Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:Byblos,

What do you think of the answers Mike(The Catholic) gave?

And do they make sense to you in light of what we've been talking about?
http://www.askacatholic.com/_WebPosting ... Earned.cfm

I think we may have been talking past each other, due to differences in how we define assurance.

I'm not sure what you mean Rick. How is the link defining assurance any differently than how we both understand the term? But you could be right, I just don't know. The way I see it when we talk about assurance we should always define from whose perspective. From God's perspective assurance is absolute and irrevocable. That's affirmed by all sides. But when Catholics talk about assurance it is always from man's perspective, looking inwardly. From that vantage point we say, due to our fallen state, at most one can have is a moral assurance but not an absolute one. Sort of (no, actually exactly the same) as saying one can delude themselves into believing they were saved to later prove they in fact were not.

Does that clarify it any?

Post edit: Yes, what Mike stated in the link makes perfect sense to me. It is in fact what I've been stating all along. Take but one example in my very first post in this thread I said this:

I wrote:it is not a Catholic thing for I firmly believe that I do not believe in a works-based salvation for everything I do is not of me but by God's sanctifying grace.

I thought I'd post this here. Obviously as with all analogies they fail at some point but I think this one illustrates as closely as possible the Catholic position on salvation and sanctification. Let me know what you think of this Rick.

We are born under the law, children of the world, wandering in an immense forest where the paths are treacherous and the rules are burdensome. If we obey the law perfectly we might make it, but the truth is no one has ever made it under the law.

Once we make a profession of faith for Christ, we are immediately plucked out of the forest (and the status of being children of the world) and into the ocean (and have a new status as children of God) never to return to the forest again.

In the ocean God promises to never ever let us go. Through the Holy Spirit God's hand is always in ours, helping us navigate the rough waters of life. We cooperate with God's free grace by gripping His hand so we can stay afloat. Is this cooperation a work? Of course not, what is it that we can boast about? Can we say we're saving ourselves, through our own powers? No. We simply cooperate with God's grace by holding His hand. Sometimes we hold on firmly and simply float on our backs, secure in the fact that He will never let us go. Other times we loosen our grip a bit and immediately snap back when we feel a slide downward. Other times we even may let go for an instant but reach back up as the water covers our face for His ever-present hand, for He is always faithful and His arm will always be outstretched and ready to shore us back up. But (and here I think is where we differ), there are some of us, completely awash in pride and self-centeredness, think we can STILL save ourselves and have no need for God. So we make a conscious decision to let go of God's hand so we can save ourselves. God's hand is still outstretched to pluck us back in but through our free will decision we decide not to take him up on his offer. Eventually of course we drown (note that we don't go back to the forest, we simply drown) because we made a choice to totally separate from God.

Well there it is. That's how I see it.

Nessa wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Rick has been taught by Jac and accepts much of that.
So I'm not sure he, as well as various others on the board, accept such.

Also careful Nessa, lest you be accused of perserverance even if you don't name it such.

But what about Romans 10:9..
That scripture clearly makes it a matter of simple belief

I think it is a matter of the heart.

In my opinion, we have made salvation a matter of formula and method in order to create simple belief and in the process forget something that occurred during the cross...

Luke 23:39,40,41,42,43

What do those verses reveal to you? Heart cry or intellectual cry?

Did he have time to walk the Roman's road formula?
-
-
-

Byblos wrote:
Let me know what you think of this Rick.

Ok, I'll try.

We are born under the law, children of the world, wandering in an immense forest where the paths are treacherous and the rules are burdensome. If we obey the law perfectly we might make it, but the truth is no one has ever made it under the law.

Ok, you've already lost me. What do you mean when you say we are born under the law?

Once we make a profession of faith for Christ, we are immediately plucked out of the forest (and the status of being children of the world) and into the ocean (and have a new status as children of God) never to return to the forest again.

Other than making a profession of faith for Christ, I think I agree with this.

In the ocean God promises to never ever let us go. Through the Holy Spirit God's hand is always in ours, helping us navigate the rough waters of life. We cooperate with God's free grace by gripping His hand so we can stay afloat. Is this cooperation a work? Of course not, what is it that we can boast about? Can we say we're saving ourselves, through our own powers? No. We simply cooperate with God's grace by holding His hand. Sometimes we hold on firmly and simply float on our backs, secure in the fact that He will never let us go. Other times we loosen our grip a bit and immediately snap back when we feel a slide downward. Other times we even may let go for an instant but reach back up as the water covers our face for His ever-present hand, for He is always faithful and His arm will always be outstretched and ready to shore us back up. But (and here I think is where we differ), there are some of us, completely awash in pride and self-centeredness, think we can STILL save ourselves and have no need for God. So we make a conscious decision to let go of God's hand so we can save ourselves. God's hand is still outstretched to pluck us back in but through our free will decision we decide not to take him up on his offer. Eventually of course we drown (note that we don't go back to the forest, we simply drown) because we made a choice to totally separate from God.

If in your analogy, the ocean means being a new creation in Christ, then I think this paragraph is a pretty good analogy of how a believer walks with Christ. Or in a nutshell, our relationship with him. If we let go of God's hand, we don't stay in a proper relationship with Him, where God leads us, and keeps us afloat. When we let go of His hand, we begin to start having problems staying spiritually "afloat". I'd like to think of coming out of the forest, and into the ocean, as what happens in this life. So, once we're in the ocean of this life, we need to keep holding God's hand, to keep in the spirit, not letting go of His hand, thereby following the flesh.

So, I see your analogy as holding onto God's hand, as how we should live as a believer. And if we let go and happen to drown, it's the consequence for not living as God intended. I don't see it as if we let go, we lose our relationship, or salvation.

Does that make sense?

What do you all think of:

Romans 11:17-24
But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, 18 do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. 19 Then you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” 20 That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. 22 Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. 23 And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree.

That we were all broken off the tree.
Believers were grafted back in, to God .
Any unbelievers who then came to believe were, and are, grafted back in.

Paul was not speaking of individual salvation. He was talking about God's plan for Jews and Gentiles as groups.

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:
Let me know what you think of this Rick.

Ok, I'll try.

We are born under the law, children of the world, wandering in an immense forest where the paths are treacherous and the rules are burdensome. If we obey the law perfectly we might make it, but the truth is no one has ever made it under the law.

Ok, you've already lost me. What do you mean when you say we are born under the law?

Well, we are either under the law or under grace. If we're not yet under grace, what are we (other than under the law)?

RickD wrote:

Once we make a profession of faith for Christ, we are immediately plucked out of the forest (and the status of being children of the world) and into the ocean (and have a new status as children of God) never to return to the forest again.

Other than making a profession of faith for Christ, I think I agree with this.

I'm not making any point on the "how", only that the there is a transition from the law to grace, irrespective of the semantics.

RickD wrote:

In the ocean God promises to never ever let us go. Through the Holy Spirit God's hand is always in ours, helping us navigate the rough waters of life. We cooperate with God's free grace by gripping His hand so we can stay afloat. Is this cooperation a work? Of course not, what is it that we can boast about? Can we say we're saving ourselves, through our own powers? No. We simply cooperate with God's grace by holding His hand. Sometimes we hold on firmly and simply float on our backs, secure in the fact that He will never let us go. Other times we loosen our grip a bit and immediately snap back when we feel a slide downward. Other times we even may let go for an instant but reach back up as the water covers our face for His ever-present hand, for He is always faithful and His arm will always be outstretched and ready to shore us back up. But (and here I think is where we differ), there are some of us, completely awash in pride and self-centeredness, think we can STILL save ourselves and have no need for God. So we make a conscious decision to let go of God's hand so we can save ourselves. God's hand is still outstretched to pluck us back in but through our free will decision we decide not to take him up on his offer. Eventually of course we drown (note that we don't go back to the forest, we simply drown) because we made a choice to totally separate from God.

If in your analogy, the ocean means being a new creation in Christ, then I think this paragraph is a pretty good analogy of how a believer walks with Christ. Or in a nutshell, our relationship with him. If we let go of God's hand, we don't stay in a proper relationship with Him, where God leads us, and keeps us afloat. When we let go of His hand, we begin to start having problems staying spiritually "afloat". I'd like to think of coming out of the forest, and into the ocean, as what happens in this life. So, once we're in the ocean of this life, we need to keep holding God's hand, to keep in the spirit, not letting go of His hand, thereby following the flesh.

So, I see your analogy as holding onto God's hand, as how we should live as a believer. And if we let go and happen to drown, it's the consequence for not living as God intended. I don't see it as if we let go, we lose our relationship, or salvation.

Does that make sense?

It makes perfect sense as it illustrates the fundamental difference in our respective positions, i.e. you believe drowning does not constitute separation from God whereas I do. I think there's nothing new there, really.

By stating my analogy I was also hoping to highlight why I believe my position does not constitute a works-based salvation for what I do is nothing more than cooperating with God's saving grace to stay afloat.

Byblos, do you believe non Catholics are saved?

I dont mean that harshly, and I am genuinely interested, am figuring some things out.

Storyteller wrote:Byblos, do you believe non Catholics are saved?

I dont mean that harshly, and I am genuinely interested, am figuring some things out.

I've answered that question many, many times. With all the hoopla over authority of interpretation and proclamations of infallibility, not even the Catholic Church makes any definitive pronouncements on who is not saved (and pronouncements on those who are saved definitively are reserved for the saints). So how could I as an individual make such a claim? The fact is that I believe (and the Catholic Church teaches) that yes, even those who never even heard the Good News are able to attain salvation, let alone those who have but are separated from the Church.

Thank you

Byblos,

I've never heard anyone say that unbelievers are under the law, then are under grace once they become believers.

Comparing "under law" and "under grace", I've only ever heard the comparison with regards to OT Israel before Christ's incarnation, and anyone else after.

So, I'm not grasping why you make that comparison.

Storyteller wrote:Thank you

I hope that gives you reassurance that you're safe not being Catholic.

RickD wrote:

Storyteller wrote:Thank you

I hope that gives you reassurance that you're safe not being Catholic.

I have always known that.

RickD wrote:Byblos,

I've never heard anyone say that unbelievers are under the law, then are under grace once they become believers.

Comparing "under law" and "under grace", I've only ever heard the comparison with regards to OT Israel before Christ's incarnation, and anyone else after.

So, I'm not grasping why you make that comparison.

The idea is not terribly important to my analogy, I was merely making a distinction between a state of grace and a state prior to being under grace, so I called it "under the law" for lack of a better term. But now that I think about it more, what other option is there for gentiles who are not under grace?