Evidence for God from Science

Maybe we should have testimony night? Everyone post a brief on how they became saved and realized it as fact.

ttoews - are you looking for a formula, method, that easily explains how one believes, become born again? I do not think you will find one.

I'll begin,

My conversion was a rather dramatic event but I will not go into details. What did I do to earn this conversion? Nothing! I was placed in a circumstance that caused me to cry out to the Lord Jesus Christ. I was placed at wits end as they say. Was it a prayer that saved me? No! It was more of a cry of intensity of just two words: Jesus Christ!

A Name I learned about as a kid in Sunday School. A name I later rejected as I became older and denied existed on the basis of science, philosophy, atheism that I whole hardily embraced. Maybe what I learned in Sunday school taught me something about God to be used at a later time — only God knows. It must be true as John 6:45 hints of being taught about God.

I only cried out two words — Jesus Christ. I was confronted with a reality I did not want to embrace or accept. Only one person could save me. At least I got his name right! Yes, that is how I believed. I recognized who Christ was and is, and that was all. It was later after this event that I prayed a sinner's prayer, made a public profession, and was baptized in water.

All I knew was that Christ saved me. To hell with how others may argue about how one must become born again this way or that manner - He saved me! That was all I knew. It was a living reality of who Christ was and is — I guess you could call this — Believing — Faith in action. That was all. It was as if a light came on in my mind and I saw and understood who Jesus was and is.

After my conversion, I felt clean and refreshed but this feeling ebb and flowed in varied degrees. I had struggles, doubts, and fears assail me. Good times and sad time passed too. However, there was something within me as well as outside me and all around me that continued to give me a sense that I was saved. I cannot explain it. I still feel it after all these the past 26 years. It has never let me go. Even during the most trying of times, when I thought all hope gone, that sense never has left. Yes, its presence may diminish or increases as I go about my routines but it has never left me. It seems to grow more intense as the years go by. I cannot explain it.

Shortly after conversion, whatever this is, led me to a church and into fellowship with other Christians. It was within the Church that I learned. Yes, I had crisis's of faith but fellowship with other Christians helped me through the new believer roller coaster ride as well as that presence I mentioned.

Maybe all becoming born again is coming into awareness of who Jesus Christ really is, God manifest in the flesh, who destroyed all the works of the evil one. Who sends his Spirit to reside with us so we learn to reflect his glory and not our sins. Yes, I have learned over the years, through trials of faith, life's storms and conflicts, times of joy and great sorrows, times of refreshing and happiness, who this presence is.

I know I am saved because I know who saved me. No one else could have done this. No one else could have changed me. No one else proved mercy to me. No one else helps destroy the sin within me. No one else can make one whole. No one else gave rest for my soul. No one else could prove a love that first slays in order to restore.

It was the realization of who Jesus Christ is that caused me to believe. Nothing else.

Again, my testimony will be different from others. I have led many to Christ over the years with short sinner's prayer. In this I have discovered that each person was being taught, prepared to see who God is and is about in many diverse ways and life circumstance. They all became born again, marvelously.

I know of two who sadly died shortly after their conversions: One due to a car accident and the other an accidental drowning. I know they were saved. How — well that is something you just know by the clearness of their eyes, the feelings they expressed in the joy of discovery of who Jesus Christ really is.

Others that are still around, tell me when the believed was when they realized who Christ is. They speak of being lead to a point within their lives that they needed God. There was no identical set of circumstances to any of their conversion. Each person life experiences are different. All taught of the Lord end up being led to him in diverse ways. However, they all have reported to me that they felt like that thief on the cross who looked at Jesus, saw who he is and just believed.

Well I gotta run - I'll be away for a few days on vacation - see or read you all soon.
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:Maybe we should have testimony night? Everyone post a brief on how they became saved and realized it as fact.

I grew up in a Christian home...was so young when I came to trust Jesus that I can't remember the day...

ttoews - are you looking for a formula, method, that easily explains how one believes, become born again? I do not think you will find one.

no I am not looking for any such formula....my position is that salvation is a matter of the heart, not a thing to be reduced to a formula or a contract.

Jac, on the other hand, argues that salvation is like a contract, that one can only believe w/o any reservations and that therefore one can objectively determine that one is saved....I think assurance of salvation is subjective by its very nature....and it seems that with comments such as these:

.... However, there was something within me as well as outside me and all around me that continued to give me a sense that I was saved.....
....I know they were saved. How — well that is something you just know by the clearness of their eyes, the feelings they expressed in the joy of discovery of who Jesus Christ really is.

...that you are in my camp.

Jac, on the other hand, argues that salvation is like a contract, that one can only believe w/o any reservations and that therefore one can objectively determine that one is saved....I think assurance of salvation is subjective by its very nature....

I agree with much of what you and B.W. say, ttoews, because I have had the same experiences, but regardless of that, I wouldn't be too hasty in discounting what Jac is saying either. I for one find a much better assurance in the promises of God that I see in the scriptures, than I do in my own feelings or moods or actions. The heart is deceitfully wicked, who can know it? God's promises are sure. There has got to be some middle ground in there somewhere, ttoews.

FFC wrote:

Jac, on the other hand, argues that salvation is like a contract, that one can only believe w/o any reservations and that therefore one can objectively determine that one is saved....I think assurance of salvation is subjective by its very nature....

I agree with much of what you and B.W. say, ttoews, because I have had the same experiences, but regardless of that, I wouldn't be too hasty in discounting what Jac is saying either. I for one find a much better assurance in the promises of God that I see in the scriptures, than I do in my own feelings or moods or actions. The heart is deceitfully wicked, who can know it? God's promises are sure. There has got to be some middle ground in there somewhere, ttoews.

Precisely. One needs to differentiate between the objective assurance offered by the word of God and the subjective assurance of such when looking into one's heart. They are not mutually exclusive; on the contrary, one needs the objective assurance to negate some of the doubt that creeps in due to the wickedness of the heart.

Great post FFC!

Byblos wrote:
Precisely. One needs to differentiate between the objective assurance offered by the word of God and the subjective assurance of such when looking into one's heart. They are not mutually exclusive; on the contrary, one needs the objective assurance to negate some of the doubt that creeps in due to the wickedness of the heart.

would you be so kind as to explain (so that a 10 year old could understand) what you mean by "the objective assurance offered by the word of God" and then how an individual objectively verifies that objective assurance?....who knows, maybe we are in agreement

ttoews wrote:

Byblos wrote:
Precisely. One needs to differentiate between the objective assurance offered by the word of God and the subjective assurance of such when looking into one's heart. They are not mutually exclusive; on the contrary, one needs the objective assurance to negate some of the doubt that creeps in due to the wickedness of the heart.

would you be so kind as to explain (so that a 10 year old could understand) what you mean by "the objective assurance offered by the word of God" and then how an individual objectively verifies that objective assurance?....who knows, maybe we are in agreement

I'll try.

What I mean by objective assurance is the belief that Christ is %100 capable of saving me if I believe in him. Is there anyone of us who doubts this? Looking at the process of salvation alone, one can definitively say that Christ is the savior, no ifs, ands, or buts. I think reading John 3:16 to a 10 year old child should be enough to come to that conclusion.

When looking inward at one's own heart, however, we find we are sinful beings and undeserving of God's promise of salvation. With all the doubts that we often have, we can always look back at that objective assurance (by repenting or doing works of charity and love, or whatever) to reassure ourselves that we are saved.

I hope this makes sense to you and others because, frankly, I'm still in the processing of working it out myself.

God Bless,

Byblos.

Byblos, your explanation works for me...I just wouldn't use the word "objective".

.... frankly, I'm still in the processing of working it out myself.

aren't we all...not only do I see dimly, but sometimes I am quite dim.

God Bless,

Byblos.

you too.

ttoews,

Sorry I hadn't gotten to that word study yet. I've gotten seriously bogged down with several projects. Most specifically, I was invited to speak at a regional GES conference late in September, but I have to get them an outline of my talk this weekend. So, I've been spending all my time there. I'll be free after this weekend.

Jac3510 wrote:ttoews,

..... Most specifically, I was invited to speak at a regional GES conference late in September,...

congrats...even tho' I have no idea what GES stands for....God's Elite Squad, perhaps?

ttoews wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:ttoews,

..... Most specifically, I was invited to speak at a regional GES conference late in September,...

congrats...even tho' I have no idea what GES stands for....God's Elite Squad, perhaps?

You're too much, ttoews.

LoL, try the Grace Evangelical Society.

http://www.faithalone.org

The GA conference last year was when I was brought around to the Free Grace position. It's definitely exciting to get a chance to address these guys. I'm doing an exegetical study of Acts 13:48. Should be fun

Jac3510 wrote:John's gospel is written to bring people to eternal life. It is the evangelistic gospel. If his purpose is to bring someone to eternal life, it follows that he will have all the necessary instructions. And yet, NOWHERE do we find the word "repent"! Again, John could not have "forgotten" about it, because 1) he was inspired by the HS, and 2) he used the word 12 times in the Revelation.

In fact, what the above verse does say is that faith comes by believing in His name, which, if you read the entire gospel, you will find is the consistent message.

Sorry, my friend, but just because John doesn't use the word repent in his gospel, doesn't meann repentance isn't necessary to receive the Holy Spirit and salvation. It just means that John didn't use the word repent in his gospel. We have the entire New Testament, including the actual preaching of the gospel by both Christ Himself and the apostles that include the word repent as a condition.

Mt 3:

1 In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the Desert of Judea 2 and saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near."

Mt 11:

20 Then Jesus began to denounce the cities in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. 21 "Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.

Mr. 6:
7 Calling the Twelve to him, he sent them out two by two and gave them authority over evil spirits. ............12 They went out and preached that people should repent.

Acts 2:

37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?" 38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 3:

17 "Now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your leaders. 18 But this is how God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, saying that his Christ would suffer. 19 Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord,

Acts 26:

19 "So then, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the vision from heaven. 20 First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and to the Gentiles also, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds.

Secondly, if your assertion that the gospel of John was written as an evangelistic gospel at the exclusion of the other gospels, I would have to disagree. All the gospels are evangelistic by nature, they are after all, Gospels, the proclaiming of the Good News.

The purpose of a particular book of the Bible is usually found at the beginning of the book, [not at the end], sort of like a key that unlocks the door to the book. In the case of the Gospel of John the key or the clue to the reason the book is written is found very early on.

John 1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning.

4 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

I suggest that the main purpose of John is to 'make the Word of God as God known" to us. A word is a thought expressed. If you want to know what God is thinking, or what God is like, study Jesus Christ - full of grace and truth. The Law was brought to us by Moses, but the grace and truth of God was brought to us by Jesus Christ - and that in the flesh.

The main purpose of Matthew's gospel is to present Christ as King.
The main purpose of Mark's gospel is to present Christ as Servant.
The main purpose of Luke's gospel is to present Christ as Man.

The purpose of John's gospel is to show us God in Christ. Once we see Chirst, we know the love of God and believe or trust in Him for everything in our life.

In other words, John presents Jesus Christ as God.

Read through my discussion with R7 in the first few pages of this thread, Kerux. I've dealt with all the verses you posted, one by one.

While you are at it, check out my discussion with LowelyOne on the place of repentance in the Christian life.

As an aside - something I should have brought up before - if you want to use Acts to prove that repentance is necessary for salvation, then you must also believe that baptism is necessary, too. Notice (all quotations NIV):

• Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38)
  
  Before the coming of Jesus, John preached repentance and baptism to all the people of Israel. (Acts 13:24)
  
  You will be his witness to all men of what you have seen and heard. And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name. (Acts 22:15-17)

Most of this is standard Church of Christ proof-text. They believe that salvation is achieved by faith, repentance from sin, believer's baptism, public confession of Christ, and perseverance in faith and good deeds until the end. I strongly disagree with their position, but at least it is consistent with their hermeneutic.

And as for John being written to show that Jesus is God, I don't disagree, but I suggest you read John 20:31. You can't get much clearer than that. When you finish there, check out any New Testament Introduction and look up the recipients of each synoptic. Each of those were written to believers: Matthew to Jewish believers to explain the concept of the Messianic Kingdom, Mark to Gentiles to offer a pattern for Christian life, and Luke to believers in general to provide a solid historical basis of the life and death of Christ. John is the only book in the Bible written to the non-believer, and it is written for the express purpose of bringing a person to everlasting life. The fact that he uses the word "believe" 99 times - and always makes it the sole condition of salvation - and never once uses the word "repent" in any form (and given his explanation of the ministry of John the Baptist, it is clear that he went out of his way to avoid using the term) is very telling so far as what God's requirement is for salvation. We must do one thing and one thing only: believe in Jesus Christ.

God bless

- edited for better fuller explanation -

Yes, I've read John 20:31 many many times. I should point out to you that I've been a born again Christian for over 30 years. During those years I have studied the Bible thoroughly verse-by-verse in context. But my study doesn't mean I am correct, no more than your study means you're correct. So, telling someone to read a particular verse again is meaningless.

But the entire gospel of John declares Jesus Christ as God.
That's John's main purpose - That we should believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as God. The believing is secondary to showing us Christ as God.

if you want to use Acts to prove that repentance is necessary for salvation, then you must also believe that baptism is necessary, too.

Not necessarily. Baptism is only evidence of repentance, and is preached in Acts because of the time and situation, ie. Jews being converted. Also, I didn't just use Acts. I quoted Jesus Himself, a fact you've ignored.

A repentent sinner will want to be baptised.

I have read through some of your previous discussions.
You make many unnecessary assumptions.

Repent means to re-think. Are you saying that a sinner doesn't need to re-think his position before God in order to be saved?

"Repent, then, and turn to God..."

"I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds."

Notice the turning to God, the repentence.

We must do one thing and one thing only: believe in Jesus Christ.

So I can 'believe' in Jesus Christ and then go on doing what I did before believing? I don't need to re-think my thinking?

There is nothing a man can do in and through himself to be saved. It is a gift of God, not by works. However, repentance will be the evidence that a person has been saved.

The devil believes in God. Does the devil have salvation by believing? According to what you say John 20:31 means - yes.

Kerux wrote:Yes, I've read John 20:31 many many times. I should point out to you that I've been a born again Christian for over 30 years. During those years I have studied the Bible thoroughly verse-by-verse in context. But my study doesn't mean I am correct, no more than your study means you're correct. So, telling someone to read a particular verse again is meaningless.

But the entire gospel of John declares Jesus Christ as God.
That's John's main purpose - That we should believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as God. The believing is secondary to showing us Christ as God.

You are right in that prooftexting, by itself, doesn't do much good. I try to make it a point to offer exegetical support for my prooftexts as I'm sure you've noted as you have read this and other threads. With that said, I'm not sure how else you can take John 20:31:

• But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. (NIV)

"These things" obviously refers to the preceding material - that is, the book itself. The same phrase occurrs in 1 John 2:26 and 5:13. Many people would take 5:13 as the purpose of the entire epistle. In fact, "these things" refers to the immediate context, as does 2:26. The purpose statement there is 1:3-4; it is an epistle of fellowship.

But, we find no such statement in the opening passages of John, and we do have the explicit statement in John 20:31 that the purpose of the writing is to bring people to everlasting life. You cannot bring someone to everlasting life who already has it, so it is immediately obvious that John is writing to an unbelieving audience so that they might be saved. Looking again, we see:

". . . that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ . . ."
This is the key issue of the entire Gospel. pisteuete hoti (believe that) is found one other time in John's Gospel, which is 11:27, where Mary says that she believes that Jesus is "the Christ, the Son of God." In the immediate context, Jesus had promised that all who believe in Him would live, and He was talking specifically about the Resurrection of the Righteous. Thus, in this confession, Mary was saying that she had trusted Jesus to raise her up on the last day!

(To be more technical, Mary does not say "I believe that . . ." Rather, she says, "I have believed that." The phrase she uses here is ego pepisteuka hoti, in which the verb is in the perfect tense, denoting a completed action with present results.)

Returning to John 20, then, to say that we "believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God" is to say that we believe that He will raise us up on "the last day" into everlasting life. Thus, John finishes the thought by saying, "and that by believing you may have life in His name." What are we believing? Again, we are believing in Him to raise us up - we are trusting Him to give us eternal life.

We can also offer another technical note of some interest here. Notice that this verse does not say "and that by believing in Him you may have life." Rather, it says, "and that by believing you may have life in His name." Now, John uses "believe" 99 times in his gospel, so we simply cannot go through each of the usages. But 3:16 makes for a good example here. Of special interest in the key idea, "whosoever believes in Him." The Greek here is pas ho pisteuwn eis auton. An absolutey wooden translation would be "all the believing into Him." The idea is that every individual person who places their faith into Christ "will not perish, but has eternal life." With that in mind, the immediately preceding verse provides a very interesting contrast. In 3:15, Jesus says "all who believe will in Him have everlasting life" (my translation). The Greek here behind "believe will in Him have" (pisteuwn en autw eche) is different from 3:16's "believe in Him . . . has . . ." (pisteuwn eis auton . . . eche) The former means that we believe, and that by believing we have life in Christ. The latter means that we believe into Christ - that is, we place our trust in Him to save us - and thus we have everlasting life. Both of these ideas are found in John 20:31. It is the central message of John's Gospel.

Now, we can discuss what it means to "believe in Christ." That is exactly the issue I am trying to get to ttoews about, but my time has been tied up with this study on Acts 13:48. Hopefully, I will get to it early in the week. It is my position that to believe in Christ means to simply trust Him, as God, to raise us up in the Resurrection into everlasting life. Or, put another way, it means to trust God's promise to raise us into everlasting life.

Kerux wrote:Not necessarily. Baptism is only evidence of repentance, and is preached in Acts because of the time and situation, ie. Jews being converted. Also, I didn't just use Acts. I quoted Jesus Himself, a fact you've ignored.

You didn't use Acts? Uhm . . . if you look at your last post, you used three passages: Acts 2:37-38; 3:17-19; 26:19-20. As for me ignoring your comments about quoting Jesus, I did not. I told you that I had already dealt with them, and I have. See this post to ttoews that deals with the passages you mention, either directly or one of their parallels.

Kerux wrote:I have read through some of your previous discussions.
You make many unnecessary assumptions.

I suppose that you should point them out then?

Kerux wrote:Repent means to re-think. Are you saying that a sinner doesn't need to re-think his position before God in order to be saved?

No, it does not mean to "re-think." I realize that it is a popular position, ironically enough pushed primarily by people in my camp. Leading exegetes in yours would disagree. This definition has come about by relying on etymology. The Greek word for "repent" is metanoew. Meta means "after" and noia means "thought." And thus, it is argued that the word means "an after thought" or "to think after," and by extention "to rethink" or "reconsider." This was most forcefully argued by Chaffer in the early 20th century. However, in 1998, Bob Wilkin wrote a paper entitled Does your mind need changing? Repentance reconsidered. I would highly encourage yout to read it. In it, he correctly summarizes the definition of repentance when he said, "[R]epentance . . . is neither faith in Christ, nor a necessary precursor to faith in Christ. It is a decision to turn from one's sins. All fifty-five NT references to repentance bear this out. In each case repentance is a decision to turn from one's sins. It is never a synonym for faith in Christ or a necessary precursor to faith."

Now, for the record, I once held to the position that you do on repentance, and not so long ago, in fact. If you go back to some of my posts only a few months back, you will see me advocating it. In that view, repentance, when viewed as a change of mind, is not A condition of salvation, but THE condition of salvation. It is absolutely synonomous with "believe." I have to change my mind, or my thinking, from belief to unbelief. However, if you are asking whether or not I have to change my mind about sin and my desire to commit it to be saved, thenI simply say, "No, I do not. That is not a part of the gospel message."

Kerux wrote:"Repent, then, and turn to God..."

"I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds."

Notice the turning to God, the repentence.

Yes, notice that repentance is turning; it is not "changig your thinking." To turn to God is to turn away from sin. In other words, it is to abandon sin and commit our ways to Him. We fail in that at times, of course, but that commitment of life is what discipleship is all about. But notice that repentance is tied to discipleship and not to salvation. John MacArthur takes quite the opposite position when he says, "The terms of salvation are the terms of discipleship." (from The Gospel According to Jesus That, my friend, is salvation by works. We are saved by grace through faith, not by grace through repentance or commitment of life.

Kerux wrote:So I can 'believe' in Jesus Christ and then go on doing what I did before believing? I don't need to re-think my thinking?

There is nothing a man can do in and through himself to be saved. It is a gift of God, not by works. However, repentance will be the evidence that a person has been saved.

The devil believes in God. Does the devil have salvation by believing? According to what you say John 20:31 means - yes/

I notice that you put "believe" in apostraphes. Why? I suppose you would argue that there is a difference in someone who says that they believe versus someone who "really believes." I would disagree with that. Either you believe or you do not. Either you have relied on Christ to save you or you have not. It is that simple. If there is this greater type of saving faith that you are talking about, then, by definition, we cannot know if we have really believed. You argue that repentance is evidence of salvation. But what about people who turn to God - commit their lives to Him - all the while thinking that their works will save them. You won't know by looking at their actions on the outside. Thus, repentance is not evidence of faith. Repentance is evidence of discipleship, but there will be some disciples in Hell! And if you say that repentance is evidence only to myself, then you have two problems to deal with: first, you cannot know the moment you believe whether or not you have truly believed. You have to wait until the temptation to sin comes up and see if you've really turned away. And second, you cannot know ever if you have really believed, because at any given time you do, in fact, sin. How much "repentance" do you have to have before you can say, "I have really believed?" Do you have to turn from all sin, or just certain ones? Do you have to commit your whole life, or only part of it? Must that commitment last until the end of your life? What measure of backsliding is allowed, and at what point do we determine that we never actually believed in the first place? Aren't there people who have thought that they believed only to find later in life that they really didn't through their apostasy? How do you know that you have not deceived yourself? Perhaps you only think you believe, and your repentance that you think you have is only partial and temporary. How do you know it is the real thing?

As for James 2:14, I have offered a thorough exegesis of the passage here. Also, I would recommend reading Another view of faith and works in James 2, again by Bob Wilkin. It provides an excellent exposition of the passage, as well as an overview of the traditional views.

However, just to short-circuit the entire discussion, I do believe that Satan believes the Gospel just as well as any believer does. However, salvation is not offered to angels -- only to men (John 3:5). Therefore, even if Satan were to repent and beg for forgiveness, it would not be provided. His fate is sealed, as is the fate of those angels who did not follow in the rebellion.

I really would encourage you to take the time to read through this entire debate, as well as the one I linked to earlier with LowelyOne. Also, the debate linked to in this post on James is very good as well. Between those three, you should get a very well rounded understanding of my position. The questions you ask are good and relevant, but they are also stock and I've dealt with them already. I don't mind repeating myself, but like I said, time is an issue for me right now. I already have spent more time on this particular reply than I have to spare!

God bless, and ttoews, I really hope to get to that word study soon