Evidence for God from Science

narnia4 wrote:Yeah I edited my post further and agree with you. I think you could simplify things further but risk misunderstanding. My own distinction (and its maybe misleading, I don't know) is that simple faith in Christ saves (so in that sense any "saving faith" and "non-saving faith" could lend one to confusion), but mere intellectual assent isn't the whole picture of faith.

I think that FROM Faith in Christ ( a faith given by the HS IMO), we can get a "intellectual faith", which we use in our apologetics.
I think that some can even come to faith in Christ based on the intellectual arguments but even under those circumstances it is my belief that the HS is what opens our mind to allow that faith.

PaulSacramento wrote:Faith when I get on a plane in the pilot and the plane is NOT the same as the faith I put in Christ.
So yes, to ME, there is a difference.

You trust one, you trust the other. What is the difference? Trust is trust. The only difference is what you are trusting for, which is directly related to the nature of the object you are putting your faith in. So I would argue that your faith in the plane is exactly like your faith in Christ. The difference is what the plane does for you (gets you from one city to another) and what Christ does for you (saves your soul). Again, the "type" of faith is not in question here. The object of faith is.

Not a calvinist so...

Regardless, if you hold that there are different types of faith, then I put the challenge to you. Show me one verse anywhere in Scripture that distinguishes types of faith. Show me one verse that uses a phrase like "false faith" or "spurious faith."

I am not saying we need a "special" grace from Christ to have faith, I am saying that in practical terms, it's very hard to have one without the other.
You can disagree of course, but from my POV, that is hoe I see it personally.

And I gave multiple examples as to why it is not hard to make the distinction on practical terms. I appreciate that this is your personal opinion, but shy of any scriptural support for your opinion, it holds no weight--anymore than mine does. My own scriptural support lies in verses like Eph 2:8-10. We are saved by grace through faith. There is no qualification here of the type of one type of faith versus another, for faith is not even what saves. Grace is. Faith is not the gift. Nor is grace. Salvation is. So salvation is a gift that we receive by grace. That is received through the means of our faith. The Bible nowhere calls faith a gift. So those who argue that there are different types of faith or that faith is a gift of God or that we have to receive a grace to have have faith are going beyond Scripture and, I contend, adding to it, and therefore, I submit are teaching a different Gospel.

narnia4 wrote:I had a post written out but it is, I think, a bit confusing. A Calvinist might point to <a target="_blank" data-version="nasb95" data-reference="James 2.14-26" class="lbsBibleRef" href="http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/James%202.14-26">James 2:14-26</a> for a picture of "dead faith". Or <a target="_blank" data-version="nasb95" data-reference="2 Timothy 3.5" class="lbsBibleRef" href="http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/2%20Timothy%203.5">2 Timothy 3:5</a>. Although I think (hope) a Calvinist would agree that faith in Christ simply is a saving faith.

There is some measure of controversy among Calvinists about these things as well.

Could a person grant that all the propositions of the Bible are true without being saved? Without relying on Christ alone? Without actually putting his faith in Christ? If he can, this is what Calvinists would mean by a non-saving faith (as even the demons believe and shudder). But I think you could also say that they aren't really talking about different "types" of faith, unless "no faith" is a type. It isn't types like blue and red are different colors.

I'm sure they would, but James 2:13-26 doesn't say anything about there being different types of faith. It doesn't distinguish between "true" and "false" faith. It merely asks if the professed faith of a person who has no works can save them. James does not calls such faith spurious or false. He calls it useless and dead. I've also argued extensively that "save" in this verse does not even mean "saved from Hell" as is commonly assumed. If you look at all the other instances of the use of the word in James (there are five total), you'll see that in each case, it refers to salvation from death. Likewise, we make a mistake when we take his use of the word "justify" later in that passage in a Pauline sense. Remember that Paul wrote long after James, so we ought not read Paul's theology back into James! Instead, we ought to read the word in its normal, non-technical sense of vindication. So such an appeal by Calvinists and others who propose that there are different kinds of faith would fail for multiple reasons.

2 Tim 3:5, likewise, makes no claim to different kinds of faith. It says that there are forms of godliness, but no one would say that a form of godliness is equal to faith and therefore that there are different faiths.

I want to emphasize this. The Bible does not distinguish between kinds of faith. Therefore, those that rest their theology on that distinction are resting their theology on a completely non-biblical concept.

Finally, I'd point out that I agree with you that intellectual assent is not the same thing as faith. In fact, the Greek language had a word for intellectual assent (peitho--although, I should point out that, language being what it is, peitho also could refer to other concepts we identify by different English words, i.e., obedience). The biblical words for faith--pistis in the NT and aman in the OT--both have the idea of trusting or relying upon something deemed steadfast. So to place our faith in Christ is to deem Him steadfast or capable of doing what He promised He would do, and that because of who He is. And, again, I would point out that there is no reason to believe that humans cannot regard Christ as steadfast without some special grace of God anymore than to say that they cannot regard an airplane steadfast without some special grace of God. Calvinists who appeal to total depravity to make that argument err in that their view requires them to invent a category of faith ("spurious faith") that is completely foreign to, and in fact contradicted by, Scripture. Their appeal to Augustine (by looking to his notion of the bondage of the will) only compounds their error. For Augustine himself taught that the will cooperated with God's grace in placing faith in Christ. If the Calvinist interpretation of Augustine is right, then Augustine himself was not an Augustinian but instead a (semi)Pelagian--the very people he was writing to oppose!

So I continue to hold out my challenge. I want to see one verse anywhere in Scripture that claims that there are different kinds of faith. It does not exist, and therefore, I want to know why Calvinists think that their non-biblical category is one we should accept (especially when it is flatly contradicted by many passages, John 12:42 providing only one such example). The claim that faith is a gift is equally flawed since, again, there is absolutely no verse that says as much.

Jac3510 wrote: Finally, I'd point out that I agree with you that intellectual assent is not the same thing as faith. In fact, the Greek language had a word for intellectual assent (peitho

Well that's what I'm saying, that (at least for many Calvinists) they aren't talking about different kinds/types of faiths like different species of animals or assuming some sort of equal footing. They are saying that there is "dead" faith like James talks about (whether or not that refers to salvation, I don't think that really effects this particular point, although your assertion is very controversial) or "intellectual assent" (belief), but not "putting your trust" in Christ. More verses used to illustrate this are Matthew 7: 21-23 (and the parable of the soils, actually John 12:42 is a verse Calvinists cite in support of their position). If you have a generous interpretation of the point being made, it should be non-controversial. Surely there are those who believe they are saved but have put their faith in something other than Christ? That could be called a false faith.

As far as the rest of the total depravity stuff.... yeaaah, not in this thread for me. Same with the "is faith a gift from God" thing, don't want to derail the thread. Obviously many disagree that its nowhere to be found in Scripture, otherwise its less likely they would believe it.

No, I don't think the bible, being a theological "book", distinguishes between different types of theological faith.
Perhaps different expressions of faith, but not different types of theological faith.
Though certainly the faith we have in Christ is not the same faith we have in our alarm clock waking us up in the morning.
Now, if according to Hebrews 12:2 Jesus is the authour and perfector of faith, then we get faith from Christ, right?
If we get it from Christ, it is a Gift Via the HS, yes?
Or do we have to earn faith?
Also Romans 12:3 states that God has alloted each of us a measure of faith.
While alloted doesn't mean given as a gift, it does mean that it was "bestowed" or "divide".
So, unless we have earned that Faith divided to Us by God, it was given, yes?
Romans 10:17 also states that faith comes from hearing and hearing BY the Word of God.
While we have to DO something (hear), it is BY the word that we hear.
So, it seems that while not EXPLICT, it seems that faith being given is implicit in some passages.

Jac3510 wrote:

1over137 wrote:And faith is gift from God.

Really? Where do you get that from?

Jac, to be honest, I have it from the privite teaching from my friend.
But look also at Ephesians 2:8.
Hope we are friends.

P.S.: I am behind. Gotta look what you guys wrote.

Now I see you wrote this:

Jac wrote:My own scriptural support lies in verses like Eph 2:8-10. We are saved by grace through faith. There is no qualification here of the type of one type of faith versus another, for faith is not even what saves. Grace is. Faith is not the gift. Nor is grace. Salvation is. So salvation is a gift that we receive by grace. That is received through the means of our faith. The Bible nowhere calls faith a gift. So those who argue that there are different types of faith or that faith is a gift of God or that we have to receive a grace to have have faith are going beyond Scripture and, I contend, adding to it, and therefore, I submit are teaching a different Gospel.

Well, I would need to know Greek. I looked here http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInte ... f/eph2.pdf and it says: "For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; [it is] the gift of God. "
Sounds like faith is not that of ourselves and that it is the gift of God.
There are various translations: http://bible.cc/ephesians/2-8.htm

Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
For it is by his grace that we have been saved through faith, and this faith was not from you, but it is the gift of God,

GOD'S WORD Translation (©1995)
God saved you through faith as an act of kindness. You had nothing to do with it. Being saved is a gift from God.

Hmmmm. Two different translations of 'it'.

The majority of non-Calvinists would argue that "it" refers to salvation (and many Calvinists as well, if I remember correctly that was actually Calvin's reading), but that's a bit of a controversial one. I agree that "it" or "that" refers to salvation as a whole (because of the gender of the words, faith and grace are feminine and "that" is neuter). I would say including the "faith" part (in fact many commentators DO believe that it refers to the entire clause, including faith!), but not going to get into that... the exegesis of some verses just gets too complicated for me to want to get into (especially at my level of understanding). I will also say that Calvinists try not to sell their point with one verse, they believe that the totality of Scripture supports their position and argue as such.

Of course I agree that its by grace through faith, that's one of the main points that Calvinists try to get across. Spurgeon's writings (for one) make this pretty evident.

I also have found this analysis: http://biblos.com/ephesians/2-8.htm
The verse reads: "For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not of youselves; it is God's gift."
Every word is analyzed there. But am not still sure of the conclusion.

Maybe this will help-

http://www.preceptaustin.org/ephesians_28-9.htm

Its a word by word breakdown with quotes from multiple theologians. The Calvinist/Arminian/whatever interpretation of that specific portion doesn't vary as much as you might think, although you can see the conflict in what they believe the large scale implications to be. Should be apparent that some very, very intelligent and honest scholars who have love for the Lord have fallen on both sides of this.

Edit- I should add that I don't think the debate hinges on this issue either. Someone could argue that the ability to faith is a gift (sort of how free will was acknowledged as a gift earlier in the thread) and it could be our responsibility to trust.

Thank you fo r the interesting link.

Spurgeon writes:
"Faith is the work of God’s Grace in us. No man can say that Jesus is the Christ but by the Holy Spirit. “No man comes unto Me,” says Christ, “except the Father which has sent Me draw him.” So that faith, which is coming to Christ, is the result of Divine drawing!"

John Piper writes:
"There is Paul’s answer: "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ." "
...
"In other words the Word of God contains wonderful things, but we will not see them without God’s help -- his illumination (2 Corinthians 4:4,6); his opening our hearts like he did for Lydia (Acts 16:14); his opening our minds like he did for the apostles (Luke 24:45). And if we miss what is in the word of God without his help, then prayer becomes the natural partner to hearing the word. We pray, "Open my eyes that I may see wonderful things from your law.""


Seems like people really need God's help to have faith. Faith that saves us from hell.

Faith when I get on a plane in the pilot and the plane is NOT the same as the faith I put in Christ.
So yes, to ME, there is a difference.

Is it different? I can see that the object is different. You are not trusting the pilot to save you from your sins. You are trusting him to fly you safely to a destination. But, this only shows me the object of your faith is different. You are definately trusting him for something. If you had any doubt the pilot could not perform his duties, you would not get on the plain. If you had any doubt that Christ was the Son of God, rose from the dead, healed the sick, or was Messiah, you wouldn't trust Him as savior.

1over137 wrote:I also have found this analysis: http://biblos.com/ephesians/2-8.htm
The verse reads: "For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not of youselves; it is God's gift."
Every word is analyzed there. But am not still sure of the conclusion.

I just have one thing to say about that website, they stole my identity. And they had the nerve to misspell it too with an i instead of a y.

jlay wrote:

Faith when I get on a plane in the pilot and the plane is NOT the same as the faith I put in Christ.
So yes, to ME, there is a difference.

Is it different? I can see that the object is different. You are not trusting the pilot to save you from your sins. You are trusting him to fly you safely to a destination. But, this only shows me the object of your faith is different. You are definately trusting him for something. If you had any doubt the pilot could not perform his duties, you would not get on the plain. If you had any doubt that Christ was the Son of God, rose from the dead, healed the sick, or was Messiah, you wouldn't trust Him as savior.

It is different. While I am trusting the pilot to fly the plane, I am also trusting a whole host of other safety nets in case the pilot does not or cannot perform his duties. I am also trusting the co-pilot, the plane itself, the engineers who built it, the mechanics who serviced it, the inflatable rafts available in case of a crash, the control tower personnel to direct the plane safely, the navigation equipment, and so on and so on. While I do trust the pilot to fly the plane and land it safely, I am by no means putting my full and total trust in him or her. Contrast that with the complete and total trust placed in Christ for salvation. No engineers, no mechanics, no safety nets, nothing but Christ. So yes, I do see a difference in the two. You might say that's just a degree of trust then and not necessarily a different kind of trust. To which I would reply exactly, so they are in fact different kinds of trust.

Byblos wrote:

jlay wrote:

Faith when I get on a plane in the pilot and the plane is NOT the same as the faith I put in Christ.
So yes, to ME, there is a difference.

Is it different? I can see that the object is different. You are not trusting the pilot to save you from your sins. You are trusting him to fly you safely to a destination. But, this only shows me the object of your faith is different. You are definately trusting him for something. If you had any doubt the pilot could not perform his duties, you would not get on the plain. If you had any doubt that Christ was the Son of God, rose from the dead, healed the sick, or was Messiah, you wouldn't trust Him as savior.

It is different. While I am trusting the pilot to fly the plane, I am also trusting a whole host of other safety nets in case the pilot does not or cannot perform his duties. I am also trusting the co-pilot, the plane itself, the engineers who built it, the mechanics who serviced it, the inflatable rafts available in case of a crash, the control tower personal to direct the plane safely, the navigation equipment, and so on and so on. While I do trust the pilot to fly the plane and land it safely, I am by no means putting my full and total trust in him or her. Contrast that with the complete and total trust placed in Christ for salvation. No engineers, no mechanics, no safety nets, nothing but Christ. So yes, I do see a difference in the two. You might say that's just a degree of trust then and not necessarily a different kind of trust. To which I would reply exactly, so they are in fact different kinds of trust.

I agree with what Byblos here. Also, I think you again have to differentiate between "trust" and, well, "other things". With a pilot I may just be playing probabilities, its most likely that he won't crash because crashes statistically don't happen very often. Maybe you give no thought about the pilot whatsoever. Maybe this post is missing the point (tired)...

But yeah, I don't see those two (trust in the pilot and trust in Christ) as the same. Its like saying that you look at your wife like you look at a chocolate cake. Well yeah, your eyes are looking at both. Maybe you "like" or "desire" both... but is it the same thing exactly?

1over137 wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:

1over137 wrote:And faith is gift from God.

Really? Where do you get that from?

Jac, to be honest, I have it from the privite teaching from my friend.
But look also at <a target="_blank" data-version="nasb95" data-reference="Ephesians 2.8" class="lbsBibleRef" href="http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Ephesian ... >Ephesians 2:8</a>.
Hope we are friends.

P.S.: I am behind. Gotta look what you guys wrote.

Of course we are all friends, Hana. We can have theological disagreements--even sharp ones--and not break fellowship over it. I'll address this, but indulge me a quick little story.

A few weeks ago I was called to something of an intervention with a friend's family. There was a lot of tension over some strong theological differences between family members, and I was asked to come in to help mediate. I did, and one of the first things I said to the group was that every needed to feel free to speak their mind clearly and openly (while respectfully) regarding their own theological concerns without worrying about offending each other. As everyone in the room agreed that Mormonism is a cult, I used that as an example. I asked if they hated Mormons. Obviously, they said, no. I asked if they thought Mormonism was a cult. Yes, they said. I asked them if they intended it as a personal attack on Mormons when they said that Mormons were in a cult. Again, they said no. For them, it was just an objective fact--if they were right about Christianity and Mormonism, then Mormonism really was a cult and to say so wasn't intended to be a personal attack. It was just true. Likewise, we all agreed that Mormons truly believe that they are right, and that there was no need to take it personally when a Mormon tries to get them "saved" or give them the "truth." Having agreed with that, I said, in the same way, we don't need to take each other's theological understandings personally. I and someone at the table had (and have) a very different understanding of the Gospel. We both agreed that one of us was simply wrong. We were even able to put it in starker terms. Either I was an unbeliever and a false teacher or he was! But no one at the table was angry, because we all understood that we were just doing the best we could to understand Scripture as honestly as possible. We left with the issues clarified and feelings soothed, even though (and I think in large part because) everyone was able to state their beliefs and the implications of those beliefs without others in the room taking it personally!

The same is true here. The Calvinism debate has been going on since Calvin himself first came on the scene, and before him if you look at the deeper roots, going back before Augustine. We are not, on this board, going to "solve" a two thousand year old problem. The best we can do is offer our best interpretation of Scripture, pray for humility and honesty, and recognize that as important as the debate is, at the end of the day, we are all responsible to God. Job 42:7 is VERY important here and has become something of a life verse for me. We need to remember that in discussing the issues, we are making claims about the way God Himself is. To be wrong about that is to be wrong about the most important thing in the world, but He is the one who takes offense. I don't have any reason to be offended on God's behalf. I would hope you see that you don't, either. And I would hope we all see the same thing.

So, speaking for myself, at least, while I deeply disagree with Calvinism and frankly believe it is a heresy that is leading souls to Hell, I'm not angry at Calvinists and I don't have problems being friends with them. All I can do is proclaim the truth as best I understand it, and they the same, and trust God to sort it all out.

NOW

With that said, regarding Eph 2:8, let me just make it very, very, very simple. GRAMMATICALLY, faith cannot be the gift. To say that faith is the gift in that verse is to accuse Paul of bad grammar. That's just a fact. Let me demonstrate briefly. Here's the verse in Greek (transliterated (non-technically!) into English letters):

te gar chariti este sesosmenoi dia pisteos, kai touto ouk ex umon, theou to doron

Quick vocabulary:
te - definite article (not translated - goes with chariti)
gar - For
chariti - Grace (here in the dative case, meaning it is translated "by grace" or "in grace")
este - to be (here, second person plural, literally "you are")
sesosmenoi - to save (here, perfect passive participle, nominative masculine plural, literally "the ones who have been saved")
dia - through
pisteos - faith
kai - and
touto - this
ouk - not
ex - (out) of
umon - you (plural, = yourselves)
theou - (of) God
to - definite article (not translated - goes with doron)
doron - gift

Now . . . the key word in this whole verse (for our purposes) is touto. It is the one translated "this." It is a pronoun, and according to Greek grammar (just like English), a pronoun must match its antecedent in gender and number. Now, touto is a nominative singular neuter (proof). Faith (pisteos), then, CANNOT be the antecedent, since it is a genitive singular feminine (proof). Since "faith" is feminine and "this" is neuter, then "this" CANNOT refer back to "faith." To take an English example to illustrate the principle:

• Jack and Jill were talking. She said, "Let's go up the hill to fetch a pail of water."

Who does the "She" refer to. Jill. How do you know? Because "She" is feminine and therefore must refer to Jill. If someone said, "No, 'she' refers to Jack" you would just look at them silly for being so bad with their grammar.

To say that touto refers to pisteos is equally silly. If Paul had wanted to say that faith was the gift, he would have used the word aute, which is the feminine form of touto.

That's all just some basic grammar. You cannot use Eph 2:8 to say that faith is a gift of God. If you think it is, you need to use a different verse. As there is not one, I would strongly advise against opting for a position not endorsed by Scripture.