Evidence for God from Science

Perhaps you can help me understand better what you are asking. Because, I'm questioning whether that is a valid question in relation to what we are discussing. Or, maybe I am not understanding how you are defining faith. As if faith is something that is acquired. The ability to faith is within every man. Planted by God. But that is not the act of faith itself. No more than the brain is the abstract concept of knowledge. So the ability to faith is by God. The act of faith is within the will of man.
You are not going to get any argument from me that faith is impossible apart from God. Jesus is the object of our faith. Without Him, there is nothing to faith, nothing to place one's faith in.

The ability to have faith is already there, as God has given each man a measure of faith. Just as he has given him a brain to acquire knowledge. How one responds to the knowledge is what one does with the ability they already have.

Example. To those that received Him (action on part of the person) To those that believed (action on part of the person) on His name (Object of faith), He gave the right to become children of God. (An outcome already settled before the person responds in faith)

jlay wrote:Perhaps you can help me understand better what you are asking. Because, I'm questioning whether that is a valid question in relation to what we are discussing. Or, maybe I am not understanding how you are defining faith. As if faith is something that is acquired. The ability to faith is within every man. Planted by God. But that is not the act of faith itself. No more than the brain is the abstract concept of knowledge. So the ability to faith is by God. The act of faith is within the will of man.
You are not going to get any argument from me that faith is impossible apart from God. Jesus is the object of our faith. Without Him, there is nothing to faith, nothing to place one's faith in.

The ability to have faith is already there, as God has given each man a measure of faith. Just as he has given him a brain to acquire knowledge. How one responds to the knowledge is what one does with the ability they already have.

Example. To those that received Him (action on part of the person) To those that believed (action on part of the person) on His name (Object of faith), He gave the right to become children of God. (An outcome already settled before the person responds in faith)

Perhaps we're stating the same thing (or that we're venturing into a new topic, I don't know) but to sum it up I believe that even faith is gift from God, without which one cannot come to Him. Otherwise (if faith is not a gift) then it must be attributable to man, no matter how small or intellectual (i.e. salvation by one's own measures, works). If faith is also a gift, the question then becomes why do some people have faith and others don't. Apologists have been attempting to answer that question for quite some time; I haven't heard a satisfactory answer just yet.

I would see the capacity for faith and the act of faith as two different things.
And I certainly don't see a reason to attribute this is as 'works.' Faith is a response to a work. The finished work of Christ. Just as someone who 'receives' a gift, didn't earn it by extending their arms and taking it. No one is earning salvation when they believe (faith) on Christ Jesus.

If faith, that being believing on Christ, were not attributable to man, then how could one be saved or condemned?
I think the lack of satisfactory answer may relate to how faith is being used in the original question. That is why I was thrown when you said, "how is it acquired?" You can't acquire a response action. To me, the question doesn't rightfully speak to the nature of faith to begin with. And thus will likely never lead to a satisfactory answer.

That same word faith, Pisteuo, is also used in the scriptures as the verb believe. A response action. And this how salvation is referred to in the bible.

jlay wrote:If faith, that being believing on Christ, were not attributable to man, then how could one be saved or condemned?

God has revealed certain truths and the instrument by which we believe those truths is faith, which in and of itself is a divine virtue, not an intellectual assent attributable to man. That would boarder on Pelagianism (if not the very definition of).

Pelagianism? I'm sorry, but I don't see that at all. Pelagianism teaches that moral perfection is attainable without divine aid, but through human will. In essence is rejects the depravity of man, but also the grace of God. This doesn't agree with that at all. Nor does this position agree with Pelagianism on the doctrine of original sin. For one, I would contend that it would be impossible for man to find God, if God were not reaching out to man. Wesley described this as prevenient grace. (Although I am not an Armenianist) Pelagianism says that man can find God without God. I've already stated that the capacity for faith is from God. Also, the fact that God is speaking to us through the creation and the conscious would oppose Pelangianism.

I would agree that faith is not merely an intellectual ascent, as I have made that case many times here on G&S. But I would also contend that it can't be seperated from the intellect, even though it requires a submitting of the intellect. God does say that we are to love Him with our heart, soul and MIND. So, faith isn't abandoning the mind, put subjecting it to the grace work. Nor is faith merely evidence stacking or information gathering. It is most certainly a move of the heart, but not one that leaves the mind in the ditch. Faith isn't merely an intellectual thumbs up to the biblical Jesus, but a response of the heart, sould and and mind to the message and work of Christ. John 5:24, John 3:18

I think John the Baptist says this best. “A person can receive only what is given them from heaven." John 3:27
You can't receive a gift unless someone has given it to you. What is given is the grace part. The receiving is the faith part.
Faith is not grace. It seems as if you are ascribing the nature of grace to the repsonse of faith. And I see the bible being careful to distinquish the grace of God, from the faith of man. Yes faith is impossible without God. That naturally flows. Just as their is nothing to receive without a gift and a giver.

There are simply too many uses of the word pisteuo in the NT to be able to ascribe it to something other than one's willing repsonse, as opposed to something completely seperate from the will of man.
What you are hinting at is best defined by hyper-calvinism, which I think there is good reason to reject. That faith is completely outside the will of man. In other words, man doesn't actually have the free will to receive or reject what God has done. God has selected who will be saved and who will be condemned. And so, man is literally without a voice in his own fate. Too me this would imply that there is not really a receiving of Christ.

jlay wrote:Pelagianism? I'm sorry, but I don't see that at all. Pelagianism teaches that moral perfection is attainable without divine aid, but through human will. In essence is rejects the depravity of man, but also the grace of God. This doesn't agree with that at all. Nor does this position agree with Pelagianism on the doctrine of original sin. For one, I would contend that it would be impossible for man to find God, if God were not reaching out to man. Wesley described this as prevenient grace. (Although I am not an Armenianist) Pelagianism says that man can find God without God. I've already stated that the capacity for faith is from God. Also, the fact that God is speaking to us through the creation and the conscious would oppose Pelangianism.

I would agree that faith is not merely an intellectual ascent, as I have made that case many times here on G&S. But I would also contend that it can't be seperated from the intellect, even though it requires a submitting of the intellect. God does say that we are to love Him with our heart, soul and MIND. So, faith isn't abandoning the mind, put subjecting it to the grace work. Nor is faith merely evidence stacking or information gathering. It is most certainly a move of the heart, but not one that leaves the mind in the ditch. Faith isn't merely an intellectual thumbs up to the biblical Jesus, but a response of the heart, sould and and mind to the message and work of Christ. John 5:24, John 3:18

I think John the Baptist says this best. “A person can receive only what is given them from heaven." John 3:37
You can't receive a gift unless someone has given it to you. What is given is the grace part. The receiving is the faith part.
Faith is not grace. It seems as if you are ascribing the nature of grace to the repsonse of faith. And I see the bible being careful to distinquish the grace of God, from the faith of man. Yes faith is impossible without God. That naturally flows. Just as their is nothing to receive without a gift and a giver.

There are simply too many uses of the word pisteuo in the NT to be able to ascribe it to something other than one's willing repsonse, as opposed to something completely seperate from the will of man.
What you are hinting at is best defined by hyper-calvinism, which I think there is good reason to reject. That faith is completely outside the will of man. In other words, man doesn't actually have the free will to receive or reject what God has done. God has selected who will be saved and who will be condemned. And so, man is literally without a voice in his own fate. Too me this would imply that there is not really a receiving of Christ.

Many elements of what you said I would very much agree with, and for the record, I am certainly not advocating hyper-calvinism in so much as man's cooperation with saving faith is an essential component of the salvation process. What I am attempting is to make a distinction between faith as an act (a response) as opposed to being a virtue (a gift). If as you say faith is a response (an act, though not merely an intellectual assent) then let me ask you a question: what makes one person better equipped to respond positively to the gift of grace and another person not? What is the difference, the cause, the driving force if you wish between those 2 responses and their vastly different outcomes vis a vis salvation?

what makes one person better equipped to respond positively to the gift of grace and another person not?

Certainly an interesting question. Not one that I would have an answer for off the top of my head. I do have some issue with the wording, 'better equipped.' People of faith come from every background imaginable. The only distinction the bible makes is between those who believe or don't believe. At least as far as I am aware in my study. One doesn't need be a bible scholar to receive Christ. And one can have all the scholorship in the world, and yet not receive Him. So, I wouldn't think that it is an issue of one being better equipped.

jlay wrote:

what makes one person better equipped to respond positively to the gift of grace and another person not?

Certainly an interesting question. Not one that I would have an answer for off the top of my head. I do have some issue with the wording, 'better equipped.' People of faith come from every background imaginable. The only distinction the bible makes is between those who believe or don't believe. At least as far as I am aware in my study. One doesn't need be a bible scholar to receive Christ. And one can have all the scholorship in the world, and yet not receive Him. So, I wouldn't think that it is an issue of one being better equipped.

I have the same issue (with the underlined), hence my arguing that man is not equipped with anything of his own to make him responsible for choosing God or not (1 Cor 4:7 comes to mind). We are not saved by grace and that's it. We are saved by grace through faith, and neither of which is from us (Eph 2:8).

Byb,
To be honest, I'm really having a hard time understanding your position completely. But, you got me thinking. Particularly on how the word faith is used in the NT.

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God

Let's take this verse. I think I see how you are reading this. What you are doing is ascribing the word faith with 'not of yourselves. And I don't really have a problem with that. I think the issue may be in how Paul uses the noun faith, verses the verb, which is often translated 'believe.' In an earlier post, you asked how is faith acquired. Now, had you asked, "how is grace acquired?" I would have a simple answer. Just as Paul did. Through faith. But because of the way you are lumping the two together, I think this is where our Christian worldviews may differ. And I am not saying you are wrong. It's certainly stimulated me to study the issue deeper. I am looking at the overall use of the noun and verb faith.

The difference would be that I see the wording describing "Salvation" as the gift. And of course I won't deny that Paul includes the noun faith in that same line of thought. If we evaluate as you say, then we really have to examine the word usage. Is this the more abstract usage of the noun faith, as is used to describe the embodient of the Christian Faith?
Example: "Convinced of this, I know thatI will remain and continue with you all for your progress and joy in the faith." Phil 1:25 However, I don't see that this fits with the context of the verse. I would see it as the description of the act of believing. I'll give an example of a verse that I think captures both the noun and the verb. And this is how I see the noun being used in Eph. 2:8
Galatians 3:22
"But Scripture has locked up everything under the control of sin, so that what was promised, being given (gift) through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe."

I would point out again JTB's statement, that you can't receive what hasn't been given. The verb, faith, is impossible apart from someone or something to place it into. You wouldn't see someone receiving a gift, and grant them any credit as having been responsible for the gift would you? You wouldn't view them as the giver. As if they bought it, wrapped it, presented it? Just as I would see it as utterly foolish to claim credit for the time that I responded to Christ in faith. In that regard I can perhaps see what you are saying. And please don't think that I am saying that anyone can boast because they have faith, verses one who does not. A person who has faith isn't better than one without. Just better off. I don't think anyone who is soundly saved would try to take credit for faith as if it is some personal accomplishment. Not legitimately anyway. Sadly, there are people that do this very thing. That is actually one of the issues I have with the evidential apologetics. But that is a different topic.

Again, my biggest contention is where I see you ascribing attributes of grace to the response of faith. That being the verb, believing. So, let's clarify. Are you saying that faith (beliveing) is not a cooperative response to the work of Christ? But is something implanted, or done in spight of our will? Or, are you saying something else?

Also, let me make this clear. I agree that a man is not equipped on his own to exercise faith. God has provided him with everything he needs to accpet or reject. To believe or not to believe. That is the question! Man has the capacity for faith, heart, soul and mind. He has the object of faith. He has the reason for faith. (These are all from God) But, I wouldn't say he has the obligation of faithing/beleiving/trusting. We apparently disagree with how faith is implemented. I'm just not understanding your true position.

Interesting that I read 1 cor 4 this morning in my devotion time. A proper exegesis shows the context being Paul's correction of the Corinthians for creating divisions based on who they follow, Paul, Apollos, or Peter. So, I fail to see how this applies to what you are arguing.

Anyway, you got my brain going. So, props for that.

Since we are into pondering faith here is food for thought:

God designed us to be creatures of faith, for without it, we could not fall in love...
-
-
-

jlay wrote:Byb,
To be honest, I'm really having a hard time understanding your position completely. But, you got me thinking. Particularly on how the word faith is used in the NT.

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God

Let's take this verse. I think I see how you are reading this. What you are doing is ascribing the word faith with 'not of yourselves. And I don't really have a problem with that. I think the issue may be in how Paul uses the noun faith, verses the verb, which is often translated 'believe.' In an earlier post, you asked how is faith acquired. Now, had you asked, "how is grace acquired?" I would have a simple answer. Just as Paul did. Through faith. But because of the way you are lumping the two together, I think this is where our Christian worldviews may differ. And I am not saying you are wrong. It's certainly stimulated me to study the issue deeper. I am looking at the overall use of the noun and verb faith.

The difference would be that I see the wording describing "Salvation" as the gift. And of course I won't deny that Paul includes the noun faith in that same line of thought. If we evaluate as you say, then we really have to examine the word usage. Is this the more abstract usage of the noun faith, as is used to describe the embodient of the Christian Faith?
Example: "Convinced of this, I know thatI will remain and continue with you all for your progress and joy in the faith." Phil 1:25 However, I don't see that this fits with the context of the verse. I would see it as the description of the act of believing. I'll give an example of a verse that I think captures both the noun and the verb. And this is how I see the noun being used in Eph. 2:8
Galatians 3:22
"But Scripture has locked up everything under the control of sin, so that what was promised, being given (gift) through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe."

I would point out again JTB's statement, that you can't receive what hasn't been given. The verb, faith, is impossible apart from someone or something to place it into. You wouldn't see someone receiving a gift, and grant them any credit as having been responsible for the gift would you? You wouldn't view them as the giver. As if they bought it, wrapped it, presented it? Just as I would see it as utterly foolish to claim credit for the time that I responded to Christ in faith. In that regard I can perhaps see what you are saying. And please don't think that I am saying that anyone can boast because they have faith, verses one who does not. A person who has faith isn't better than one without. Just better off. I don't think anyone who is soundly saved would try to take credit for faith as if it is some personal accomplishment. Not legitimately anyway. Sadly, there are people that do this very thing. That is actually one of the issues I have with the evidential apologetics. But that is a different topic.

Again, my biggest contention is where I see you ascribing attributes of grace to the response of faith. That being the verb, believing. So, let's clarify. Are you saying that faith (beliveing) is not a cooperative response to the work of Christ? But is something implanted, or done in spight of our will? Or, are you saying something else?

Also, let me make this clear. I agree that a man is not equipped on his own to exercise faith. God has provided him with everything he needs to accpet or reject. To believe or not to believe. That is the question! Man has the capacity for faith, heart, soul and mind. He has the object of faith. He has the reason for faith. (These are all from God) But, I wouldn't say he has the obligation of faithing/beleiving/trusting. We apparently disagree with how faith is implemented. I'm just not understanding your true position.

Interesting that I read 1 cor 4 this morning in my devotion time. A proper exegesis shows the context being Paul's correction of the Corinthians for creating divisions based on who they follow, Paul, Apollos, or Peter. So, I fail to see how this applies to what you are arguing.

Anyway, you got my brain going. So, props for that.

J,

Yet again I have hardly anything to disagree with what you posted above. Still I have this nagging feeling that we do somehow fundamentally disagree but I can't pinpoint it specifically. Galatians 3:22 is an excellent example of what I'm trying to convey:

"But Scripture has locked up everything under the control of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe."

Notice how a distinction is made in the underlined statements. On the one hand a gift is given through faith, and on the other this gift is accepted by cooperative belief. It's almost as if Paul is going to great lengths to make this distinction between faith and belief for if they were one and the same (or one is the verb and the other is the noun but describing the same thing) then the second sentence would be redundant wouldn't it? If we were to replace the verb 'believe' by its noun 'faith' in the second sentence you would see what I'm talking about: "But Scripture has locked up everything under the control of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who have faith.". See what I mean? The only way 'faith' and 'believe' would not be redundant is if they pointed to different things and that being that faith is a virtue infused by God and belief is the cooperating process.

I'd hate to always provide links from Catholic sites but unfortunately I can't find any other sources that would describe in detail what I'm talking about so here they are for whatever they're worth:
The characteristics of faith
Whether faith is infused into man by God

Jlay wrote:Again, my biggest contention is where I see you ascribing attributes of grace to the response of faith. That being the verb, believing. So, let's clarify. Are you saying that faith (beliveing) is not a cooperative response to the work of Christ? But is something implanted, or done in spight of our will? Or, are you saying something else?

I hope it's clearer now that what I'm saying is that faith and belief are two different things (perhaps as in 2 sides of the same coin), one being a virtue infused into us by God (so it is not a response, intellectual or otherwise) and belief is the cooperative process by which faith is manifested and grace is infused.

Jlay wrote:Interesting that I read 1 cor 4 this morning in my devotion time. A proper exegesis shows the context being Paul's correction of the Corinthians for creating divisions based on who they follow, Paul, Apollos, or Peter. So, I fail to see how this applies to what you are arguing.

Of course but its applicability is broader wouldn't you say? If anything 1 Cor 4:7 bolsters the argument that we are saved apart from anything within us, not even faith. That's the point I was trying to make.

Jlay wrote:Anyway, you got my brain going. So, props for that.