Evidence for God from Science

Fortigurn wrote: I have certainly shown that man can understand the Bible without the Holy Spirit.

Jer. 17:5 The Lord says, “I will put a curse on people who trust in mere human beings, who depend on mere flesh and blood for their strength, and whose hearts have turned away from the Lord." NET

You must become born again:

John 3:6-21, “What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must all be born from above.' The wind blows wherever it will, and you hear the sound it makes, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.

“Nicodemus replied, “How can these things be?” Jesus answered, “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you don't understand these things? I tell you the solemn truth, we speak about what we know and testify about what we have seen, but you people do not accept our testimony.

"If I have told you people about earthly things and you don't believe, how will you believe if I tell you about heavenly things? No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven — the Son of Man. Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.

“For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world should be saved through him. The one who believes in him is not condemned The one who does not believe has been condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God.

“Now this is the basis for judging: that the light has come into the world and people loved the darkness rather than the light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil deeds hates the light and does not come to the light, so that their deeds will not be exposed. But the one who practices the truth comes to the light, so that it may be plainly evident that his deeds have been done in God.” NET

John 3:27 John replied, “No one can receive anything unless it has been given to him from heaven." NET

John 3:34-36, "For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for He does not give the Spirit sparingly. The Father loves the Son and has placed all things under His authority. The one who believes in the Son has eternal life. The one who rejects the Son will not see life, but God's wrath remains on him."

Jer. 17:13 "You are the one in whom Israel may find hope. All who leave You will suffer shame. Those who turn away from You will be consigned to the nether world. For they have rejected you, the Lord, the fountain of life." NET

BW, you haven't provided any passages which say men cannot understand the Bible without the Holy Spirit.

Not only that, but you haven't addressed the verses I've provided which demnonstrate that men can.

I'm particularly disturbed by the fact that this argument marginalises the Word of God, to the extent that it is insufficient to teach, instruct, and admonish.

Fortigurn wrote:

That's what your own link shows. It is just beneath your nature to admit it.

Could you spare the personal insults please?

It's not a personal insult but rather a personal observation. I could be wrong and have no problem admitting when I am. I do not believe you can.

Fortigurn wrote:What disturbs me the most about this discussion is the lack of Scripture you bring to it.

I was not arguing anything scriptural but rather the illogical semantical construct with which you argue your position as clearly demonstrated by your own proof. No scripture was necessary for that, just good old-fashioned logic (something you're very fond of).

Fortigurn wrote:I'm particularly disturbed by the fact that this argument marginalises the Word of God, to the extent that it is insufficient to teach, instruct, and admonish.

You still do not get it, but then again, how can you? The Holy Spirit and God are one and the same. If you suspend your belief system for just one second and see it from that light, then tell us where the word of God is being marginalized.

Byblos wrote:I was not arguing anything scriptural...

Exactly. Thus my concern.

...but rather the illogical semantical construct with which you argue your position as clearly demonstrated by your own proof. No scripture was necessary for that, just good old-fashioned logic (something you're very fond of).

My argument is not illogical, as I have demonstrated. I am arguing that the text says that people were converted by being taught by other people, and by the Bible. I therefore believe what the Bible says - that these people were converted by being taught by other people, and by the Bible.

I am not simply arguing from the absence of the Holy Spirit here, I am providing positive evidence for their conversion process - the text tells us plainly how they were converted, you don't have to make up things which aren't in the Bible.

This tells me that it is possible to understand the Bible without the Holy Spirit.

I am not arguing from silence. I have declared that the text says X. You agree that the text says X. It is therefore encumbent on you to prove that anything other than X took place.

Fortigurn wrote:I'm particularly disturbed by the fact that this argument marginalises the Word of God, to the extent that it is insufficient to teach, instruct, and admonish.

You still do not get it, but then again, how can you? The Holy Spirit and God are one and the same. If you suspend your belief system for just one second and see it from that light, then tell us where the word of God is being marginalized.

I'm not talking about the Holy Spirit being marginalised, I am talking about the Word of God being marginalised (furthermore, since I do not distinguish functionally between God and His Holy Spirit power, your objection that I don't see that 'The Holy Spirit and God are one and the same' is irrelevant to me).

I believe that the Scriptures (the Word of God), are able to bring men to repentance and salvation. When preached, the Word of God did exactly that (see Acts 2, 3, 7 and Romans 10 for a few examples).

Denying that the Word of God is effective to do this without the Holy Spirit, marginalises the Word.

Fortigurn wrote: BW, you haven't provided any passages which say men cannot understand the Bible without the Holy Spirit.

Not only that, but you haven't addressed the verses I've provided which demnonstrate that men can.

I'm particularly disturbed by the fact that this argument marginalises the Word of God, to the extent that it is insufficient to teach, instruct, and admonish.

John 3:27 John replied, “No one can receive anything unless it has been given to him from heaven." NET

Yes, men/women can understand the bible up to a point but to receive more from God comes from heaven through the agency of the Holy Spirit.

Bible wrote:John 3:6-21, “What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must all be born from above.' The wind blows wherever it will, and you hear the sound it makes, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.

“Nicodemus replied, “How can these things be?” Jesus answered, “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you don't understand these things? I tell you the solemn truth, we speak about what we know and testify about what we have seen, but you people do not accept our testimony.

Fortigurn - there it is - Born of the Spirit - how does one become born of the Spirit?

Again:

Bible wrote:Matthew16:16-18 “Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “You are blessed, Simon son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father in heaven! And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.” NET

Act 8:37 “He said to him, 'If you believe with your whole heart, you may.' He replied, 'I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.'” NET Notes

Yes, flesh and blood alone did not convince the eunuch — God's Holy Spirit did through the messenger, Philip, as God reveals how He does things:

Bible wrote:John 14:17,20 “…the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot accept, because it does not see him or know him. But you know him, because he resides with you and will be in you.” …20 You will know at that time that I am in my Father and you are in me and I am in you.” NET

John 15:26-27 “When the Advocate comes, whom I will send you from the Father — the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father — he will testify about me, and you also will testify, because you have been with me from the beginning.” NET

Fortigurn, God uses the Bible and reveals its deeper meanings to His true people through the Holy Spirit. Anyone can read the bible and interpret it without the Holy Spirit, just like the serial killer did that I wrote to you about weeks ago on the Trinity thread.

The point is, if you are not one of God's children through the new birth, you'll be limited in discovering deeper bible truths and much more. Instead, one will remain blind to the things of God:

Bible wrote: Matthew13:11-17, “He (Jesus) answered and said to them, “Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says:

'Hearing you will hear and shall not understand,
And seeing you will see and not perceive;
For the hearts of this people have grown dull.
Their ears are hard of hearing,
And their eyes they have closed,
Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears,
Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
So that I should heal them.'

But blessed are your eyes for they see, and your ears for they hear; for assuredly, I say to you that many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.” NKJV

So Blind in fact that if one does not have God's Holy Spirit they only can view the bible like this next example illustrates: The Matthew 13:11-17 quote above cannot apply to me because it was written only for a certain group of people, for a specific time, for this and that reason. However, the passage does apply to all those who are blind and do not have God's Spirit.

Maybe you cannot see, nor hear, how John 5:39-41 applies to you either?

Bible wrote:John 5:39-41, “You search and investigate and pore over the Scriptures diligently, because you suppose and trust that you have eternal life through them. And these [very Scriptures] testify about Me! And still you are not willing [but refuse] to come to Me, so that you might have life. I receive not glory from men [I crave no human honor, I look for no mortal fame].” Amplified Bible

Fortigurn, by your own writings and answers, demonstrate that you lack God's Holy Spirit because you fail to see and hear so much so that you fall short of hearing what the Lord Jesus Christ is saying to you personally in the next quote text:

Bible wrote:Revelations 3:19-20 "Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline, so be zealous and repent. Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me." ESV

-
-
-

Fortigurn wrote:

Byblos wrote:I was not arguing anything scriptural...

Exactly. Thus my concern.

Strawman.

Fortigurn wrote:

...but rather the illogical semantical construct with which you argue your position as clearly demonstrated by your own proof. No scripture was necessary for that, just good old-fashioned logic (something you're very fond of).

My argument is not illogical, as I have demonstrated. I am arguing that the text says that people were converted by being taught by other people, and by the Bible. I therefore believe what the Bible says - that these people were converted by being taught by other people, and by the Bible.

I am not simply arguing from the absence of the Holy Spirit here, I am providing positive evidence for their conversion process - the text tells us plainly how they were converted, you don't have to make up things which aren't in the Bible.

This tells me that it is possible to understand the Bible without the Holy Spirit.

I highlighted above where I have the problem with what you are saying. the unequivocal statement that they understood without. It is an imperative statement, whereas your own proof clearly states, while it is not proof in and of itself, it is possible. Given that, I ask you again: is it possible that the Holy Spirit could have been involved? If you answer no, then you're contradicting your own proof. If you answer yes, then you could not possibly unequivocally state they believed without the Holy Spirit. It is that simple. What is your answer? Yes or No?

Byblos wrote:

Fortigurn wrote:

Byblos wrote:I was not arguing anything scriptural...

Exactly. Thus my concern.

Strawman.

It is not a strawman. You are not providing Scriptural support for your arguments. That is a concern to me. That is not a strawman.

I highlighted above where I have the problem with what you are saying. the unequivocal statement that they understood without.

It's what the Bible says.

It is an imperative statement, whereas your own proof clearly states, while it is not proof in and of itself, it is possible.

It is not possible to argue this, no, since we are told what converted them.

Given that, I ask you again: is it possible that the Holy Spirit could have been involved? If you answer no, then you're contradicting your own proof. If you answer yes, then you could not possibly unequivocally state they believed without the Holy Spirit. It is that simple. What is your answer? Yes or No?

I have answered this before. The answer is no, because we are told what converted them.

You are confusing this discussion with an argument from silence. If we had been given no information on what converted them, then you would have a point - we wouldn't be able to be certain what converted them.

But we are given clear information on what converted them, and it is encumbent on you to prove that it happened in any way other than the way described in Scripture.

B. W. wrote:John 3:27 John replied, “No one can receive anything unless it has been given to him from heaven." NET

Yes, men/women can understand the bible up to a point but to receive more from God comes from heaven through the agency of the Holy Spirit.

Scripture please.

Fortigurn - there it is - Born of the Spirit - how does one become born of the Spirit?

Through the Word of God, either read or preached:

1 Peter 1:
23 You have been born anew, not from perishable but from imperishable seed, through the living and enduring word of God.
24 For all flesh is like grass and all its glory like the flower of the grass; the grass withers and the flower falls off,
25 but the word of the Lord47 endures forever. And this is the word that was proclaimed to you.

The same as Romans 10, remember?

Again:

Bible wrote:Matthew16:16-18 “Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “You are blessed, Simon son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father in heaven! And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.” NET

Act 8:37 “He said to him, 'If you believe with your whole heart, you may.' He replied, 'I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.'” NET Notes

Yes, flesh and blood alone did not convince the eunuch — God's Holy Spirit did through the messenger, Philip, as God reveals how He does things:

I agree that we can say God's Holy Spirit converted the eunuch through the messenger Philip, but that is not what Jbuza is arguing.

He is arguing that without the Holy Spirit indwelling people and guiding them directly, they cannot understand the Bible.

Fortigurn, God uses the Bible and reveals its deeper meanings to His true people through the Holy Spirit.

Scripture please.

Anyone can read the bible and interpret it without the Holy Spirit, just like the serial killer did that I wrote to you about weeks ago on the Trinity thread.

Yes, I know.

The point is, if you are not one of God's children through the new birth, you'll be limited in discovering deeper bible truths and much more. Instead, one will remain blind to the things of God:

I agree.

People are guided by the spirit of God prior to receiving the spirit fully at baptism. My previous post was full of texts that support this.

If people are drawn or guided and converted through the reading of words alone, without the power or spirit of God involved, then tell me how is the word of God alive? How is it able to discern the thoughts and intents of the heart? What is it's power that is “sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow”? If not the spirit of God?

For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart (Heb. 4:12, NKJV).

Fortigurn wrote: I agree that we can say God's Holy Spirit converted the eunuch through the messenger Philip, but that is not what Jbuza is arguing.

He is arguing that without the Holy Spirit indwelling people and guiding them directly, they cannot understand the Bible.

Close. I don't think and never said that the Spirit has to be indewelling in order to give understanding. I believe understanding comes from the Holy Spirit for the unbeliever whom he does not indwell, and also the Christian.

You appear to want to isolate your examples from the numerous other places in scripture that indicate that man can know nothing of God without the Holy Spirit.

It appears that much of your efforts go to arguing against accepted Christian Doctrine. Why?

Jbuza wrote:

Fortigurn wrote: I agree that we can say God's Holy Spirit converted the eunuch through the messenger Philip, but that is not what Jbuza is arguing.

He is arguing that without the Holy Spirit indwelling people and guiding them directly, they cannot understand the Bible.

Close. I don't think and never said that the Spirit has to be indewelling in order to give understanding. I believe understanding comes from the Holy Spirit for the unbeliever whom he does not indwell, and also the Christian.

In what way?

You appear to want to isolate your examples from the numerous other places in scripture that indicate that man can know nothing of God without the Holy Spirit.

I haven't seen any passages which say that man can know nothing of God without the Holy Spirit.

It appears that much of your efforts go to arguing against accepted Christian Doctrine. Why?

I don't make a point of disagreeing for the point of disagreeing. I simply disagree with things I don't believe in.

The real issue here is that most of you have a theology which traces back to Calvin, which is why we disagree so often (I don't hold Calvin as a theological benchmark of excellence, I consider him desparately astray). Others of you go back to Augustine, which isn't much better.

R7-12 wrote:People are guided by the spirit of God prior to receiving the spirit fully at baptism. My previous post was full of texts that support this.

Hardly any of the texts you quoted actually spoke of the Holy Spirit. You quoted 'No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him', and assumed that this meant 'by the Holy Spirit', when in fact Christ said that all men would be drawn to him by his crucifixion.

But I'm interested in what manner you believe that people are 'are guided by the spirit of God prior to receiving the spirit fully at baptism'. If it's indirectly, then I agree with you (as I have said previously).

I still haven't seen any evidence that we are unable to understand the Bible without the Holy Spirit.

If people are drawn or guided and converted through the reading of words alone, without the power or spirit of God involved, then tell me how is the word of God alive? How is it able to discern the thoughts and intents of the heart? What is it's power that is “sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow”? If not the spirit of God?

For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart (Heb. 4:12, NKJV).

It's the Word of God, which means it is both alive and powerful. See 1 Peter 1:22-25, which states explicitly that we are born again by the Word preached to us (not by the Holy Spirit).

By the way, what do you make of Romans 10:14-17?

25At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

26Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight.

27All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.


1 Corinthians 2
1And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.

2For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

3And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.

4And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:

5That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

6Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:

7But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

8Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

9But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

10But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

11For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

12Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

13Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

14But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

15But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

16For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.

I still see no passages which say that we cannot understand the Bible without the Holy Spirit.

Even the wise men from the East understood the Bible. Did they have the Holy Spirit?

Perhaps the problem here is that the discussion involves more than one concept that is being argued.

One says the Spirit of God is not required to understand the Bible.

...it is possible to understand the Bible without the Holy Spirit.

That is a very blanket statement indeed.

The other says that the Spirit of God leads sinners to truly understand the crucial aspects of the gospel necessary for salvation.

I believe understanding comes from the Holy Spirit for the unbeliever whom he does not indwell.

That is more specific.

Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems the discussion consists of two somewhat distinct or disconnected arguments that will likely never meet and find resolution, unless more accurate details are given for each position.

R7-12