Evidence for God from Science

Jac, I am inclined to believe that you refuse to accept the obvious (that one can believe and doubt at the same time) b/c you think that it is a vital plank in your free grace platform, but at the same time I must recognize that there could be other reasons and so I also possess a certain level of doubt as to whether that is your motivation. Further, I am inclined to believe that you will accuse me again of disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing, but at the same time I must recognize that you might be able to see FFC's point and so I also possess a certain level of doubt as to whether that will be your reaction.

I'm finding that we shouldn't use words like "obvious," "clearly," etc. in discussion. I've been extremely guilty of that, and I'm doing what I can to clean it up. Now, I see nothing "obvious" about the idea that belief and doubt can coexist on the same idea. They can coexist in the same person. I can believe one thing and doubt another. But I cannot believe a proposition and doubt it at the same time.

Let's use your example. You said that you are inclined to believe that I refuse your position based on a particular motivation, but you actually doubt that proposition because you know there could be other motives. Therefore, you do not actually believe that I am refusing to see your position based on any presupposition in mine. You could be suspicious that it is a reality. I am suspicious that several things are a reality, but I won't go so far as to say that I believe them!

And again, you were inclined to believe that I would accuse you of disagreement for disagreement's sake, but you don't actually believe it. You doubt it, because I could possibly see FFC's point. Yet again, we see that you are suspicious of a reality, but that in no way constitutes a belief.

As I said to FFC, remember my basic argument: to believe means to regard something as true, whereas to doubt something is to be undecided as to belief. These are logical opposites. The law of noncontradiction says that you cannot believe something and doubt it at the same time. I don't see how this is all that difficult . . .

measured? and how exactly do you measure your belief? What is your yardstick? What is your unit of measurement? Your own words display the problem with your claim...how does one know what one believes? One asks oneself. You can't get more subjective than that.

"Measured" . . . bad word, but I couldn't find a better one. "Verify," maybe? To measure something implies taking a things dimensions or other such specifications. You can't "measure" belief in this sense of the word. I was referring to the ability to recognize the thing's existence as true or false.

Now, I have already said that the word "subjective," when used in the nominative sense, applies to belief. However, I am using "subjective" in the personal sense. In this usage of the word, something is subjective if it is an interpretive idea. Let's use a very simple example. I believe that 1+1=2. Is that a subjective fact? In the nominative sense, yes. But in the personal sense, no, it is not. It is subective in that it deals with the subject of the sentence - me. However, in this case, it is subjective to say that the last letter of the alphabet is "z," because that deals with subject of the sentence! However, this is an objective fact. It is objective because its reality exists independantly of our interpretation of any given fact.

My belief works in the same way, as does yours. You do not believe the Gospel as I present it. That is an objective fact. It is subjective in that it deals with the subject of the sentence - you. But it is objective in that it is an independant reality.

"If it were possible..." Here again your own words display the problem with your claim. Just as soon as that belief-o-meter is invented we will be able to determine objectively what is believed and how strongly it is believed....but you know what, at the exact same time they will have developed the heart-o-meter and I would be able to use it to objectively determine who is saved (has that circumcised heart) and who isn't.

Again, there is no such thing as "how strongly it is believed." Can the number "one" be any more "one" than it already is? Can I be any more human than I already am? Can a tree be more or less of a tree? In the same way, belief cannot be anything more or less than belief. You can't believe something more or less strongly. You either believe something or you don't. Now, you may believe more things about a subject, and thus, a particular belief may be locked into place by other beliefs. In that sense, a particular belief is strongly substantiated, but that doesn't mean you believe something more strongly than another. It means that you have a greater belief system built on this particular proposition, and thus, it is harder to change your mind on this particular idea.

As for you idea of determining who is saved and who is not, we have that already in John 3:16. All I have to do is ask a person whether or not they either now or have ever trusted Jesus Christ for everlasting life. All I have to do is make sure they understand the terms in the same way I do. If they have believed it at some point, then they are saved. If they have not, then they are not saved. You could argue that these people are lying to me. But that is an entirely different issue. They would know that they are lying.

Now, ttoews - I just want you to see how dangerous the position you are advocating is:

1) You reject the Gospel in that you reject the terms, which is faith alone apart from any repentance, commitment, or works,
2) You reject the Gospel in that you reject the basis of the claim, which is that people cannot merit their salvation via works,
3) You reject the Gospel in that you reject the nature of the gift, which is assurance of everlasting life received free of charge.

These are three MAJOR problems with your soteriology. I realize that you don't believe any of the above three statements are true, but what you have to recognize is that they are true from a Free Grace perspective, and if the Free Grace Gospel is, in fact, the Gospel of Christ, then you have rejected that Gospel! Further, from our discussions, it seems that you have a tendancy to "front load" the Gospel, and further, I wonder what you believe the Gospel is in terms of the specific gift received . . . your understanding of propitation seems very different from my own. That will have a major impact on what you think you are receiving.

So, I come back to my basic, overall point: salvation is everlasting life, and it must be received by simple trust alone in Jesus Christ and His offer. Any addition to this is a damnable heresy. Assurance, as Calvin noted, is of the essense of saving faith. If you do not have assurance, then you have not believed, and thus, as Chesterton said, "If you are 99% sure, you are 100% lost."

God bless

Jac3510 wrote: There are no levels of belief. Either you believe a particular proposition at any given moment or you don't.

of course there are levels of belief....words such as confidence, probability etc. are used in relation to these levels.
I believe that the Packers will beat the Vikings tonight.
After 1 quarter the Pack is up 14-0...and my belief is stronger
In the 2nd the Vikings score 21, the Pack is down 17-21 and my belief is getting weak....its not totally gone, but some doubt is present
....and on it goes.
I can't believe that you are unable to find levels of belief in your own experience.

ttoews wrote:

Jac3510 wrote: There are no levels of belief. Either you believe a particular proposition at any given moment or you don't.

of course there are levels of belief....words such as confidence, probability etc. are used in relation to these levels.
I believe that the Packers will beat the Vikings tonight.
After 1 quarter the Pack is up 14-0...and my belief is stronger
In the 2nd the Vikings score 21, the Pack is down 17-21 and my belief is getting weak....its not totally gone, but some doubt is present
....and on it goes.
I can't believe that you are unable to find levels of belief in your own experience.

No, you don't believe any more or any less that the Packers will win or lose later in the game. You may stop believing they will win. You may hope they will win. Or, you may have reasons to substantiate your belief that you did not before. Or, perhaps you were using the word "believe" to loosely at the beginning of the game. You didn't "believe" they would win. You might have expected them to win based on certain data.

Again, to believe something is to regard it as true. You either regard something as true or you don't.

ttoews wrote:

Jac3510 wrote: There are no levels of belief. Either you believe a particular proposition at any given moment or you don't.

of course there are levels of belief....words such as confidence, probability etc. are used in relation to these levels.
I believe that the Packers will beat the Vikings tonight.
After 1 quarter the Pack is up 14-0...and my belief is stronger
In the 2nd the Vikings score 21, the Pack is down 17-21 and my belief is getting weak....its not totally gone, but some doubt is present
....and on it goes.
I can't believe that you are unable to find levels of belief in your own experience.

If my salvation is based upon the relative confidence I intellectually feel or hold to at any given moment then I for one am sunk. It is a part of the human condition to continually learn, assimilate new knowledge and grow and inherent within that is changing opinions, deepening understanding and part of the process as well is a questioning of things previously thought known.

Now I agree that faith goes beyond what is known and as such, our faith and belief in God is and should be secure and held fast. That is one thing.

If you are going to preclude any intellectual doubts inherent in the learning process, then do me a favor and shoot me now, before I lose it later.

I'm having problems seeing how this hardline approach is any better than a works based salvation or even a gnostic-like system predicated upon right understandings and beliefs leading to spiritual conditions and elevations.

Seems to me God had more to do with maintaining salvation in that arena than making my intellectual beliefs a contingent foundation.

Canuckster,

I'm not sure exactly if your statements are directed at me or ttoews, but I'll say that what you've pointed out is one of the inherent flaws that I see in his position. If you tie assurance of salvation to "levels of belief," - and these levels fluctuate with doubt - then you can never really know that you are saved, because how, in that scheme, would you know if you REALLY believed? How would you know when or if you've done enough works to prove that you were a believer? Maybe the works you did were just the selfish works of an unbeliever?

On the flip side, I argue that belief is just that - regarding something as true. You know whether or not you have considered Christ's promise to save you to be true. If you've done that, then you know you are saved because that is the promise. Jesus promised to save you if you trusted Him. Therefore, by definition, if you believe His promise, then you have to believe that you are saved. It's part of the package. It doesn't matter then if later on you stop believing it and start having doubts. You can still remind yourself that at one point you did believe, and that, according to the Bible, is what it takes.

All we have to do to be saved is believe. But, we must believe, and we must only believe.

Maybe Jac.

Maybe belief is a part of conversion.

Maybe there is some level of differentiation between faith and belief in the sense of acceptance and reliance verses intellectual growth and understanding.

Maybe intellectual doubts are part of the process of sanctification and discipleship and a part of Christian growth.

Maybe there's room for doubts and questions being asked that lead to further prayer, study and reliance upon Christ and His Word that is to be expected and encouraged without drawing salvation into question.

I understand the passion of all sides of this debate and I'm trying to follow and understand it as best I can.

I think a lot of the confusion lies in some confusion of terms and some confusion with positional justification verses progressive sanctification.

Those are my thoughts, but I confess I've not digested all of this well enough to make that a debatable argument.

Actually, you have hit on a MAJOR point in the argument - most people regard it as the central disagreement - in the question of the relationship between justification and progressive sanctification.

Regardless, doubts are a form of disbelief, and progressive sanctification is all about learning to trust God more and more with our daily lives. It's easy to trust Him with the big things. It is harder to trust Him with the mundane. This is true on all levels - emotional, spiritual, and intellectual.

So, we come back around to the central issue: salvation is through faith ALONE. Progressive santification is by repentance, commitment, etc., which lead to the increase in our faith in that we are able to believe and trust more and more things about God. To the extent we trust Him more and more, we live more and more godly lives. That, however, is by no means a necessary result of justifcation.

That's my take, anyway . . .

Well, Jac it would seem that we have hit upon another point at which the jury can nicely see the differences in our two views for the purposes of choosing between the two. It would seem that you hold to a position that will not allow you to say that there are levels of belief. You insist that one can only believe (which you would seem to define as accepting something as true with absolutely no reservations whatsoever) or doubt (anything short of believing). If there are levels of belief, or if one can believe something with reservations then you see this problem arising:

If you tie assurance of salvation to "levels of belief," - and these levels fluctuate with doubt - then you can never really know that you are saved, because how, in that scheme, would you know if you REALLY believed?

I suspect that you see this problem arising b/c of the particular definition of "assurance" that you possess....a definition that equates "assurance" to "absolute certainty". It seems to me that the definitions you want to employ are forced and as a result, your own words end up displaying the error in your position. I have already given a couple of examples of this,...here are some more. I had said:
Jac, I am inclined to believe that you refuse to accept the obvious (that one can believe and doubt at the same time) b/c you think that it is a vital plank in your free grace platform,...

to which you replied:

You said that you are inclined to believe that I refuse your position based on a particular motivation, but you actually doubt that proposition because you know there could be other motives. Therefore, you do not actually believe.....

emphasis added by me.

Earlier you had provided this definition of "doubt" from Webster's: "inclination not to believe"
So in one instance you advocate that doubt = inclination not to believe and in the next instance you advocate that inclination to believe = doubt....and so it seems (you just haven't connected the dots yet)that it is your position that inclination not to believe = inclination to believe

This sort of problem should be a red flag to you ....it is a good indication that you are forcing your definitions in order to prop up your free grace platform.

Now, returning to an example I gave, you said in response:

No, you don't believe any more or any less that the Packers will win or lose later in the game. You may stop believing they will win. You may hope they will win. Or, you may have reasons to substantiate your belief that you did not before. Or, perhaps you were using the word "believe" to loosely at the beginning of the game. You didn't "believe" they would win. You might have expected them to win based on certain data.

no Jac, I am pretty sure (btw that's yet another way to say "believe")that I believed that the Packers would win when they were up by 7 with just 2 minutes to go and that I believed even more strongly when they were up by 10 with just 7 seconds to go. Also, I note you say "You might have expected...." I looked up "expectation" at Oxford Online and guess what it said, it defined expectation as "1 belief that something will happen or be the case."...and it defined "expect" as "1 regard as likely to happen. 2 regard (someone) as likely to do or be something. 3 believe that...." It would seem that "to expect" is "to believe". So really, in your last two sentences in the above quote you are arguing: You didn't "believe" they would win. You might have believed that they would win based on certain data....Again, this sort of thing should be a red flag indicating that something about your position is just not right.

I believe that your difficulties stem from your desire to equate belief with absolute certainty. Earlier you had provided a definition of belief from Webster's:

1 a : to have a firm religious faith b : to accept as true, genuine, or real <ideals> <believes>
2 : to have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of something <believe>
3 : to hold an opinion : THINK
transitive verb
1 a : to consider to be true or honest <believe> <you>
2 : to hold as an opinion : SUPPOSE

and then you commented:

Notice that, with exception to believe as it relates to opinion, to believe something is to regard it as true. Uncertainty is not allowed.

emphasis added by me.

where in that definition from Webster's is there any indication that uncertainty is not allowed? "Having a firm conviction" is not the same as "having absolute certainty". Likewise "considering to be true" is not the same as "having absolute certainty".

....your effort to establish that free grace theology allows for an objective assurance of salvation fails b/c your definition of "believe" is wrong and your definition of "objective" is flawed and I suspect your definition of "assurance" is also off.

When I put my faith in Christ for Salvation and everlasting life I believed that I received the gift of salvation...I also had some doubts at the same time as to whether I was correctly understanding what the scriptures stated. I knew that God's word was true, but even so I wondered if obtaining everlasting could be as simple as the bible stated. When I looked back again on the simple promise of John 3:16 I saw that I really did believe in the first place.

Maybe the doubts and belief didn't coexist at the same time but they were certainly occupying the same space at those times.

Here's an example. A structural engineer could tell me that there was a 90 percent chance that my kitchen chair would collapse if sat upon...but I have seen 100 different people sit upon that chair with no problems. So by faith I believe that the chair will hold me too, but not without a little doubt. I blame it on that darn structural engineer.

FFC - what you are saying is fine. Notice that you believed you received salvation. Your doubts were as to whether or not you had understood Scriptures correctly. However, it is fair to say that, on the assumption your understand was correct, you knew you had salvation. Of that, there was no doubt.

This is why I said we can doubt several things, or we can believe something and then doubt it later, or we can doubt one aspect of an idea, but we can never both believe and doubt the same idea at the same time, because to believe something means to regard it as true, whereas to doubt something is to be undecided in something's truthfulness.

Doubt and belief can coexist in the same PERSON, but they cannot be applied to the same idea at the same time.

ttoews: as for your comments, I'll address them in detail when I get off of work tonight. There is some equivocation of terms going on here with reference to semantic ranges, and if we are going to get into that deep of a word study, we may as well get into the Greek and Hebrew, rather than limit ourself to English. I don't have time to do all that right now, though.

God bless

Jac wrote:This is why I said we can doubt several things, or we can believe something and then doubt it later, or we can doubt one aspect of an idea, but we can never both believe and doubt the same idea at the same time, because to believe something means to regard it as true, whereas to doubt something is to be undecided in something's truthfulness.

I can accept that. Doubting one aspect of an ideawas what I was trying to get across. We all have doubts about every decision we make. I think that is healthy and God given...but you're right either we believe something is true of we don't. We could even say that it is possible tobelieve in Christ for Salvation as we walk through the doubts.

As far as the assurance thing. Technically we don't need it to prove evidence of salvation, God saves us and it's case closed, but even a new believer will exhibit some sort of behavior or attitude of the change that have been done in him or her. I have to be honest Jac, if I don't see some sort of change in a person, or see a long pattern of behavior that appears to be contrary to what you expect to see in a new creature in Christ then I have to wonder. You know...if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...ya know what I mean?

As an aside I want you to know that I am enjoying the exchange between you and ttoews. You both know your stuff and you both have some great nuggets of truth that you are bringing to the table. I am learning and that is always a good thing. Keep up the good work and both of you keep your tempers in check.

Jac3510 wrote:ttoews: as for your comments, ....we may as well get into the Greek and Hebrew, rather than limit ourself to English. .....
God bless

believe it or not, I thought of this too...the problem of course is that we will refer to lexica and they will say (for "pisteuvw") something like:
1. to think to be true, to be persuaded of, to credit, place confidence in
a. of the thing believed
1. to credit, have confidence
b. in a moral or religious reference
1. used in the NT of the conviction and trust to which a man is impelled by a certain inner and higher prerogative and law of soul
2. to trust in Jesus or God as able to aid either in obtaining or in doing something: saving faith,

....and so, to explain to us what the Greek "pisteuvw" means, it will use the english "believe" and the like ....and so we are back to disagreeing on the meaning of believe, unless you can show (in a manner superior to what you did with "believe") that "pisteuvw" actually meant "believe w/o any reservations whatsoever".

FFC wrote:As far as the assurance thing. Technically we don't need it to prove evidence of salvation, God saves us and it's case closed, but even a new believer will exhibit some sort of behavior or attitude of the change that have been done in him or her. I have to be honest Jac, if I don't see some sort of change in a person, or see a long pattern of behavior that appears to be contrary to what you expect to see in a new creature in Christ then I have to wonder. You know...if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...ya know what I mean?

Ah, there is so much I would like to say here as it relates to assurance, but most of it I've already covered in the Catholics vs. non-Catholics thread with Byblos and Felgar. Just see my remarks there.

As for your doubting the salvation of a person who bears no fruit, on a human level, I can understand that, but I'd just ask you what Scriptural ground you have for that. I've said it a million times before: don't assume anyone is a believer. Ask them what they have believed, and make your judgment from there.

As an aside I want you to know that I am enjoying the exchange between you and ttoews. You both know your stuff and you both have some great nuggets of truth that you are bringing to the table. I am learning and that is always a good thing. Keep up the good work and both of you keep your tempers in check.

This is the hard part, isn't it . . . it's so hard to keep your cool in the face of heresy!

ttoews: Like I said, if we are going to do a word study, then we will do a word study. Semantic ranges, examinations of the words used in Hebrew and the Greek used to translate them in the LXX, cognates, context, and related words all play a part. I'm pretty sure that I can get everything together tonight . . . we'll see.

FFC wrote:... You know...if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...ya know what I mean?

I think that you mean that you would be inclined to believe that you are observing a duck....but that you have reservations b/c, on some very rare occasions you have been surprised by chickens in duck suits.

FFC, earlier you had asked about Mk 9...tell me, what do you think of Matt 8:
5 When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. 6 "Lord," he said, "my servant lies at home paralyzed and in terrible suffering." 7 Jesus said to him, "I will go and heal him." 8 The centurion replied, "Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. 9 For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, 'Go,' and he goes; and that one, 'Come,' and he comes. I say to my servant, 'Do this,' and he does it." 10 When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, "I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith.

Now doesn't it sound to you like Jesus is saying that this fellow had a level of belief that exceeded the levels of belief that He had found in all others of Israel?

As an aside I want you to know that I am enjoying the exchange between you and ttoews.You both know your stuff and you both have some great nuggets of truth that you are bringing to the table.

thanks

Keep up the good work and both of you keep your tempers in check.

I guess I should use the smiley icons more....I kid around a lot (face to face) but my "kidding" tone may not be obvious with the written post...

ttoews wrote:FFC, earlier you had asked about Mk 9...tell me, what do you think of Matt 8:
5 When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. 6 "Lord," he said, "my servant lies at home paralyzed and in terrible suffering." 7 Jesus said to him, "I will go and heal him." 8 The centurion replied, "Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. 9 For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, 'Go,' and he goes; and that one, 'Come,' and he comes. I say to my servant, 'Do this,' and he does it." 10 When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, "I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith.

It does seem to indicate a strong level of faith. I also like this one:

Mat 15:22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, [thou] Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.


Mat 15:23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.


Mat 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.


Mat 15:25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.


Mat 15:26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast [it] to dogs.


Mat 15:27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.


Mat 15:28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great [is] thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

Jesus said this woman had great faith. So it would seem to me that there are levels of faith. I would also note that it doesn't matter how much faith you have but what you do with what you have. That is what makes faith great.