself right now or not, really doesn't have anything to do with the fact that a true believer can't really ever "unbelieve", any more than someone can "unsee" color after one has already seen it.90sBear said: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.
Faith is confidence in what we hope for. You hope and have confidence that you will be saved. But by your own statement you could be deceiving yourself right now but as humans we don't know if you are what you consider a "true believer" without the gift of hindsight.
The fact remains that true believers can't really ever "unbelieve". Your "hindsight" point is just a "what if" scenario, and has nothing to do with this fact.
I understand that your point was not seeing the color but rather the personal and potentially permanent change that came after an event. But it must be clarified that there is no tangible event the way there is when you see a color. If it is faith, it is intangible. And IMO that is an important distinction.
"True believers" as you describe them can't tangibly know if they truly believe and are changed the way they know they saw the color red because there is no tangible aspect to faith.
Again, it is confidence in what we hope for.
Again, I think the passage is relevant.
Imagine someone's surprise if they got to the pearly gates and St. Peter said, "Yes, you showed unwavering faith in your life. But what you don't realize is that if your wife had stepped in front of a bus you actually would have gone into a spiral and eventually denied God. Sorry, no heaven for you."
How was this person to ever know they weren't a "True" believer since their wife never stepped in front of a bus?
You seem to equate your use of "True" believer with "Objective knower".
An objective knower can have any number of tests done to determine if they saw the color red. After the fact if they decide they didn't see the color red, a piece of paper can be shown confirming they did.
If someone takes a polygraph (yes I know they aren't scientifically perfect) asking if they believe in God at that moment and they pass, does that confirm they are "True" believers? If not, how were they to know otherwise at that moment?
The challenge is no human objectively knows they are what you call a "True" believer until God says so and we don't when that is. Until then IMO there are no Annie's Secret Circle of True Believers, there are just believers with varying levels of faith.
Just the way some are concerned about believers trying to rely on works to get into heaven, I worry that belief in Annie's Secret Circle of True Believers would lead to a false presumption that they are members.
That's why it is called faith and not fact.
Rather, you're focusing on whether we can ever really know if we are a true believer or not, because we could be tested to the extreme and stop believing as a result. I don't think anyone is really denying that this possibility exists with some people. And yes, there will be people who thought they believed, but then find out at the end their belief was false when Jesus says to them, "Depart from me. I never knew you." That's why we each have to really humble ourselves, and examine ourselves with honesty and with "fear and trembling".
But the idea that we can never really know in our lifetime whether we have true faith or not is false, and it is unscriptural. Firstly, you know what you believe, if you humbly examine yourself with honesty. It isn't a guessing game. Thinking you believe something when you really don't is self deception. God didn't leave us in the cold to guess about our status, He tells us that if we ask, seek, and knock that He will answer and open the door, and we will find (Matthew 7:7). When you truly believe, God gives you the Holy Spirit as a seal, a guarantee, and as an assurance that you belong to Him (Romans 8:16, 1 Corinthians 1:22, 1 Corinthians 5:5, Ephesians 1:13-14). When you are a true believer, you find yourself running to God everytime you have a problem, like a child runs to his "daddy" (Galatians 4:6 - "Abba" means something like "daddy"). You try your best to keep Jesus' commandments (1 John 2:5). You exhibit love for God over wordly things (1 John 2:15). You have a love for all other Christians (1 John 3:14). You don't just say you love others, you actually do something (1 John 3:18-19). These are just some of the signs that the Bible tells us that our faith is real.
Given that we will not know if we have been judged favorably until God tells us, that means we cannot know (faith vs fact) in our lifetime because we are limited human beings.
As for knowing what you believe, again I ask if the person passing the polygraph test necessarily means that person is a confirmed "true" believer?
Absolutely faith is real. And faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. And many of those things you mention are indeed signs that our faith is strong.
But of course none of us are perfect and that includes our faith which is ongoing and requires perseverance if the goal is to not become a reverse Thief on the Cross whether you view that as someone whose once-strong faith wavered off into nothingness or it wasn't there in the first place.
1 Corinthians 1:18 "but to us who are being saved."
Colossians 1:23 "if you continue in your faith, established and firm, and do not move from the hope held out in the gospel."
So the idea of someone saying they know they are saved because they are "true believers" sounds to me the same as when you criticize people for knowing they are saved because they have completed the right works. To me both come across as, "I already know I have checked the appropriate boxes."
And on that note I'm out.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Well, Roman Catholics don't run to daddy, they run to "mommy". That's the problem.Sam Lowry said:I do all of those things...sometimes. I don't see how anyone can honestly say they do all of them all of the time. So the question remains, how do I know whether I'm in the super secret club?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:When you are a true believer, you find yourself running to God everytime you have a problem, like a child runs to his "daddy" (Galatians 4:6 - "Abba" means something like "daddy"). You try your best to keep Jesus' commandments (1 John 2:5). You exhibit love for God over wordly things (1 John 2:15). You have a love for all other Christians (1 John 3:14). You don't just say you love others, you actually do something (1 John 3:18-19). These are just some of the signs that the Bible tells us that our faith is real.90sBear said:Belief: trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The analogy was not about faith. It was about the unlikelihood of true belief becoming unbelief. If you can't understand the analogy, then make your point relevant by explaining how what you're saying has to do with the fact that a true believer can never really un-believe.90sBear said:The problem is your analogy is explicitly incorrect according to the Bible's definition of faith. In what way is quoting how the Bible defines faith in a discussion on faith just being argumentative?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You're making the same mistake Sam Lowry is making. The color analogy is just an analogy. I'm not making an exact comparison. You even noted this yourself, and now you're going back on it, presumably just to be argumentative.90sBear said:We base our faith on a conviction of things unseen. There is no seeing color. Anything tangible cannot be compared to faith.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Whether it's revealed by hindsight or not, or whether I'm personally deceiving myself right now or not, really doesn't have anything to do with the fact that a true believer can't really ever "unbelieve", any more than someone can "unsee" color after one has already seen it.90sBear said: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.
Faith is confidence in what we hope for. You hope and have confidence that you will be saved. But by your own statement you could be deceiving yourself right now but as humans we don't know if you are what you consider a "true believer" without the gift of hindsight.
The fact remains that true believers can't really ever "unbelieve". Your "hindsight" point is just a "what if" scenario, and has nothing to do with this fact.
I understand that your point was not seeing the color but rather the personal and potentially permanent change that came after an event. But it must be clarified that there is no tangible event the way there is when you see a color. If it is faith, it is intangible. And IMO that is an important distinction.
"True believers" as you describe them can't tangibly know if they truly believe and are changed the way they know they saw the color red because there is no tangible aspect to faith.
Again, it is confidence in what we hope for.
Again, I think the passage is relevant.
Imagine someone's surprise if they got to the pearly gates and St. Peter said, "Yes, you showed unwavering faith in your life. But what you don't realize is that if your wife had stepped in front of a bus you actually would have gone into a spiral and eventually denied God. Sorry, no heaven for you."
How was this person to ever know they weren't a "True" believer since their wife never stepped in front of a bus?
You seem to equate your use of "True" believer with "Objective knower".
An objective knower can have any number of tests done to determine if they saw the color red. After the fact if they decide they didn't see the color red, a piece of paper can be shown confirming they did.
If someone takes a polygraph (yes I know they aren't scientifically perfect) asking if they believe in God at that moment and they pass, does that confirm they are "True" believers? If not, how were they to know otherwise at that moment?
The challenge is no human objectively knows they are what you call a "True" believer until God says so and we don't when that is. Until then IMO there are no Annie's Secret Circle of True Believers, there are just believers with varying levels of faith.
Just the way some are concerned about believers trying to rely on works to get into heaven, I worry that belief in Annie's Secret Circle of True Believers would lead to a false presumption that they are members.
That's why it is called faith and not fact.
It seems a lot simpler just to admit I have work to do.
So, none of us can have any confidence we are saved until we stand before God? We just kind of all have to go through life hoping and praying that we are, and that we've done enough once our lives are over, and wait and see?90sBear said:I just think your analogy isn't really helpful here. If there are "true" believers, we don't know who they are or when they became "true" believers. So for me their potential existence isn't really instructive no matter how strong their faith is and whether or not it could be broken. IMO from our human perspective, we are just believers with faith which is not defined as "true belief."BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Many points to address here. First of all, you keep wanting to take my analogy as an making an equivalence between faith(true belief) and seeing color. That isn't what it's doing. Rather, it's likening the impossibility of true belief becoming unbelief with the impossibility of seeing color then "unseeing" color. You are then carrying this misunderstanding further when you claim that I'm equating true belief and seeing color in that they both can be objectively verified. This isn't the case either. "True belief" just means that your belief is true - whether you know it is true or not is irrelevant. The claim is that "true belief" - regardless of whether one objectively knows it is indeed true or not - can never become "unbelief". I'm not hearing any argument by you against this.90sBear said:Belief: trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The analogy was not about faith. It was about the unlikelihood of true belief becoming unbelief. If you can't understand the analogy, then make your point relevant by explaining how what you're saying has to do with the fact that a true believer can never really un-believe.90sBear said:The problem is your analogy is explicitly incorrect according to the Bible's definition of faith. In what way is quoting how the Bible defines faith in a discussion on faith just being argumentative?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You're making the same mistake Sam Lowry is making. The color analogy is just an analogy. I'm not making an exact comparison. You even noted this yourself, and now you're going back on it, presumably just to be argumentative.90sBear said:We base our faith on a conviction of things unseen. There is no seeing color. Anything tangible cannot be compared to faith.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Whether it's revealed by hindsight or not, or whether I'm personally deceiving myself right now or not, really doesn't have anything to do with the fact that a true believer can't really ever "unbelieve", any more than someone can "unsee" color after one has already seen it.90sBear said: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.
Faith is confidence in what we hope for. You hope and have confidence that you will be saved. But by your own statement you could be deceiving yourself right now but as humans we don't know if you are what you consider a "true believer" without the gift of hindsight.
The fact remains that true believers can't really ever "unbelieve". Your "hindsight" point is just a "what if" scenario, and has nothing to do with this fact.
I understand that your point was not seeing the color but rather the personal and potentially permanent change that came after an event. But it must be clarified that there is no tangible event the way there is when you see a color. If it is faith, it is intangible. And IMO that is an important distinction.
"True believers" as you describe them can't tangibly know if they truly believe and are changed the way they know they saw the color red because there is no tangible aspect to faith.
Again, it is confidence in what we hope for.
Again, I think the passage is relevant.
Imagine someone's surprise if they got to the pearly gates and St. Peter said, "Yes, you showed unwavering faith in your life. But what you don't realize is that if your wife had stepped in front of a bus you actually would have gone into a spiral and eventually denied God. Sorry, no heaven for you."
How was this person to ever know they weren't a "True" believer since their wife never stepped in front of a bus?
You seem to equate your use of "True" believer with "Objective knower".
An objective knower can have any number of tests done to determine if they saw the color red. After the fact if they decide they didn't see the color red, a piece of paper can be shown confirming they did.
If someone takes a polygraph (yes I know they aren't scientifically perfect) asking if they believe in God at that moment and they pass, does that confirm they are "True" believers? If not, how were they to know otherwise at that moment?
The challenge is no human objectively knows they are what you call a "True" believer until God says so and we don't when that is. Until then IMO there are no Annie's Secret Circle of True Believers, there are just believers with varying levels of faith.
Just the way some are concerned about believers trying to rely on works to get into heaven, I worry that belief in Annie's Secret Circle of True Believers would lead to a false presumption that they are members.
That's why it is called faith and not fact.
Rather, you're focusing on whether we can ever really know if we are a true believer or not, because we could be tested to the extreme and stop believing as a result. I don't think anyone is really denying that this possibility exists with some people. And yes, there will be people who thought they believed, but then find out at the end their belief was false when Jesus says to them, "Depart from me. I never knew you." That's why we each have to really humble ourselves, and examine ourselves with honesty and with "fear and trembling".
But the idea that we can never really know in our lifetime whether we have true faith or not is false, and it is unscriptural. Firstly, you know what you believe, if you humbly examine yourself with honesty. It isn't a guessing game. Thinking you believe something when you really don't is self deception. God didn't leave us in the cold to guess about our status, He tells us that if we ask, seek, and knock that He will answer and open the door, and we will find (Matthew 7:7). When you truly believe, God gives you the Holy Spirit as a seal, a guarantee, and as an assurance that you belong to Him (Romans 8:16, 1 Corinthians 1:22, 1 Corinthians 5:5, Ephesians 1:13-14). When you are a true believer, you find yourself running to God everytime you have a problem, like a child runs to his "daddy" (Galatians 4:6 - "Abba" means something like "daddy"). You try your best to keep Jesus' commandments (1 John 2:5). You exhibit love for God over wordly things (1 John 2:15). You have a love for all other Christians (1 John 3:14). You don't just say you love others, you actually do something (1 John 3:18-19). These are just some of the signs that the Bible tells us that our faith is real.
Given that we will not know if we have been judged favorably until God tells us, that means we cannot know (faith vs fact) in our lifetime because we are limited human beings.
As for knowing what you believe, again I ask if the person passing the polygraph test necessarily means that person is a confirmed "true" believer?
Absolutely faith is real. And faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. And many of those things you mention are indeed signs that our faith is strong.
But of course none of us are perfect and that includes our faith which is ongoing and requires perseverance if the goal is to not become a reverse Thief on the Cross whether you view that as someone whose once-strong faith wavered off into nothingness or it wasn't there in the first place.
1 Corinthians 1:18 "but to us who are being saved."
Colossians 1:23 "if you continue in your faith, established and firm, and do not move from the hope held out in the gospel."
So the idea of someone saying they know they are saved because they are "true believers" sounds to me the same as when you criticize people for knowing they are saved because they have completed the right works. To me both come across as, "I already know I have checked the appropriate boxes."
Man, what a depressing and anxiety-producing theology - if you actually believe in the repercussions.
Why? Yes, it was a bit of snark, but have you seen some of the comments on this thread aimed at protestants/evangelicals?90sBear said:And on that note I'm out.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Well, Roman Catholics don't run to daddy, they run to "mommy". That's the problem.Sam Lowry said:I do all of those things...sometimes. I don't see how anyone can honestly say they do all of them all of the time. So the question remains, how do I know whether I'm in the super secret club?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:When you are a true believer, you find yourself running to God everytime you have a problem, like a child runs to his "daddy" (Galatians 4:6 - "Abba" means something like "daddy"). You try your best to keep Jesus' commandments (1 John 2:5). You exhibit love for God over wordly things (1 John 2:15). You have a love for all other Christians (1 John 3:14). You don't just say you love others, you actually do something (1 John 3:18-19). These are just some of the signs that the Bible tells us that our faith is real.90sBear said:Belief: trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The analogy was not about faith. It was about the unlikelihood of true belief becoming unbelief. If you can't understand the analogy, then make your point relevant by explaining how what you're saying has to do with the fact that a true believer can never really un-believe.90sBear said:The problem is your analogy is explicitly incorrect according to the Bible's definition of faith. In what way is quoting how the Bible defines faith in a discussion on faith just being argumentative?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You're making the same mistake Sam Lowry is making. The color analogy is just an analogy. I'm not making an exact comparison. You even noted this yourself, and now you're going back on it, presumably just to be argumentative.90sBear said:We base our faith on a conviction of things unseen. There is no seeing color. Anything tangible cannot be compared to faith.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Whether it's revealed by hindsight or not, or whether I'm personally deceiving myself right now or not, really doesn't have anything to do with the fact that a true believer can't really ever "unbelieve", any more than someone can "unsee" color after one has already seen it.90sBear said: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.
Faith is confidence in what we hope for. You hope and have confidence that you will be saved. But by your own statement you could be deceiving yourself right now but as humans we don't know if you are what you consider a "true believer" without the gift of hindsight.
The fact remains that true believers can't really ever "unbelieve". Your "hindsight" point is just a "what if" scenario, and has nothing to do with this fact.
I understand that your point was not seeing the color but rather the personal and potentially permanent change that came after an event. But it must be clarified that there is no tangible event the way there is when you see a color. If it is faith, it is intangible. And IMO that is an important distinction.
"True believers" as you describe them can't tangibly know if they truly believe and are changed the way they know they saw the color red because there is no tangible aspect to faith.
Again, it is confidence in what we hope for.
Again, I think the passage is relevant.
Imagine someone's surprise if they got to the pearly gates and St. Peter said, "Yes, you showed unwavering faith in your life. But what you don't realize is that if your wife had stepped in front of a bus you actually would have gone into a spiral and eventually denied God. Sorry, no heaven for you."
How was this person to ever know they weren't a "True" believer since their wife never stepped in front of a bus?
You seem to equate your use of "True" believer with "Objective knower".
An objective knower can have any number of tests done to determine if they saw the color red. After the fact if they decide they didn't see the color red, a piece of paper can be shown confirming they did.
If someone takes a polygraph (yes I know they aren't scientifically perfect) asking if they believe in God at that moment and they pass, does that confirm they are "True" believers? If not, how were they to know otherwise at that moment?
The challenge is no human objectively knows they are what you call a "True" believer until God says so and we don't when that is. Until then IMO there are no Annie's Secret Circle of True Believers, there are just believers with varying levels of faith.
Just the way some are concerned about believers trying to rely on works to get into heaven, I worry that belief in Annie's Secret Circle of True Believers would lead to a false presumption that they are members.
That's why it is called faith and not fact.
It seems a lot simpler just to admit I have work to do.
Hope you change your mind.
I heartily agree with everything except the line in bold. Works are the necessary instrument through which we receive God's grace.D. C. Bear said:Sam Lowry said:I do all of those things...sometimes. I don't see how anyone can honestly say they do all of them all of the time. So the question remains, how do I know whether I'm in the super secret club?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:When you are a true believer, you find yourself running to God everytime you have a problem, like a child runs to his "daddy" (Galatians 4:6 - "Abba" means something like "daddy"). You try your best to keep Jesus' commandments (1 John 2:5). You exhibit love for God over wordly things (1 John 2:15). You have a love for all other Christians (1 John 3:14). You don't just say you love others, you actually do something (1 John 3:18-19). These are just some of the signs that the Bible tells us that our faith is real.90sBear said:Belief: trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The analogy was not about faith. It was about the unlikelihood of true belief becoming unbelief. If you can't understand the analogy, then make your point relevant by explaining how what you're saying has to do with the fact that a true believer can never really un-believe.90sBear said:The problem is your analogy is explicitly incorrect according to the Bible's definition of faith. In what way is quoting how the Bible defines faith in a discussion on faith just being argumentative?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You're making the same mistake Sam Lowry is making. The color analogy is just an analogy. I'm not making an exact comparison. You even noted this yourself, and now you're going back on it, presumably just to be argumentative.90sBear said:We base our faith on a conviction of things unseen. There is no seeing color. Anything tangible cannot be compared to faith.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Whether it's revealed by hindsight or not, or whether I'm personally deceiving myself right now or not, really doesn't have anything to do with the fact that a true believer can't really ever "unbelieve", any more than someone can "unsee" color after one has already seen it.90sBear said: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.
Faith is confidence in what we hope for. You hope and have confidence that you will be saved. But by your own statement you could be deceiving yourself right now but as humans we don't know if you are what you consider a "true believer" without the gift of hindsight.
The fact remains that true believers can't really ever "unbelieve". Your "hindsight" point is just a "what if" scenario, and has nothing to do with this fact.
I understand that your point was not seeing the color but rather the personal and potentially permanent change that came after an event. But it must be clarified that there is no tangible event the way there is when you see a color. If it is faith, it is intangible. And IMO that is an important distinction.
"True believers" as you describe them can't tangibly know if they truly believe and are changed the way they know they saw the color red because there is no tangible aspect to faith.
Again, it is confidence in what we hope for.
Again, I think the passage is relevant.
Imagine someone's surprise if they got to the pearly gates and St. Peter said, "Yes, you showed unwavering faith in your life. But what you don't realize is that if your wife had stepped in front of a bus you actually would have gone into a spiral and eventually denied God. Sorry, no heaven for you."
How was this person to ever know they weren't a "True" believer since their wife never stepped in front of a bus?
You seem to equate your use of "True" believer with "Objective knower".
An objective knower can have any number of tests done to determine if they saw the color red. After the fact if they decide they didn't see the color red, a piece of paper can be shown confirming they did.
If someone takes a polygraph (yes I know they aren't scientifically perfect) asking if they believe in God at that moment and they pass, does that confirm they are "True" believers? If not, how were they to know otherwise at that moment?
The challenge is no human objectively knows they are what you call a "True" believer until God says so and we don't when that is. Until then IMO there are no Annie's Secret Circle of True Believers, there are just believers with varying levels of faith.
Just the way some are concerned about believers trying to rely on works to get into heaven, I worry that belief in Annie's Secret Circle of True Believers would lead to a false presumption that they are members.
That's why it is called faith and not fact.
It seems a lot simpler just to admit I have work to do.
No matter what "work" we do, we wouldn't be able to "know" from the works we might do that we are saved.
We can never be good enough to earn or to deserve to be with God. However, when we accept the free gift of eternal life, we become children of God. This is not based on what we do, what we have done or what we will do. The good works that we do cannot change the nature of our relationship with God. God's gift changes us from an enemy of God into a child of God.
"He will award to every man what his acts have deserved; eternal life to those who have striven for glory, and honour, and immortality, by perseverance in doing good." Romans 2:6-7
If I get angry, I'll ask forgiveness and resolve to confess it as soon as I can. There's no particular number of times to receive the sacrament that is "enough" or "not enough."Mothra said:You think the "simpler" position is: "I have a lot of work to do to be saved. Don't know if it will be enough, but I sure hope so"?Sam Lowry said:I do all of those things...sometimes. I don't see how anyone can honestly say they do all of them all of the time. So the question remains, how do I know whether I'm in the super secret club?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:When you are a true believer, you find yourself running to God everytime you have a problem, like a child runs to his "daddy" (Galatians 4:6 - "Abba" means something like "daddy"). You try your best to keep Jesus' commandments (1 John 2:5). You exhibit love for God over wordly things (1 John 2:15). You have a love for all other Christians (1 John 3:14). You don't just say you love others, you actually do something (1 John 3:18-19). These are just some of the signs that the Bible tells us that our faith is real.90sBear said:Belief: trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The analogy was not about faith. It was about the unlikelihood of true belief becoming unbelief. If you can't understand the analogy, then make your point relevant by explaining how what you're saying has to do with the fact that a true believer can never really un-believe.90sBear said:The problem is your analogy is explicitly incorrect according to the Bible's definition of faith. In what way is quoting how the Bible defines faith in a discussion on faith just being argumentative?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You're making the same mistake Sam Lowry is making. The color analogy is just an analogy. I'm not making an exact comparison. You even noted this yourself, and now you're going back on it, presumably just to be argumentative.90sBear said:We base our faith on a conviction of things unseen. There is no seeing color. Anything tangible cannot be compared to faith.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Whether it's revealed by hindsight or not, or whether I'm personally deceiving myself right now or not, really doesn't have anything to do with the fact that a true believer can't really ever "unbelieve", any more than someone can "unsee" color after one has already seen it.90sBear said: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.
Faith is confidence in what we hope for. You hope and have confidence that you will be saved. But by your own statement you could be deceiving yourself right now but as humans we don't know if you are what you consider a "true believer" without the gift of hindsight.
The fact remains that true believers can't really ever "unbelieve". Your "hindsight" point is just a "what if" scenario, and has nothing to do with this fact.
I understand that your point was not seeing the color but rather the personal and potentially permanent change that came after an event. But it must be clarified that there is no tangible event the way there is when you see a color. If it is faith, it is intangible. And IMO that is an important distinction.
"True believers" as you describe them can't tangibly know if they truly believe and are changed the way they know they saw the color red because there is no tangible aspect to faith.
Again, it is confidence in what we hope for.
Again, I think the passage is relevant.
Imagine someone's surprise if they got to the pearly gates and St. Peter said, "Yes, you showed unwavering faith in your life. But what you don't realize is that if your wife had stepped in front of a bus you actually would have gone into a spiral and eventually denied God. Sorry, no heaven for you."
How was this person to ever know they weren't a "True" believer since their wife never stepped in front of a bus?
You seem to equate your use of "True" believer with "Objective knower".
An objective knower can have any number of tests done to determine if they saw the color red. After the fact if they decide they didn't see the color red, a piece of paper can be shown confirming they did.
If someone takes a polygraph (yes I know they aren't scientifically perfect) asking if they believe in God at that moment and they pass, does that confirm they are "True" believers? If not, how were they to know otherwise at that moment?
The challenge is no human objectively knows they are what you call a "True" believer until God says so and we don't when that is. Until then IMO there are no Annie's Secret Circle of True Believers, there are just believers with varying levels of faith.
Just the way some are concerned about believers trying to rely on works to get into heaven, I worry that belief in Annie's Secret Circle of True Believers would lead to a false presumption that they are members.
That's why it is called faith and not fact.
It seems a lot simpler just to admit I have work to do.
Wow. To me, that kind of faith is absolutely crazy-making when you consider the repercussions. It's not a matter of life or death, but heaven or hell for eternity. What if I die before failing to take a lustful thought captive? What if I get unjustifiably angry before suffering a widow-maker heart attack, and didn't have a chance to confess or perform a sacrament? Or perhaps, what if I simply didn't engage in enough sacraments and God deems me unworthy?
There is absolutely nothing simple, or biblical, about that position. It also demonstrates misplaced motives and an incredible misunderstanding about works. If we are performing works because we are hoping and praying that it will be enough to get us into Heaven, then we are doing it for all the wrong reasons. Works should be an outcropping of our salvation - our faith and trust in Christ, love for our fellow man, and our desire to save the lost. If we are merely going through the motions in the hope it will be enough to save us, that is not what God had in mind.
Sam Lowry said:I heartily agree with everything except the line in bold. Works are the necessary instrument through which we receive God's grace.D. C. Bear said:Sam Lowry said:I do all of those things...sometimes. I don't see how anyone can honestly say they do all of them all of the time. So the question remains, how do I know whether I'm in the super secret club?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:When you are a true believer, you find yourself running to God everytime you have a problem, like a child runs to his "daddy" (Galatians 4:6 - "Abba" means something like "daddy"). You try your best to keep Jesus' commandments (1 John 2:5). You exhibit love for God over wordly things (1 John 2:15). You have a love for all other Christians (1 John 3:14). You don't just say you love others, you actually do something (1 John 3:18-19). These are just some of the signs that the Bible tells us that our faith is real.90sBear said:Belief: trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The analogy was not about faith. It was about the unlikelihood of true belief becoming unbelief. If you can't understand the analogy, then make your point relevant by explaining how what you're saying has to do with the fact that a true believer can never really un-believe.90sBear said:The problem is your analogy is explicitly incorrect according to the Bible's definition of faith. In what way is quoting how the Bible defines faith in a discussion on faith just being argumentative?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You're making the same mistake Sam Lowry is making. The color analogy is just an analogy. I'm not making an exact comparison. You even noted this yourself, and now you're going back on it, presumably just to be argumentative.90sBear said:We base our faith on a conviction of things unseen. There is no seeing color. Anything tangible cannot be compared to faith.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Whether it's revealed by hindsight or not, or whether I'm personally deceiving myself right now or not, really doesn't have anything to do with the fact that a true believer can't really ever "unbelieve", any more than someone can "unsee" color after one has already seen it.90sBear said: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.
Faith is confidence in what we hope for. You hope and have confidence that you will be saved. But by your own statement you could be deceiving yourself right now but as humans we don't know if you are what you consider a "true believer" without the gift of hindsight.
The fact remains that true believers can't really ever "unbelieve". Your "hindsight" point is just a "what if" scenario, and has nothing to do with this fact.
I understand that your point was not seeing the color but rather the personal and potentially permanent change that came after an event. But it must be clarified that there is no tangible event the way there is when you see a color. If it is faith, it is intangible. And IMO that is an important distinction.
"True believers" as you describe them can't tangibly know if they truly believe and are changed the way they know they saw the color red because there is no tangible aspect to faith.
Again, it is confidence in what we hope for.
Again, I think the passage is relevant.
Imagine someone's surprise if they got to the pearly gates and St. Peter said, "Yes, you showed unwavering faith in your life. But what you don't realize is that if your wife had stepped in front of a bus you actually would have gone into a spiral and eventually denied God. Sorry, no heaven for you."
How was this person to ever know they weren't a "True" believer since their wife never stepped in front of a bus?
You seem to equate your use of "True" believer with "Objective knower".
An objective knower can have any number of tests done to determine if they saw the color red. After the fact if they decide they didn't see the color red, a piece of paper can be shown confirming they did.
If someone takes a polygraph (yes I know they aren't scientifically perfect) asking if they believe in God at that moment and they pass, does that confirm they are "True" believers? If not, how were they to know otherwise at that moment?
The challenge is no human objectively knows they are what you call a "True" believer until God says so and we don't when that is. Until then IMO there are no Annie's Secret Circle of True Believers, there are just believers with varying levels of faith.
Just the way some are concerned about believers trying to rely on works to get into heaven, I worry that belief in Annie's Secret Circle of True Believers would lead to a false presumption that they are members.
That's why it is called faith and not fact.
It seems a lot simpler just to admit I have work to do.
No matter what "work" we do, we wouldn't be able to "know" from the works we might do that we are saved.
We can never be good enough to earn or to deserve to be with God. However, when we accept the free gift of eternal life, we become children of God. This is not based on what we do, what we have done or what we will do. The good works that we do cannot change the nature of our relationship with God. God's gift changes us from an enemy of God into a child of God.
"He will award to every man what his acts have deserved; eternal life to those who have striven for glory, and honour, and immortality, by perseverance in doing good." Romans 2:6-7
If the works that we did could change the nature of our relationship with God, we would be employees rather than children. The line in bold is a direct result of the lines that precede it.
My analogy isn't "helpful" to you, because you're making it something it's not, and making it way more difficult than it has to be. The point was simply that a true believer can never really become an un-believer. We don't need to know who the true believers are, or whether their belief is actually true or not, for that to be true. What we DO know is that one ISN'T a true believer if they said they were a believer, but then they stop believing. If you have an argument against this, then let's hear it.90sBear said:I just think your analogy isn't really helpful here. If there are "true" believers, we don't know who they are or when they became "true" believers. So for me their potential existence isn't really instructive no matter how strong their faith is and whether or not it could be broken. IMO from our human perspective, we are just believers with faith which is not defined as "true belief."BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Many points to address here. First of all, you keep wanting to take my analogy as an making an equivalence between faith(true belief) and seeing color. That isn't what it's doing. Rather, it's likening the impossibility of true belief becoming unbelief with the impossibility of seeing color then "unseeing" color. You are then carrying this misunderstanding further when you claim that I'm equating true belief and seeing color in that they both can be objectively verified. This isn't the case either. "True belief" just means that your belief is true - whether you know it is true or not is irrelevant. The claim is that "true belief" - regardless of whether one objectively knows it is indeed true or not - can never become "unbelief". I'm not hearing any argument by you against this.90sBear said:Belief: trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The analogy was not about faith. It was about the unlikelihood of true belief becoming unbelief. If you can't understand the analogy, then make your point relevant by explaining how what you're saying has to do with the fact that a true believer can never really un-believe.90sBear said:The problem is your analogy is explicitly incorrect according to the Bible's definition of faith. In what way is quoting how the Bible defines faith in a discussion on faith just being argumentative?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You're making the same mistake Sam Lowry is making. The color analogy is just an analogy. I'm not making an exact comparison. You even noted this yourself, and now you're going back on it, presumably just to be argumentative.90sBear said:We base our faith on a conviction of things unseen. There is no seeing color. Anything tangible cannot be compared to faith.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Whether it's revealed by hindsight or not, or whether I'm personally deceiving myself right now or not, really doesn't have anything to do with the fact that a true believer can't really ever "unbelieve", any more than someone can "unsee" color after one has already seen it.90sBear said: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.
Faith is confidence in what we hope for. You hope and have confidence that you will be saved. But by your own statement you could be deceiving yourself right now but as humans we don't know if you are what you consider a "true believer" without the gift of hindsight.
The fact remains that true believers can't really ever "unbelieve". Your "hindsight" point is just a "what if" scenario, and has nothing to do with this fact.
I understand that your point was not seeing the color but rather the personal and potentially permanent change that came after an event. But it must be clarified that there is no tangible event the way there is when you see a color. If it is faith, it is intangible. And IMO that is an important distinction.
"True believers" as you describe them can't tangibly know if they truly believe and are changed the way they know they saw the color red because there is no tangible aspect to faith.
Again, it is confidence in what we hope for.
Again, I think the passage is relevant.
Imagine someone's surprise if they got to the pearly gates and St. Peter said, "Yes, you showed unwavering faith in your life. But what you don't realize is that if your wife had stepped in front of a bus you actually would have gone into a spiral and eventually denied God. Sorry, no heaven for you."
How was this person to ever know they weren't a "True" believer since their wife never stepped in front of a bus?
You seem to equate your use of "True" believer with "Objective knower".
An objective knower can have any number of tests done to determine if they saw the color red. After the fact if they decide they didn't see the color red, a piece of paper can be shown confirming they did.
If someone takes a polygraph (yes I know they aren't scientifically perfect) asking if they believe in God at that moment and they pass, does that confirm they are "True" believers? If not, how were they to know otherwise at that moment?
The challenge is no human objectively knows they are what you call a "True" believer until God says so and we don't when that is. Until then IMO there are no Annie's Secret Circle of True Believers, there are just believers with varying levels of faith.
Just the way some are concerned about believers trying to rely on works to get into heaven, I worry that belief in Annie's Secret Circle of True Believers would lead to a false presumption that they are members.
That's why it is called faith and not fact.
Rather, you're focusing on whether we can ever really know if we are a true believer or not, because we could be tested to the extreme and stop believing as a result. I don't think anyone is really denying that this possibility exists with some people. And yes, there will be people who thought they believed, but then find out at the end their belief was false when Jesus says to them, "Depart from me. I never knew you." That's why we each have to really humble ourselves, and examine ourselves with honesty and with "fear and trembling".
But the idea that we can never really know in our lifetime whether we have true faith or not is false, and it is unscriptural. Firstly, you know what you believe, if you humbly examine yourself with honesty. It isn't a guessing game. Thinking you believe something when you really don't is self deception. God didn't leave us in the cold to guess about our status, He tells us that if we ask, seek, and knock that He will answer and open the door, and we will find (Matthew 7:7). When you truly believe, God gives you the Holy Spirit as a seal, a guarantee, and as an assurance that you belong to Him (Romans 8:16, 1 Corinthians 1:22, 1 Corinthians 5:5, Ephesians 1:13-14). When you are a true believer, you find yourself running to God everytime you have a problem, like a child runs to his "daddy" (Galatians 4:6 - "Abba" means something like "daddy"). You try your best to keep Jesus' commandments (1 John 2:5). You exhibit love for God over wordly things (1 John 2:15). You have a love for all other Christians (1 John 3:14). You don't just say you love others, you actually do something (1 John 3:18-19). These are just some of the signs that the Bible tells us that our faith is real.
Given that we will not know if we have been judged favorably until God tells us, that means we cannot know (faith vs fact) in our lifetime because we are limited human beings.
As for knowing what you believe, again I ask if the person passing the polygraph test necessarily means that person is a confirmed "true" believer?
Absolutely faith is real. And faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. And many of those things you mention are indeed signs that our faith is strong.
But of course none of us are perfect and that includes our faith which is ongoing and requires perseverance if the goal is to not become a reverse Thief on the Cross whether you view that as someone whose once-strong faith wavered off into nothingness or it wasn't there in the first place.
1 Corinthians 1:18 "but to us who are being saved."
Colossians 1:23 "if you continue in your faith, established and firm, and do not move from the hope held out in the gospel."
So the idea of someone saying they know they are saved because they are "true believers" sounds to me the same as when you criticize people for knowing they are saved because they have completed the right works. To me both come across as, "I already know I have checked the appropriate boxes."
Wheat. Tares. Follow the 2 greatest commandments, try to have the faith of a child, and trust your loving, benevolent God to sort it all out.
When Christ gave us the greatest 2 commandments, He didn't talk about theology. If you try hard enough, you can turn even faith into just another works-based test.
When Christ gave us the greatest 2 commandments, He didn't talk about theology. If you try hard enough, you can turn even faith into just another works-based test.
But to love God with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength is to believe in Jesus. So what does believing in Jesus mean? What are we to believe? And why? These questions are far too important to be dismissive about.Robert Wilson said:
Wheat. Tares. Follow the 2 greatest commandments, try to have the faith of a child, and trust your loving, benevolent God to sort it all out.
When Christ gave us the greatest 2 commandments, He didn't talk about theology. If you try hard enough, you can turn even faith into just another works-based test.
And it's unscriptural. God WANTS us to have assurance - "I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may KNOW that you have eternal life" - 1 John 5:13. Not "guess" or "hope", but KNOW.Mothra said:So, none of us can have any confidence we are saved until we stand before God? We just kind of all have to go through life hoping and praying that we are, and that we've done enough once our lives are over, and wait and see?90sBear said:I just think your analogy isn't really helpful here. If there are "true" believers, we don't know who they are or when they became "true" believers. So for me their potential existence isn't really instructive no matter how strong their faith is and whether or not it could be broken. IMO from our human perspective, we are just believers with faith which is not defined as "true belief."BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Many points to address here. First of all, you keep wanting to take my analogy as an making an equivalence between faith(true belief) and seeing color. That isn't what it's doing. Rather, it's likening the impossibility of true belief becoming unbelief with the impossibility of seeing color then "unseeing" color. You are then carrying this misunderstanding further when you claim that I'm equating true belief and seeing color in that they both can be objectively verified. This isn't the case either. "True belief" just means that your belief is true - whether you know it is true or not is irrelevant. The claim is that "true belief" - regardless of whether one objectively knows it is indeed true or not - can never become "unbelief". I'm not hearing any argument by you against this.90sBear said:Belief: trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The analogy was not about faith. It was about the unlikelihood of true belief becoming unbelief. If you can't understand the analogy, then make your point relevant by explaining how what you're saying has to do with the fact that a true believer can never really un-believe.90sBear said:The problem is your analogy is explicitly incorrect according to the Bible's definition of faith. In what way is quoting how the Bible defines faith in a discussion on faith just being argumentative?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You're making the same mistake Sam Lowry is making. The color analogy is just an analogy. I'm not making an exact comparison. You even noted this yourself, and now you're going back on it, presumably just to be argumentative.90sBear said:We base our faith on a conviction of things unseen. There is no seeing color. Anything tangible cannot be compared to faith.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Whether it's revealed by hindsight or not, or whether I'm personally deceiving myself right now or not, really doesn't have anything to do with the fact that a true believer can't really ever "unbelieve", any more than someone can "unsee" color after one has already seen it.90sBear said: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.
Faith is confidence in what we hope for. You hope and have confidence that you will be saved. But by your own statement you could be deceiving yourself right now but as humans we don't know if you are what you consider a "true believer" without the gift of hindsight.
The fact remains that true believers can't really ever "unbelieve". Your "hindsight" point is just a "what if" scenario, and has nothing to do with this fact.
I understand that your point was not seeing the color but rather the personal and potentially permanent change that came after an event. But it must be clarified that there is no tangible event the way there is when you see a color. If it is faith, it is intangible. And IMO that is an important distinction.
"True believers" as you describe them can't tangibly know if they truly believe and are changed the way they know they saw the color red because there is no tangible aspect to faith.
Again, it is confidence in what we hope for.
Again, I think the passage is relevant.
Imagine someone's surprise if they got to the pearly gates and St. Peter said, "Yes, you showed unwavering faith in your life. But what you don't realize is that if your wife had stepped in front of a bus you actually would have gone into a spiral and eventually denied God. Sorry, no heaven for you."
How was this person to ever know they weren't a "True" believer since their wife never stepped in front of a bus?
You seem to equate your use of "True" believer with "Objective knower".
An objective knower can have any number of tests done to determine if they saw the color red. After the fact if they decide they didn't see the color red, a piece of paper can be shown confirming they did.
If someone takes a polygraph (yes I know they aren't scientifically perfect) asking if they believe in God at that moment and they pass, does that confirm they are "True" believers? If not, how were they to know otherwise at that moment?
The challenge is no human objectively knows they are what you call a "True" believer until God says so and we don't when that is. Until then IMO there are no Annie's Secret Circle of True Believers, there are just believers with varying levels of faith.
Just the way some are concerned about believers trying to rely on works to get into heaven, I worry that belief in Annie's Secret Circle of True Believers would lead to a false presumption that they are members.
That's why it is called faith and not fact.
Rather, you're focusing on whether we can ever really know if we are a true believer or not, because we could be tested to the extreme and stop believing as a result. I don't think anyone is really denying that this possibility exists with some people. And yes, there will be people who thought they believed, but then find out at the end their belief was false when Jesus says to them, "Depart from me. I never knew you." That's why we each have to really humble ourselves, and examine ourselves with honesty and with "fear and trembling".
But the idea that we can never really know in our lifetime whether we have true faith or not is false, and it is unscriptural. Firstly, you know what you believe, if you humbly examine yourself with honesty. It isn't a guessing game. Thinking you believe something when you really don't is self deception. God didn't leave us in the cold to guess about our status, He tells us that if we ask, seek, and knock that He will answer and open the door, and we will find (Matthew 7:7). When you truly believe, God gives you the Holy Spirit as a seal, a guarantee, and as an assurance that you belong to Him (Romans 8:16, 1 Corinthians 1:22, 1 Corinthians 5:5, Ephesians 1:13-14). When you are a true believer, you find yourself running to God everytime you have a problem, like a child runs to his "daddy" (Galatians 4:6 - "Abba" means something like "daddy"). You try your best to keep Jesus' commandments (1 John 2:5). You exhibit love for God over wordly things (1 John 2:15). You have a love for all other Christians (1 John 3:14). You don't just say you love others, you actually do something (1 John 3:18-19). These are just some of the signs that the Bible tells us that our faith is real.
Given that we will not know if we have been judged favorably until God tells us, that means we cannot know (faith vs fact) in our lifetime because we are limited human beings.
As for knowing what you believe, again I ask if the person passing the polygraph test necessarily means that person is a confirmed "true" believer?
Absolutely faith is real. And faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. And many of those things you mention are indeed signs that our faith is strong.
But of course none of us are perfect and that includes our faith which is ongoing and requires perseverance if the goal is to not become a reverse Thief on the Cross whether you view that as someone whose once-strong faith wavered off into nothingness or it wasn't there in the first place.
1 Corinthians 1:18 "but to us who are being saved."
Colossians 1:23 "if you continue in your faith, established and firm, and do not move from the hope held out in the gospel."
So the idea of someone saying they know they are saved because they are "true believers" sounds to me the same as when you criticize people for knowing they are saved because they have completed the right works. To me both come across as, "I already know I have checked the appropriate boxes."
Man, what a depressing and anxiety-producing theology - if you actually believe in the repercussions.
It's not the guessing game he's making it out to be. Everyone who is honest with him/herself, and asks/seeks/knocks, can know. He's expressing some kind of angst against those who seek assurance for some reason.