Evidence for God from Science

Byblos wrote: Read this. Especially the posts about the 2 covenants (or 1 covenant, 2 gospels rather).

Thanks for that, John.

I don’t know about “2 gospels”. What about the gospel of the Kingdom? There’s only one gospel of Salvation. But was there good news about other things? I think we need a thread on this, or else just do it here since we’re here and not intruding on a topic that’s finished.

jlay wrote:

I’m certain that my repenting cannot contribute one jot to my salvation.

I would never say repenting 'contributes'.

But if you’re saying that repentance is a necessary antecedent to belief and thus to salvation, and quoting Scripture in order to back this up, then aren’t you saying that repentance contributes to salvation?

I know you say you believe that repentance is 'a change of mind,'

I surely do.

So give me a concrete example of how you are using repentance as it relates to when you say, "But my salvation sure contributes to my repentance."

Okay I’ll try. Salvation led me to change my mind about my sin. It was not okay to sin anymore. So I repented of my sins. I didn’t “turn away from” my sin. But I did not think it was okay to sin anymore. Repentance is not me turning away from. That’s more of a sanctification, and sanctification is a process that will continue until our bodies are redeemed.

I‘m sorry I missed this, J

jlay wrote: Danny, all scripture is useful. It is an important distinction, and I'm sorry if this has muddied the water. The Gentile gospel is no respecter of persons. Jew and gentile are no different. One's individual, personal salvation.

I agree.

There is a salvation for Israel, the Nation. The Messiah is to restore the Kingdom of God on Earth. Israel is God's chosen people to do this. So, when JTB preached to Israel, 'repent....' it did have a specific context. And perhaps I was hasty in using it as an example of repentance preceding a gentiles conversion.

Thank goodness you say this, J, since this is a position I would expect you to hold. Calling it a “salvation” might confuse some, though.

The RCC thinks they are the Kingdom of God, and thus makes no distinction regarding these uses.

Do they? How do they get to that belief?

DannyM wrote:

The RCC thinks they are the Kingdom of God, and thus makes no distinction regarding these uses.

Do they? How do they get to that belief?

I linked this before.

Dang, we've got about 3 topics going on here.

I don’t know about “2 gospels”. What about the gospel of the Kingdom?

Paul said that he received his gospel not from men, but from direct revelation. He also said that it was a mystery not revealed to the prophets before. Well the expectation of a Messiah for Israel was certainly no secret. Jesus demonstrated this when He opened the scriptures to the disciples. It isn't that salvation is not a central tenet to both. It has to do with God's plans for Israel, His chosen people, whom He will not abandon. The two are not at war. They are God's sovereign plans being fulfilled.

Calling it a “salvation” might confuse some, though.

We shouldn't avoid these terms when they are right and used in the scriptures themselves. We need to elevate our understanding, not dumb it down. (I know you're not advocating this. I'm just making a broad statement.) The bible refers to salvation in different context, some of which are personal salvation to eternal life, some which have a different application. Just as the each time the word 'baptism' is used doesn't mean water is involved.

Do they? How do they get to that belief?

I was hasty in that, because what I was driving at was that the RCC doesn't make the distinction in the pre-cross gospel that was preached by JTB and Jesus, and the gospel that Paul was given to preach to the gentiles. Not to take a pot shot at the RCC.

But if you’re saying that repentance is a necessary antecedent to belief and thus to salvation, and quoting Scripture in order to back this up, then aren’t you saying that repentance contributes to salvation?

It's all in the semantics. The words contribute and necessary are not interchangeable in this way. Nor do I think the way you are using contribute is reflective of what is taking plce. We already know that Christ is drawing all men to Himself. No one can be saved apart from the grace that God has already worked.
Let's look at it another way. Let's say that you meet an agnostic. You start a dialogue and over time your conversations direct this person to change their mind about the existence of God and eventually to trust Christ. Did you 'contribute?' In a way. Did you add anything to the work of Christ? No.

Salvation led me to change my mind about my sin. It was not okay to sin anymore. So I repented of my sins. I didn’t “turn away from” my sin. But I did not think it was okay to sin anymore.

OK, lets break it down. You are saying that your salvation led you to change your mind. I have no question that as believers that we are constantly led by the Holy Spirit to renew our minds. So, we are totally on the same page regarding sanctification. I don't see how your example contradicts what I am speaking about. So let's go back to your salvation. What were you trusting Christ to save you from when you were saved? What was your 'salvation' from?
It sounds to me as if you are saying that you didn't see the need of forgiveness and redemption until afterwards. It seems perplexing that someone would call on Christ as savior and yet be unaware that sin is what they are being saved from. Can you elaborate.

my point is to recognise Paul was among Jews and Greeks.

Of course. Gal 3:28 Romans 10:10-13

J, I’m asking about dispensationalist soon on another thread so will continue this over there, and get back to repentance here.

Let's say that you meet an agnostic. You start a dialogue and over time your conversations direct this person to change their mind about the existence of God and eventually to trust Christ. Did you 'contribute?' In a way. Did you add anything to the work of Christ? No.

The agnostic is a non-believer and doesn’t know anything. I think this is where we are locked, J. I don’t think that non-belief is a state of mind. The mind is not at a ‘state’ when we talk of a non-belief. You can say “my mind is passive on the subject” and call that a
state of mind. But I don‘t see this. The inactive mind is not a ‘state’ of mind, apart from a state of inactivity. I hope I’m not arguing too semantically here.

But anyway, granting the example, and since repentance is not a stipulation to salvation, then no I would not have added anything to the work of Christ.

OK, lets break it down. You are saying that your salvation led you to change your mind.

Yes. Of course I repented from nominal belief to real belief prior to my salvation, but this didn’t save me. Belief in and the faith of Christ saved me.

I have no question that as believers that we are constantly led by the Holy Spirit to renew our minds. So, we are totally on the same page regarding sanctification. I don't see how your example contradicts what I am speaking about. So let's go back to your salvation. What were you trusting Christ to save you from when you were saved? What was your 'salvation' from?

I trust Christ to save me from hell and give me life. To save me from myself.

It sounds to me as if you are saying that you didn't see the need of forgiveness and redemption until afterwards. It seems perplexing that someone would call on Christ as savior and yet be unaware that sin is what they are being saved from. Can you elaborate.

Sounds odd. But knowing Christ was what helped me understand the necessity to repent of my sins. But whether repentance occurs before, after or during one’s salvation, the verdict appears to be that repentance isn’t a necessary antecedent to salvation in Christ.

Byblos wrote:

DannyM wrote:

The RCC thinks they are the Kingdom of God, and thus makes no distinction regarding these uses.

Do they? How do they get to that belief?

I linked this before.

Thanks, Byblos.

I trust Christ to save me from hell and give me life. To save me from myself.

Danny, I promise if you approach this without trying to win the argument, you will see what I'm saying.
How did you come to know your were in need of saving. Why were you going to Hell? How did you come to see 'yourself' as the problem?

You obviously at some point became persuaded that Hell was real, that you were going there, and were in need of saving. Why were you going to Hell?

The agnostic is a non-believer and doesn’t know anything. I think this is where we are locked, J.

That's because you are using an extremely narrow definition that supports your conclusions. An agnostic is not an ignoramus per se. They certainly can be.
"Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable. Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions.
Under this common definition the agnostic isn't saying they don't know the claims of the Bible, etc., but claim that discovering religious truth is unknowable. Guess what they have to repent of? This position. If they do not, how do you propose they could be saved?
This example is not universal but specific. But I could give you hundreds of other scenarios. You could substitute agnostic, for atheist, Buddhist, Mormon, or any worldview for that matter.

If I say a person must exist to be saved, am I adding a stipulation to salvation? Yes, in a sense. Let's not be so dogmatic that we redefine what faith alone salvation really means at the core.

jlay wrote: Danny, I promise if you approach this without trying to win the argument, you will see what I'm saying.

Bit of a cheap shot that. I couldn’t give a brass farthing about winning the argument. I didn’t know there would be a “winner” since we’re on the same side.

How did you come to know your were in need of saving. Why were you going to Hell? How did you come to see 'yourself' as the problem?

I came to know by believing in Christ. I’m open to probing the subconscious because I distinctly recall the wonder I felt, that Christ had suffered horrendously so that I might have life. I can understand some subconscious repentance from a nihilism, perhaps.

You obviously at some point became persuaded that Hell was real, that you were going there, and were in need of saving. Why were you going to Hell?

At what point? Do you remember the point when you realised there was a hell? I don’t. I don’t remember these conscious thoughts prior to my belief. I don’t remember going,

There probably is no hell
//read Scripture//
I’m a sinner
There is a hell
I repent
I believe in Christ

I do remember something along the lines of,

There probably is no hell
//read Scripture//
I believe in Christ
I’m a sinner
There is a hell
I repent

Now what if it happened to me the complete other way round? Would it change what I’m saying about salvation? well, no.

That's because you are using an extremely narrow definition that supports your conclusions. An agnostic is not an ignoramus per se. They certainly can be.

Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.

Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions.

Under this common definition the agnostic isn't saying they don't know the claims of the Bible, etc., but claim that discovering religious truth is unknowable.

Guess what they have to repent of? This position. If they do not, how do you propose they could be saved?

You’re right. I repent. I have been too hard on agnosticism.

This example is not universal but specific. But I could give you hundreds of other scenarios. You could substitute agnostic, for atheist, Buddhist, Mormon, or any worldview for that matter.

Yes and it’s repentance all round.

If I say a person must exist to be saved, am I adding a stipulation to salvation? Yes, in a sense. Let's not be so dogmatic that we redefine what faith alone salvation really means at the core.

You’re missing the point. It is obviously a necessity. But this is not adding a stipulation since it is not biblical. Likewise repentance does not appear to be a biblical stipulation to salvation in Christ. If it’s not stated biblically, then it cannot be a stipulation. So you can say to any person anything you like in order for them to be saved. I’d say to the person to see what Scripture says about salvation.

You’re making the mistake of thinking I hate this idea of a necessary repentance prior to belief. I couldn’t be more indifferent as far as any implications you think I might see from the idea.

All along I have said that I don’t believe Scripture stipulates a repentance as necessary prior to belief for our salvation. If every Christian on the face of the earth repented before they believed, this wouldn’t change this

I came to know by believing in Christ. I’m open to probing the subconscious because I distinctly recall the wonder I felt, that Christ had suffered horrendously so that I might have life. I can understand some subconscious repentance from a nihilism, perhaps.

Not taking cheap shots Danny. Jesus certainly didn't die to save us from annihilation. I get the impression that you are determined to refuse to acknowledge some things because of how it would support my position. That's fine. I admit I could be wrong. But statements like the above just don't seem logically consistent too me. I obviously can't argue with your experience. You were obviously aware that Christ suffered, but at the same time seem to state that there was no reality as to what He suffered for. Many people suffered terrible deaths on a cross. Why would Jesus' save you from anything? You obviously turned (mentally) to Christ in faith. Yet somehow you didn't turn from anything.

At what point? Do you remember the point when you realised there was a hell? I don’t.

I didn't ask you exact time? Only said, 'at some point. I asked why? So, it would seem to say, that you were going to Hell but didn't know why? That Jesus died, but you didn't know what for. I talked to a 5 year old yesterday, who was able to tell me why there was a Hell, and why someone would go there. And what/who Jesus died for? He placed his trust in Christ to be his savior.

Anyway, although it's been frustrating, it's been fun. Again, no cheap shots. Just my honest, candid opinion.

jlay wrote:
Not taking cheap shots Danny. Jesus certainly didn't die to save us from annihilation.

I never said He did. I said I certainly changed my mind from a nihilistic viewpoint.

I get the impression that you are determined to refuse to acknowledge some things because of how it would support my position.

Absolutely not, J. I may be stubborn and enjoy an argument, but the stubbornness will soon subside if I think I’m wrong; and I’m very far from afraid to admit I’m wrong on something. If I’ve been shown wrong I’m pretty sure I’ve always been prepared to concede so.

That's fine. I admit I could be wrong. But statements like the above just don't seem logically consistent too me. I obviously can't argue with your experience. You were obviously aware that Christ suffered, but at the same time seem to state that there was no reality as to what He suffered for. Many people suffered terrible deaths on a cross. Why would Jesus' save you from anything? You obviously turned (mentally) to Christ in faith. Yet somehow you didn't turn from anything.

Tell you what, for argument sake, let’s just agree that a repentance precedes every believers belief. Let me grant that here. The more we talk and the more I think about it I am actually leaning more towards you on this. My original argument is that it is not a biblical requirement stipulated for our salvation. I’m afraid that since you haven’t shown otherwise then I’ll have to stand firm on that. But as I say, the more I think about this the more I think you might be right that, whatever the biblical case, it does seem difficult to imagine some sort of repentance not occurring prior to one’s salvation. I’ll think more privately about it to confirm with myself. And I’ll pray that, if I’m wrong, God will forgive me for causing any offence to or for any undermining of Christ’s work on the cross.

At what point? Do you remember the point when you realised there was a hell? I don’t.

I didn't ask you exact time? Only said, 'at some point. I asked why? So, it would seem to say, that you were going to Hell but didn't know why? That Jesus died, but you didn't know what for. I talked to a 5 year old yesterday, who was able to tell me why there was a Hell, and why someone would go there. And what/who Jesus died for? He placed his trust in Christ to be his savior.

Yeah, I still see the subconscious and conscious intertwined somewhat here.

Nice to be compared to a 5 year old, J. Looks like I didn’t come out well…

Anyway, although it's been frustrating, it's been fun. Again, no cheap shots. Just my honest, candid opinion.

And thank the Lord for that. I always expect candidness from you, J, you’d be missing something without it.

God Bless

Nice to be compared to a 5 year old, J. Looks like I didn’t come out well…

LOl, I wish you could meet this 5 year old. I assure you, this kid is just a blessing. From the mouths of babes as they say. What it teaches me is that they gospel is simple enough for a child to grasp. I have older kids I work with, who have no conceptualization, when it comes to these matters. Even teens and adults. We just can't manipulate God's timing.

Regarding the subconscious. Good point, as a lot of things we "believe" in may not be decided consciously, or in our inner-monologue.

jlay wrote:

Nice to be compared to a 5 year old, J. Looks like I didn’t come out well…

LOl, I wish you could meet this 5 year old. I assure you, this kid is just a blessing. From the mouths of babes as they say. What it teaches me is that they gospel is simple enough for a child to grasp. I have older kids I work with, who have no conceptualization, when it comes to these matters. Even teens and adults. We just can't manipulate God's timing.

LOL...do you think the boy has his presupps down already?

Regarding the subconscious. Good point, as a lot of things we "believe" in may not be decided consciously, or in our inner-monologue.

Absolutely, and I'm trying in vain to separate or connect the two...either way...but it can 'do' one's brain in...

Hey, just a quick glance at some subjects, and I just want to note something. Repentance does not contribute to salvation at all, but by repenting you are telling God that you would accept his gift of grace. It is God that is doing the work of saving you (made possible by the cross), but repenting and turning to him is the step that you need to take to show him your choice.

kmr wrote:Hey, just a quick glance at some subjects, and I just want to note something. Repentance does not contribute to salvation at all, but by repenting you are telling God that you would accept his gift of grace. It is God that is doing the work of saving you (made possible by the cross), but repenting and turning to him is the step that you need to take to show him your choice.

God is omiscient isn't He? God doesn't "need" to see anything from us to demonstrate our choice. Perhaps it's something "we need."

In any event, soteriology at this level turns salvation into a mechanical system. While mechanics can be helpful to understand how something progresses or moves from point A to point B, Jesus and New Testament speaks of us in organic living terms and speaks of moving from death to life by means of what Jesus accomplished on the cross, by His Resurrection and then by the pouring out of His Holy Spirit. Repentance is more than simply regretting our past and recognizing our sin. It involves turning from it, but more than that it involves who (or what) we turn toward. The seal that it has taken place is the presence of the Holy Spirit in our lives.

Wrestling with these issues often comes from trying to reduce a living system into it's invidual parts and analyzing it to a level that if you allow the anaology, in effect pins the living elements to a dissecting board where the elements are understood and examined but the living element in effect dies. That's something we're prone to in the west and with a western mindframe.