Atheists are hard to convert

[DannyM]

If there is a false belief, then satanism and atrocities are still a possibility. This person who had the false belief, at the time he had it he also believed he was indwelt with the HS who was testifying for him, he thought he had absolute assurance. Some absolute assurance it turned to be when he discovered he had none.

Yikes, Byblos, do you have a specific person in mind here? How could you even come to this conclusion? Why would you assume, that a false believer, who would only be known as that when he faced God, would believe he had the witness of the HS in him?
How could you even know that an apostate would think he had the indwelling HS, as opposed to that apostate just believing he had assurance, because the bible says so?

Come on Rick, are you serious? The world is full of so-called Christians who either convert to different religions or become atheists.

Perfect example: Atheist after 40 years a Christian Minister

Byblos, that is a great example of someone who thought he was a Christian, but never was a true Christian.

This was my life and ministry for over 28 years, but all during this time I was struggling to maintain my faith. I had so many questions about the Bible and its teachings. I kept suspecting that Christianity really didn't "work." I mean, prayer didn't really work. Faith didn't make me a new person. My old "sins" were still plaguing me. I rarely sensed any "presence of God" in my life. I looked for God's guidance, but rarely was sure I got it. And even then it often turned out to be patently erroneous. I experienced church and missions from the inside and became very disillusioned with it. For an enterprise headed by the God of the universe, it sure was awfully human, and terribly fallible. I really saw precious little that could be called "evidence of God" in it all.

Where is the indwelling HS testifying to him?

Finally, after 28 years overseas, I came to that place where I just could no longer consider myself a believer. I could no longer represent Jesus and the Bible, as my missions agency called on me to do. Honesty demanded that I quit the ministry and return Stateside.

He couldn't believe in something, that, in his spiritually discerned mind, was incomprehensible.

Again, it gets back to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Or lack, thereof, in this case.

THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE ASSURANCE, UNLESS THERE IS AN INDWELLING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT!!!!!

Where did the author claim he had absolute assurance of salvation, anyways?

He was a Christian preacher for 40 years Rick.

Was he a born-again Christian for 40 years?

[jlay]

byb, got it.
I actually think part of our difference may be on how we were using assurance. The case being positional verses practical.

He was a Christian preacher for 40 years Rick.

So what? How does that make one saved? I have a friend locally, who by admission, worked as a paid staffer with a church for years but was never born again. He was saved after tens of years of religion. He knew all the things to say, but had never trusted Christ. Let me ask you. Do you believe there are people who go through all the ordinances of the RCC and yet are lost? I know there are because I fellowship with former RCCs who say, although they were faithful to the RCC and fulfilled all required, they never knew Christ as Savior.

I honestly have no idea what all that means or what it has to do with the discussion at hand but ok, whatever

This was in response to your comments about it all being the same gospel.
If Paul's commission was the same as what JTB and Jesus (earthly ministry) were delivering then why does Paul say it was secret? Why does Paul say he received it by direct revelation and not from man. What Jesus preached to Israel was not secret. It was the fulfillment of what was revealed by the law and prophets. Not hidden from them. If everything was the same, then the role of Paul makes ZERO sense. None. The apostles were to go and make disciples. Within years of Paul's calling, that program had all but stopped. Paul even had to explain 'his gospel' to the others.

"Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. 2It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation,...
And recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised....."
"For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. (Gal 2: 1,2,9,11,12)

[RickD]

He was a Christian preacher for 40 years Rick.

I don't see how that proves he was a true child of God. From his own words in the article, it sure seems to me, that he had no evidence that he was saved. The Holy Spirit in a believer, not only leads the believer to produce real fruit, but The HS, also points us to the real Christ. And also, as I've been arguing all along, the HS in a believer, also speaks to our spirit, and testifies that Gods promises of assurance, are real.

Rom. 8:16
The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children.

From the article:

I rarely sensed any "presence of God" in my life. I looked for God's guidance, but rarely was sure I got it.

Where's the indwelling of the Holy Spirit?

[Byblos]

byb, got it.
I actually think part of our difference may be on how we were using assurance. The case being positional verses practical.

He was a Christian preacher for 40 years Rick.

So what? How does that make one saved? I have a friend locally, who by admission, worked as a paid staffer with a church for years but was never born again. He was saved after tens of years of religion. He knew all the things to say, but had never trusted Christ. Let me ask you. Do you believe there are people who go through all the ordinances of the RCC and yet are lost? I know there are because I fellowship with former RCCs who say, although they were faithful to the RCC and fulfilled all required, they never knew Christ as Savior. [/quick]

Nothing I disagree with. But that's sort of my point, there are people who are deluded into thinking they are saved when in fact they are not and at some point they know they are not. But while they think they are saved, they also think they have absolute assurance, just like you and Rick and Danny do today. What happens if one of you (God forbid) or someone like you who right now believe they have absolute assurance, at some point in the future discover they really were not saved at all. Then this absolute assurance they think they have right now is no assurance at all. The only way to know for sure that one has absolute assurance is to keep testing the faith to make sure it is a solid faith and not shallow one. That is perseverance with a moral assurance, not an absolute one.

I honestly have no idea what all that means or what it has to do with the discussion at hand but ok, whatever

This was in response to your comments about it all being the same gospel.
If Paul's commission was the same as what JTB and Jesus (earthly ministry) were delivering then why does Paul say it was secret?

When he says it was a secret he was referring to the whole Gospel and how it transpired vs. how the Jews were expecting it to transpire. The Jews were waiting for the messiah as a king, yet here came a carpenter claiming to be the son of the living God.

Why does Paul say he received it by direct revelation and not from man.

Because Jesus appeared to him in person and instructed him precisely as he had instructed his other apostles. Of course Paul is going to say that, what else could he say where he got it from?

What Jesus preached to Israel was not secret. It was the fulfillment of what was revealed by the law and prophets. Not hidden from them. If everything was the same, then the role of Paul makes ZERO sense. None. The apostles were to go and make disciples. Within years of Paul's calling, that program had all but stopped. Paul even had to explain 'his gospel' to the others.

"Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. 2It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation,...
And recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised....."
"For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. (Gal 2: 1,2,9,11,12)

Where does it say Paul had to 'explain' 'his' Gospel to the others? The way I see it, Paul went to James, Cephas and John and told them what he received through revelation and what did they do? They gave him and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, j. They shook his hand and told him basically 'Good job, you are now one of us because you are preaching the right Gospel'. They recognized the gospel he was preaching aligns perfectly with the one they received directly from Christ so it had to have been revealed to him directly by Christ as well, since he did not receive it from them. You really think that Paul went to them, told them he received through revelation a different gospel than the one they are preaching, and they said what ... ok, sure, go right ahead and preach it? That just makes no sense at all. No, Paul received exactly the same Gospel through revelation as the others did through personal experience and that is why he was extended the hand of fellowship.

[jlay]

But while they think they are saved, they also think they have absolute assurance

I can't speak for Rick, but I think what you are describing is personal feeling. In other words, if I am rightly saved, I have assurance whether I 'feel' it or not. Just as a person, as described may believe and feel they have asssurance, but not have rightly come to Christ. JWs and Mormons might be good examples. But could also be those who went through any religious process. Assurance is a promise from God, and from rightly trusting what He has provided. Therefore I am looking at assurance as the positional reality for any who have rightly trusted in Christ. Not the claim of the person, or their feeling, etc. The practical reality may be different.

Regarding the gospel. Obviously we have drasticallly different conclusions here.

Where does it say Paul had to 'explain' 'his' Gospel to the others?

He submitted it to the others. Another translation says, communicated. Which is another way of saying explain. If it was the same gospel, then why is described as hidden, not revealed? And if the same, then why submit it privately and in fear?
It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain.
Why would Paul need something revealed to Him by special revelation, if it has already been revealed through the prophets and through the minsitry of the 12? I think you are side stepping what is being stated here in its whole. That is certainly not the way revelation works in the scriptures. It defeats what revelation is to begin with. Something new being revealed. When you combine this with what Paul says about the 'secret' it doesn't quite work out as you say. Not to mention that they didn't begin preaching to all, but kept a division. Paul to the uncircumcision and Peter to the circumcision. A distinction, a difference.

Notice Peter's words: "Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, and that he may send the Christ [Messiah], who has been appointed for you (Isreal)--even Jesus. He must remain in heaven until the time comes for God to restore everything,(Restore what? The promises of the covenant. The Kingdom) as he promised long ago through his holy prophets. For Moses said, 'The Lord your God will raise up for you (Israel) a prophet like me from among your own people; you must listen to everything he tells you...Indeed, all the prophets from Samuel on, as many as have spoken, have foretold (Not secret) these days. And you (Israel) are heirs of the prophets and of the covenant God made with your (Israel) fathers. He said to Abraham, 'Through your offspring all peoples on earth will be blessed.'" (Acts 3:19-25)
Foretold these days? Doesn't sound like something that was hidden from the prophets too me. NO, this had to do with the covenant promises God made with Israel. One doesn't have to be a scholar to know the difference between foretold and hidden.

[Byblos]

But while they think they are saved, they also think they have absolute assurance

I can't speak for Rick, but I think what you are describing is personal feeling. In other words, if I am rightly saved, I have assurance whether I 'feel' it or not. Just as a person, as described may believe and feel they have asssurance, but not have rightly come to Christ. JWs and Mormons might be good examples. But could also be those who went through any religious process. Assurance is a promise from God, and from rightly trusting what He has provided. Therefore I am looking at assurance as the positional reality for any who have rightly trusted in Christ. Not the claim of the person, or their feeling, etc. The practical reality may be different.

God's promise is never in doubt, that much is certain. I think we've taken this as far as it will go at this juncture, I have nothing else to add.

Regarding the gospel. Obviously we have drasticallly different conclusions here.

Lol, obviously.

Where does it say Paul had to 'explain' 'his' Gospel to the others?

He submitted it to the others. Another translation says, communicated. Which is another way of saying explain.

Or it could simply mean that he just spoke to them.

If it was the same gospel, then why is described as hidden, not revealed? And if the same, then why submit it privately and in fear?
It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain.

The answer to that question is right there J, he did so in private, first because he wanted to speak to men of reputation, i.e. men who know what they're talking about, i.e. men who can tell him that what he's preaching is sound doctrine. And second, to verify that he wasn't running in vain, in case what he is preaching does not align with the Gospel those men of reputation are themselves preaching.

Why would Paul need something revealed to Him by special revelation, if it has already been revealed through the prophets and through the minsitry of the 12?

It is precisely because Paul did not receive the Gospel from the 12 that, not only did he have to have received it by revelation, but also that what he received had to align with the apostles' Gospel so all are convinced that indeed it was a revelation form Christ. If it were a different Gospel how on earth did they believe him and were convinced that it was a revelation from Christ and not some nut job claiming to be yet another prophet? Makes no sense.

I think you are side stepping what is being stated here in its whole. That is certainly not the way revelation works in the scriptures. It defeats what revelation is to begin with. Something new being revealed. When you combine this with what Paul says about the 'secret' it doesn't quite work out as you say. Not to mention that they didn't begin preaching to all, but kept a division. Paul to the uncircumcision and Peter to the circumcision. A distinction, a difference.

And that's the problem where you are trying to fit something into Paul's revelation that doesn't quite fit. It really is as simple as Christ chose Paul to be another apostle and, since Saul was a Jew and a church persecuter, it stands to reason he did not receive the Gospel from the 12, how could he have? It also stands to reason why he received it through revelation, how else could he have?

Notice Peter's words: "Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, and that he may send the Christ [Messiah], who has been appointed for you (Isreal)--even Jesus. He must remain in heaven until the time comes for God to restore everything,(Restore?) as he promised long ago through his holy prophets. For Moses said, 'The Lord your God will raise up for you (Israel) a prophet like me from among your own people; you must listen to everything he tells you...Indeed, all the prophets from Samuel on, as many as have spoken, have foretold these days. And you (Israel) are heirs of the prophets and of the covenant God made with your (Osrael) fathers. He said to Abraham, 'Through your offspring all peoples on earth will be blessed.'" (Acts 3:19-25)
Foretold these days? Doesn't sound like something that was hidden from the prophets too me. NO, this had to do with the covenant promises God made with Israel. One doesn't have to be a scholar to know the difference between foretold and hidden.

Evidently we are in full disagreement here. This is simply Peter preaching to Jews (mostly, I'm sure there were gentiles present as well) and preaching in a manner the Jews can relate to. Again, it doesn't mean he was preaching a different Gospel than Paul's.

But I think we're getting way off topic here so over to you for a last comment on this.

[jlay]

Byb, that is all fine and well, except it segments the argument to make your point. In other words, you are ignoring that Paul's message was new, and that it was hidden, kept secret, not revealed. You are also ingoring the whole of what is revealed in Acts, and in Paul's letters. Particularly the time line. Paul didn't have to receive by revelation the same message Peter and the 12 preached. For one, he already knew it. In fact he was trying to arrest them for it.

2ndly, After Paul was blinded he was led to Jewish converts. In fact Ananias is referred to as a disciple as were others in Damascus. (Acts 9:10,19) Not only that, but he was immediately led to Jerusalem to meet the other disciples. (Acts 9:27,28) They knew the message. Why did Paul have to receive his gospel by revelation? That doesn't make sense. Paul had more than one vision. (Acts 18:9) If Paul had already received the mystery in Acts 9, then why didn't he tell them then? I hope you can see that this simply doesn't jive with your explanations. Paul is converted, meets and lives with the disciples. Then 14 years later (Gal 2) he is meeting with them to explain?


Further, what Peter preached was revealed and foretold through the prophets. No one knew the OT better than Paul already did. Your explanation about meeting in private would be fine, except that it can't be regarding the same message Peter is preaching in Acts 3. That was not hidden or secret. It was known. Seriously, how can something that is secret and unknown be foretold and known at the same time. that violates the law of non-contradiction. In fact we can presume to know why Paul met in secret was because of all the stir and controversy his message was causing. "The offense of the Gospel" as Paul put it. (Gal 5) Paul's preaching was the focus of controversy and division amongst the Jewish believers. Big time. If we are going to speculate then we would be wiser to speculate consistent with what is revealed in scripture. You can imagine Paul being confronted by believing Jews who were not on board. That is why the revelation to Peter was so important. Peter gets this new revelation regarding the dietary issues, and uncleanliness of Gentiles. (Acts 10 Cornelius) When did this happen? After Paul had already been converted met with the disciples in Jerusalem, and left for Caererea. It was then up to Peter to communicate this new revelation to the others, which I would assume opened the door for Paul's gospel. Thus after the meeing 14 years later, they resolve for Paul to go to the uncircumcision, and Peter to the circumcision. A clear division. To assume the message was or is the same one has to tap dance around a lot of scriptural reality. One has to ignore the mystery issue to make sense of the meeitng. Then one has to ignore the time line, the time Paul spent with the disciples, etc.

[Canuckster1127]

Sorry guys. I promised I would follow up and I didn't. I'll try to finish my thoughts over the weekend.

Something to think about in terms of the other discussion. I don't have this entirely figured out, but the idea that any Christian who departs from the faith was never a true believer in the first place, is very similar to what in some circles is known as the "No-True Scotsman Fallacy."

Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing." The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing."

This was actually written by Antony Flew back in 1975 long before he moved from Atheism to Theism (Deism).

The reason I mention it to ask a question that a person can only ask for himself.

Is the root of our conviction that apostacy cannot happen because no true believer would depart truly Biblical or is it whistling past the graveyard as it were in not wanting to face the implications of it?

I'm not arguing for apostacy. It's something to think about however and if we believe it's Biblical, have we really tried to look at all views or have we latched onto a position that tells us something we want to believe?

I'm asking myself that too, so not targetting anyone.

[jlay]

Bart, I think a big problem is that most don't rightly define apostasy. Which is a complete rejection of Christ, His words, His works, etc.

As opposed to the amount of sin one engages in post confessing Christ, which is generally the area I am discussing. The argument being can someone be saved, and then cross some sin threshold, or lack enough works for the salvation to stick.

So, when we ask "can apostacy happen," we need to make sure we're all using the same definitions. Apostasy, whether you think it is a possibility or not, is not 'losing' one's salvation. It is divorcing one's self from any concept of the Christian God. A total rejection of any spiritual or historical reality regarding Christ.

[Byblos]

Bart, I think a big problem is that most don't rightly define apostasy. Which is a complete rejection of Christ, His words, His works, etc.

As opposed to the amount of sin one engages in post confessing Christ, which is generally the area I am discussing. The argument being can someone be saved, and then cross some sin threshold, or lack enough works for the salvation to stick.

So, when we ask "can apostacy happen," we need to make sure we're all using the same definitions. Apostasy, whether you think it is a possibility or not, is not 'losing' one's salvation. It is divorcing one's self from any concept of the Christian God. A total rejection of any spiritual or historical reality regarding Christ.

And with that my friend, I am in total agreement.

[Canuckster1127]

That is an important distinction, Jlay. Thanks for adding that.

That's part of what in my thinking we fall prey too when we approach things with an all or nothing mindset. We know Christians can and do sin and we also know that some may slip into a place where there appears to be no apparent sense of God or Christ's spirit and there's places all along that scale.

A person is either saved or they are not. While works are referred to as evidence it's not absolute in the sense that we can tell by the presence or absence of works in a persons life whether they are saved or not. The Pharisees were criticized for having fruit but no foundational relationship with God. They were works with no foundation. Further, it appears possible that there can be those, who to us anyway appear to have left with no sensitivity or care for God, but we can't know ultimately what the state of their heart is.

Arguing Apostasy in specific instances is beyond our ability to know for certain. Arguing Apostasy in theory then becomes the realm of the argument and in the abstract it appears to me not to be completely clear. The most cited verses I see are those in Hebrews (probably cited on this thread but I don't recall and I'm not looking them up for this.) The sense of the word used there is along the lines of a ship that has lost its anchor and is set adrift without the ability to remain in place. It's questionable too if the sense in which it's being said is factual or hypothetical for the sake of argument (like a rhetorical question where the assumed responsed already in place.)

[jlay]

Byb, FYI, I made some ammendments to my last post about the gospel.

[RickD]

From what I understand, an apostate, is one who may have had outward signs of being a Christian, all the while, never having the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Maybe a good example could be the pastor, that Byblos posted. An apostate could be a "religious" person. Trying hard to please God, but having no power, beyond himself, to do it.

[narnia4]

Not arguing for anything specific, but just a thought on the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

One possible difference between that and something the issue of whether or not a person is a Christian is one of definitions. A Scotsman refers to a nationality, so clearly a "true Scotsman" could do... well, anything. But one might argue that a Christian doing certain things is contradictory. Like this example instead-

Person 1- "No true bachelor is married"
Person 2- "Joe is married"
Person 1- "Then Joe is not a bachelor"

If you used "Scotsman" instead of "bachelor", then that's clearly a fallacy. But wouldn't person 1 be correct here?

My thoughts aren't sorted out and I'm posting this kind of fast so this isn't necessarily an argument in favor of one side or the other (reading Canuckster's posts on it my initial thought is that I agree with him), its an issue that can get pretty complicated for me at least. But just a thought.

[RickD]

A person is either saved or they are not. While works are referred to as evidence it's not absolute in the sense that we can tell by the presence or absence of works in a persons life whether they are saved or not. The Pharisees were criticized for having fruit but no foundational relationship with God. They were works with no foundation. Further, it appears possible that there can be those, who to us anyway appear to have left with no sensitivity or care for God, but we can't know ultimately what the state of their heart is.

I agree, Bart. I think that's why jlay, Danny, and I have been saying all along, that I can know for certain, that I have God's absolute assurance. but, I can't necessarily know if anyone else is saved.
While the example that Byblos gave, of the man who was a "Christian" pastor, then became an atheist, appears to be a case of an apostate, we don't know if he really is a true Christian, that God has put His seal upon. If the man is saved, then he will always be drawn back, by the Holy Spirit. While the man may never seem to return back to God, if he is saved, he will lose his fellowship with God, but not salvation. It's not our place, IMO, to go around seeing if we can identify who is saved, and who isn't. But, that certainly doesn't change the fact that you or I can know we have absolute assurance. I honestly feel for those who can't realize God's absolute assurance is real, if only they would fully put their trust is God, for their salvation. And let Christ carry the burden of trying to gain God's acceptance. Christ's work has already finished that. Through Christ, we can live a live led by the Holy Spirit, as one already accepted by God.