Johnny Skeptic

Message to hatsoff: Peter clearly said that calling and election, meaning initial salvation, must be made sure by subsequent actions. You can't make something sure that is already sure.

Mark 16:17 says "And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues." In other words, without the presence of certain miraculous actions subsequent to salvation, there was no evidence that salvation occurred.

Matthew 7:15-23 say "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

In other words, no fruits, meaning no works, = no Christians.

hatsoff

That is the implication, yes. However, that is a topic with which I am relatively unfamiliar. It is possible we are misreading it. But it certainly does appear to indicate what you say.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to hatsoff: Peter clearly said that calling and election, meaning initial salvation, must be made sure by subsequent actions. You can't make something sure that is already sure.

Mark 16:17 says "And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues." In other words, without the presence of certain miraculous actions subsequent to salvation, there was no evidence that salvation occurred.

Matthew 7:15-23 say "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

In other words, no fruits, meaning no works, = no Christians.

hatsoff

No, but you can make sure to yourself and others that which is already sure to God.

The text doesn't say all Christians will perform miracles, nor even that all Christians have that capacity. It merely states that the miracles will happen, and that Christians will perform them.

There is no causative relationship mentioned here. Jesus doesn't say you won't be saved if you don't do good works, but rather that you can't do good works if you aren't saved. And that's how we recognize false prophets.

Johnny Skeptic

That cannot possibly be true. If initial salvation by faith is sure, then nothing subsequent to that would be necessary. Others do not have anything to do with it. Anyone can masquerade as a Christian. Churches are full of non-Christians masquerding as Christians. Some of them do not even believe in the virgin birth.

Well of course you can do good works if you aren't saved. Any skeptic can do good works if he wishes to.

hatsoff

And nothing is. But that doesn't mean some self-assurance isn't welcomed.

Virgin birth aside, you're right in saying anyone can masquerade as a Christian. But only Christians can do good works.

You just quoted Jesus as saying this: "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit." Also consider Titus, chapter 1:
And also 3 John 1:
What is interesting here is that in addition to showing how unbelievers can do no good work, these passages also show how believers will do good works. Good works are a natural extension of faith, not an additional requirement.

Johnny Skeptic

How can you become self-assured of something that you supposedly already have by grace through faith?

How do you define good works? Giving money to poor people is doing good works, is it not?

There are literally thousands of good reasons for people not to trust the Bible. One very good reason is that any rational and/or loving being who wanted people to accept him and not go to hell would makes the odds 100% that everyone would know about his existence and that he had their best interests at heart. He would confirm subjective spiritual/emotional experience with objective tangible experiences. Some of the texts claim that God did exactly that, but we know that for some strange and unexplained reason he has used that approach only at selected times. In other words, God is not consistent. John 2:23 says “Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.� John 3:2 says “The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.� In the NIV, John 10:37-38 say "Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." In the KJV, Matthew 4:24 says "And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them."

It is interesting to note that the texts say that BOTH SIDES acknowledged that Jesus had supernatural powers. The Pharisees believed that Jesus had supernatural powers, but that his powers came from Beelzebub. Today, both sides DO NOT acknowledge that God has supernatural powers, so the evidence that we have today is not nearly the same as it supposedly was back then.

It is quite suspicious that God on some occasions maximized the odds to 100% that people would know about his existence and his supernatural powers, only to completely abandon his supposed purpose of giving humans sufficient evidence of his existence and supernatural powers. This evidence alone is all that rational minded people need to reject the God of the Bible.

What gives legitimacy and fairness to God's ability to enforce rules of his own choosing?

From Christians' point of view, if they became skeptics and it eventually turns out that the Bible is true, they will spend eternity in hell. On the other hand, from skeptics' point of view, if they became Christians and it eventually turns out that they will become dust in the ground, they will be no worse off than before they became Christians. Therefore, skeptics are free to follow the evidence wherever it leads completely free of coercive influences.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to hatsoff: Is there really good evidence that Christianity is true? Well of course there isn't. It all gets down to self-interest, in other words, the quest for eternal comfort. Revelation 21:4 says “And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.� Do Christians really care who provides them with eternal comfort? Well of course they don’t. If a person has cancer, and if a cure is available, do they care who provides them with the cure? Well of course they don’t.

Christians frequently use the following arguments as good evidence that Christianity is valid:

The four Gospels corroborate one another. In other words, four testimonies are much better than one testimony.

The writings of Paul harmonize with the Gospels.

The over 5,000 existing copies of New Testament manuscripts are much more numerous than any other writings of antiquity.

James Holding wrote his admittedly flagship article that is titled ‘The Impossible Faith.’ It can be found at his web site at www.tektonics.org. Holding offers 17 factors that he believes indicate that it would be impossible for Christianity to succeed unless it was true. Holding has a large Internet following, and he debates mainly at the Theology Web.

Hundreds of Bible prophecies have been fulfilled.

Personal experiences, both spiritual/emotional and tangible, provide additional evidence that Christianity is valid.

Now then, if all of the aforementioned “evidence� was exactly the same with the single exception that all humans will go to hell, would Christians defend the Bible? Well of course they wouldn’t, and in fact they would go out of their way to try to disprove it.

Some religions are much more outlandish than Christianity is, but that doesn’t stop adherents from seeking eternal comfort based upon what Christians will admit is grossly insufficient evidence. If the God of the Bible really wants people to accept him, he would give everyone an equal opportunity to do so. We know that God hasn’t done that.

If heaven and hell are actually at stake, the only kinds of decisions that would be fair would be fully informed decisions. God could not possibly have anything to lose by clearly showing himself to everyone, and mankind would have everything to gain if he did so. True love, tolerance, and forgiveness could never do anything less.

Sheshbazzar

There once was a child by the name of Jessie, the son of Jacob and of Bessie, whose mother died soon after his birth, So soon indeed, that the young man grew up without any memory of his mother, only bearing that name which she had bestowed upon him, a constant reminder to him of her to whom he owed his existence.
As Jessie grew into young manhood, he became friends with youths from another nation, who spoke also another language, and having received him into their midst, they said unto him;
"Friend, in our language your name is Je'sus". Jessie a quiet and peaceable young man, smiled and thought within himself, My new friends, How greatly they do honor me!
The next day as he approached his friends, they all hailed him, "Je'sus"!
Jessie went about here and there with his new friends, and day followed upon day having fun, and great camaraderie, but gradually Jessie began to be troubled, something just didn't seem to be right, but what it was he just couldn't say, so saying farewell, he departed from his friends, and went away to a quiet place, and meditated about all that had transpired.
Why was he becoming so sad while everything around him was seeming to be going so well? He began to weep, and his weeping turned into agonized prayer. Then the answer appeared to him, what he needed to say, and what he needed to do, for the rest of his life.

Julian

hatsoff and Johnny, you are both right and both wrong. Isn't the bible wonderful? The problem is that Paul says that it is all about faith (as a polemic against his Jewish christian counterparts) and James says that faith must include works or it is nothing (as a polemic against Paul). Like most things in the bible you can find sections the endorse two opposing viewpoints.

Julian