Evidence for God from Science

Kerux . . . listen: I provide links to the passages you mention so that you can read my arguments. If you agree with them, great. If you disagree, then you can explain where. It is silly to ask me to repeat myself. But, even more to the point, the passages you bring up that supposedly prove me wrong have been dealt with in this thread. If you would read it, you would see that. Those that haven't, I've linked to.

That's all I am saying. I've interacted with your interpretations, offered interpretations of passages I've not done before, etc. If you bring up a passage you think disproves me, and I have already commented on it, I will send you to the page so that you can see my argument. This is not hard.

You are right in that I am very strict in my exegesis of biblical passages. I'm very strict when it comes to theological explanation. You are also right in that I am not so strict when it comes to general communication . . . I don't really see how it is feasible to do that.

Why is it feasible to be 'strict' in your exegesis but 'not so strict' in general communciation? I think a good teacher must be able to do both.

Words are abstract. They mean different things to different people. Someone trying to communicate what he means must be careful and skilled in his use of the language he is attemtping to communciate his ideas in to be understood by his listeners as he intends.

This is especially true of written communicaton.

Kerux . . . listen:

I am listening. I 'hear' what your writing loud and clear.

Well, I have brought up the Scriptures that deal with the topic as I see it. And you've obviously done your study and are convinced of the corectness of your view.

So, rather than continue a debate going over the same things, I think I'll just move on.

Why is it feasible to be 'strict' in your exegesis but 'not so strict' in general communciation? I think a good teacher must be able to do both

Because . . .

Jac3510 wrote:I don't really see how it is feasible to do that. If every word we write to each other is subject to that kind of semantic examination, we'll never get anywhere.

How many words should we define before we begin, Kerux? Should we define "define"? As I already said, if in the course of conversation is becomes apparent that we are using terms differently, then we clarify and move on.

Now, with that said, you've presented Scriptures you think prove your position. I have provided the relevant information as to why I disagree. If you don't or can't provide reasons you disagree, I will accept it as your concession to my argument and move on. Secondly, I have asked for both Scripture to defend your position as well as exegeses of three specific passages. If you cannot provide either of these, I will accept that also as your concession to the argument posited.

I still look forward to hearing your side of things.

God bless

If I choose to not provide any futher verses, it doesn't mean I concede to your argument.

It just means I don't wish to pursue this method of discussing Scripture and its meaning. I didn't come here to play King of the Bible Hill.

Like I said, others will read what we've written and decide for themselves, hopefully afer having done their own study.

'Study to show thyself approved unto God.... a workman that need not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

Kerux wrote:If I choose to not provide any futher verses, it doesn't mean I concede to your argument.

It just means I don't wish to pursue this method of discussing Scripture and its meaning. I didn't come here to play King of the Bible Hill.

Like I said, others will read what we've written and decide for themselves, hopefully afer having done their own study.

'Study to show thyself approved unto God.... a workman that need not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

Kerux,

You obviously are free to make your decision as to how you spend your time and direct your efforts.

Generally, when you challenge someone on an issue you should be prepared to discuss it and provide the support for that position.

I respect your decision no to engage in this instance. I hope as you interact further you will at times engage and give us the benefit of your understanding and studies along with the supporting verses and needed exegesis to demonstrate the context and purpose of those passages.

That will serve at least two purposes.

1. Our growth and benefit of a differing perspective with which to interact in our common goal to know God and His Word better.

2. Your growth and benefit of interacting with brothers and sisters to where you can re-evaluate not only your conclusions but also your methods in presenting them so they are clear and presented in a manner that others can receive.

Up to you of course.

Bart

Generally, when you challenge someone on an issue you should be prepared to discuss it and provide the support for that position.

Done that sufficiently enough already.

Kerux wrote:

Generally, when you challenge someone on an issue you should be prepared to discuss it and provide the support for that position.

Done that sufficiently enough already.

Ah, well, if the standard on this board is to be to your own satisfaction then I guess you're right.

I imagined there were other people involved in the conversation.

Canuckster1127 wrote:I imagined there were other people involved in the conversation.

Let me just say that from an impartial observer perspective, I don't feel that Kerux has provided adequate biblical evidence for his position. On Aug 4 at 8:00 pm, he lists a number of verses which extol one to repent. Jac then posted a link to his own interpretation of those verses, and to his understanding of why those particular verses don't show repentance as a necessary condition to salvation. And there has been no discussion as to why Kerux disagrees with Jac's explanations.

I don't have time right now to review Jac's link, so let's do this instead.

I'm not saved, and I meet a man who thinks like Jac does concerning salvation. This man says all I need to do to receive salvation is

'believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." John 20:31. [which is Jac's pivotal verse].

I say, "Not a problem. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." I then go on for the next two or three years [or four or five] and this man who thinks like Jac does runs into me again, and asks me

"how are you doing?"

I say, "just fine."

He asks me what I've been doing since that day two or three years earlier [or four or five] when I said that I believed that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God.

I say, 'Well, been some having trouble with the cops because of domestic violence; I still drink a little too much, which leads me to get a little angry at my wife, who goes to church all the time and is preaching Jesus at me. I lost my last two jobs because of my drinking, but hey, I still believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, just like my wife keeps telling me [Unbeknown to me, my wife goes to listen to Jac's teaching at church every Sunday] and just like you told me. I'm sure glad I have 'life through Jesus' name, just like you said the Bible promises me."

I did what Jac [and my wife] told me I had to do. Do I "have life through Jesus' name?" just like it says in John 20:31?

If I do, how do you know?

Alright ttoews . . . let's look at this (all Scripture NIV)

There are a host of things we disagree on, but one common ground we do have is the fact that in order to be saved, a person must "believe." Immediately, we have to ask what they must believe, and, more generally, what belief is (biblically speaking). Allow me to deal with the issues in that order, since I think things will go more smoothly that way:

1 - "What must I do to be saved?" They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved." (Acts 16:30b-31a)

I suspect that you will have to agree with me that belief is the sole condition of salvation. As that is commonly recognized, those who hold to a reformed view of salvation say that "genuine belief" includes certain concepts. Thus, they create a distinction between "faith" and "saving faith." Regardless, faith - whatever it happens to be - is recognized as the only condition to be saved. And further, most can agree that if we preach a "faith plus" doctrine, we've taught no faith at all! God saves by grace through faith. Thus, if we try to earn our salvation in any sense, then we have not placed our faith in the proper object.

We are then faced squarely with the question: what must we place our faith in (that is, believe)? Scripture tells us we must "believe in Jesus." Obviously, Acts 16:31 is a standard proof for that. We've walked through John 3:16. I would, though, like to use John 20:31 as our primary text because it tells us exactly what it means to "believe in Jesus." After all, what must we believe about Him? Atheists believe Jesus existed, so it must be more than that. And the condemned men in Matt. 7:21-23 believed Him to be more than just a good man! Our verse, then, says, "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." To have eternal life we must "believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." As I explained to Kerux earlier, the phrase "believe that" occurs nine times in John's gospel. Of specific interest to us is John 11:27, because there, Mary states, "I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God." Let's look at this passage more closely:

• ²¹"Lord," Martha said to Jesus, "if you had been here, my brother would not have died. ²²But I know that even now God will give you whatever you ask." ²³Jesus said to her, "Your brother will rise again." ²⁴Martha answered, "I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day." ²⁵Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; ²⁶and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?" ²⁷"Yes, Lord," she told him, "I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who was to come into the world." (John 11:21-27)

Mary is crushed over the death of Lazarus, and she acknowledges 1) that had Jesus been there, He could have kept him from death, and 2) that He could even rise him from the dead now if He were to ask God. In response to this, Jesus promises that Lazarus "will rise again." At this point, Mary reminds Jesus that she knows that much is true. Belief in the resurrection was a key point for most Jews (excepting the Sadducees). As per passages such as Dan 12:1-2, they expected that at the end of time, God would raise the righteous from the dead and they would live forever. And at this point, Jesus makes the most important claim in the passages: He says that He is that resurrection. He has complete authority over it. He then asks Mary if she believes that, to which she makes her confession. For her, believing that Jesus is the Christ is to believe that He is the one who will raise the righteous on the last day into eternal life. It is also worth noting that she does not say "I believe that you are the Christ," which is how the NIV renders it. Rather, she says, "I have believed that you are the Christ." This is important, for if she used the present tense, we could argue for a continuous faith requirement. However, using the perfect tense, she is referring to a completed event in the past with ongoing results. Thus, for John, we see that to "believe in Jesus" means to rely on Him to raise us into eternal life.

Unfortunately, this idea has been broadly lost or glossed over in most preaching today, evangelical or otherwise. Salvation is presented as "giving your life to Christ," or "asking Jesus into your heart," or "asking Christ for forgiveness," or other such Christian cliches. However, we should note that the idea of resurrection into eternal life was precisely the belief of the Apostolic church. It is both what they preached and what they died for. During the reign of Marcus Aurelius (161-180), "Persecution became well-nigh universal" (Kuiper, The Church in History, Eerdmans '95, 10). In Jack Arnold's Church History, we read the following account of that period:

Arnold wrote:The heroic witness of Blandina, a slave girl, who was fragile of body and timid of spirit, can never be forgotten. Day after day she was subjected to every kind of torture, but her tormentors could not compel her to deny her faith. She continued to encourage and exhort her comrades in Christ to remain steadfast to the end. She seemed clearly sustained by God, and even that diabolical crowd said, “Never woman in our time suffered so much.” Finally she was put into the arena, a net thrown over her, and she was exposed to the fury of a wild bull. Several times the bull took her upon his horns and tossed her into the air. In the end she was butchered by an official. The bodies of the martyrs were burned, and the ashes were thrown into the river Rhone. The heathen said mockingly, “Now we shall see whether there will be a resurrection of their bodies.”

(See also A Glorious Institution: The Church in History, and Kuiper, p. 10-11) Of course, the New Testament is filled with the doctrine of both the resurrection of the saints unto eternal life and the resurrection of the wicked unto punishment!

Given this, it seems reasonable to conclude that - for John and the first century church - that the Gospel message was one of faith in Christ unto resurrection into eternal life (cf. Acts 17:18, 32). Thus, when John says that we believe that Jesus is the Christ, we are believing that He is the one who grants us eternal life. And when He says that all who believe "in Him" have eternal life, He is talking about the same idea - relying on Him to raise us up into everlasting life.

Given this, I return to my central point, that the message of the Gospel is simple: we must believe in the person of Jesus - namely, that He is the Christ, the Son of God; we must believe in the promies of Christ - namely, that He will raise us up on the last day; and we must believe in terms of Christ - namely that we are saved by faith apart from our own works.

2 - With all of this in mind, we come to our central disagreement, which is namely, "What is saving faith?" The word "faith," I'm sure you know, is the word pistos. There are several words we need to look at in this family: pistos means "trusting, trustworthy, or sure"; pistis means "faith, trust, trustworthiness, a doctrine, promise, religious belief, or something to be believed"; piste simply means "believer" or "Christian." The verb for this family of words is pisteuw, and it means "to think to be true" or "to trust," or even "to entrust." (Words and definitions taken from Louw & Nida's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains). If we look to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TNDT) - widely recognized along with the BDAG as the standard in Greek lexicons - we see pisteuw, pistis, pistos, pistow, apistos, apistew, apistia, oligopistos, and oligopistia grouped together. (For the full article, see TNDT, vol.VI, p.174-228) Specifically, under the subsection "The pistis group in the New Testament," we see:

pisteuw. From a purely formal standpoint there is nothing very distinctive in the usage of the NT and early Christian writings as compared with Greek usage. As in Greek, pisteuein means "to rely on," "to trust," "to believe." (p. 203)

A look at the Hebrew background for this word (as it translates in the LXX) is very helpful as well. Steven Waterhouse writes in his systematic theology Not by Bread Alone (Westcliff Press, 2003) on page 132:

Waterhouse wrote:The Hebrew word for "to believe" is aman, which relates to our word Amen. In some verbal stems (qal/niphal), the word means "to be firm, to support, to be secure, to be faithful." B.B. Warfield, the great theologian from Princeton, said aman describes "whatever holds, is steady, or can be depended upon." This definition is based upon obesrvation of how aman is used in the Old Testament.

He goes on note that in the the word is applied especially to nurses and those who take care of children, as children are utterly dependant on these people. In the causative sense (the hiphil stem), he points out that the word does not mean "to be dependable," but rather "to consider someone or something to be firm, dependable, faithful, trustworthy, reliable." (133) And as a further note, "Verses that seem to contain the ide of trust often use the phrase to believe in." (ibid., see Gen. 15:6; Ex. 14:31; Num 14:11; Deut. 1:32; 9:23; 28:88; 2 Ki 17:14; 2 Chron. 20:20; Job 24:22; Psa. 27:13; 78:22; 106:24; Isa. 28:16; 43:10) He summarizes this section by saying:

Waterhouse wrote:New Testment authors carry over these concepts of meaning of faith into their teachings. Therefore, we would anticipate that to them faith in God would mean to consider God to be secure, firm, dependable and trustworthy. Viewed from man's perspective this is called trust, confidence, dependance, and reliance. (emphasis original)

And so as not to rely to heavily on Waterhouse, the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (TWOT), edited by Archer (Moody Press, 1980) defines aman as "to confirm, support, uphold (qual); to be established, be faithful (niphal); to be certain, i.e. to believe in (hiphil)" (vol.1, 116) To quote from the comments on the word:

The TWOT wrote:This very important concept in biblical doctrine girves clear evidence of the biblical meaning of "faith" in contradistinction to the many popular concepts of the term. At the heart of the meaning of the root is the idea of certainity. And this is borne out by the NT definition of faith found in Heb. 11:1.

The basic idea is firmness or certainity. In the Qal it expresses the basic concept of support and is used in the sense of the strong arms of a parent supporting the helpless infant . . . In the Hiphil, it basically means "to cause to be certain, sure," or "to be certain about," "to be assured." In this sense the word in the Hiphil conjugation is the biblical word for "to believe" and shows that biblical faith is an assurance, a certainity, in contrast with modern concepts of faith as something possible, hopefully true, but not certain.

Now, all of these ideas are wrapped up in the word pistos and its primary verb pisteuw. This leads me to my next point: we often translate the noun pistos into the noun "faith." The verb pisteuw is translated into our verb "believe." These are broadly correct, but notice that all the words in the group we are looking at - in Greek - are from the same root. Thus, the verb pisteuw means the action involved in the noun pistos!

In all of this, we see abosolutely on hint of ideas such as repentance or commitment built into pistos. Of particular interest is the translation "to commit" or "to entrust" (cf. John 2:24). Even here, the idea is that Jesus refused to consider them reliable, that is, He refused to "relax" around them, if you will, and allow them to minister to Him. In all of this, it seems that there is no way to avoid the notion that "faith," or "to believe" means to "rely on" in an sense of absolute assurance!

This idea is exactly the idea I have been trying to get across as it relates to such verses as John 3:16. The Bible teaches that "to believe in Jesus" is to entrust to Him our eternal destination. It means to recognize His promise and consider it true and trustworthy, and them rest in that. Resting in that promise requires us to cease from our own labors, which is why salvation cannot be earned or gained by works. Jesus promises us eternal life if we simply trust Him for it. What is our response? We are called to believe that He is the Christ, and in doing so, we rest in the certainity that He will raise us on the last day. We entrust to Him our eternal destiny based on nothing more than His word. This is the OT idea of salvation (cf Gen. 15:6), and it is the NT idea of salvaiton (John 3:16). Given this, it seems ludicrous and heretical, to me, to assert that "saving faith" includes such concepts as repentance and commitment of life. Perseverance in faith is not required, and there is no exegetical reason to argue that works necessarily follow belief. All of these ideas hinder the biblical concept of faith in that the negate the certainty of the promise, which is the essence of saving faith, both in the OT and in the NT, as demonstrated above.

Again, sorry this took so long to get to you, and I'm sure there are several points that you will want to address, but this should get us going in the right direction again.

God bless!

"Regardless, faith - whatever it happens to be - is recognized as the only condition to be saved."

That's where the rub is - "whatever it happens to be."

"and there is no exegetical reason to argue that works necessarily follow belief."

James 2:

17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. 18 But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. 19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder. 20 You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? 21 Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend. 24 You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. 25 In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26 As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

"faith, by itself, is dead."

"You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without works is useless?"

"Abraham [Old Testament] was considered righteous for what he did."

"Rahab [Old Testament] the prostitute considered righteous for what she did."

"faith without deeds is dead."

I did what Jac [and my wife] told me I had to do. Do I "have life through Jesus' name?" just like it says in John 20:31?

If I do, how do you know?

Hey Kerux,
Very good questions. I asked myself the same questions after I put my faith in Jesus for salvation and believed that He died on the cross to give me eternal life. I still ask myself those questions.

The only way I can know for sure if I'm really saved is to go back to a verse like John 20:31 or John 3:16 and ask myself if I really believe that it is true or do I think that God is a liar. If God does love you and I, and made a way for us to have eternal life with Him through the death of His son then why shouldn't we believe we are saved?

Yes believing is all that is required for salvation, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't tell God we are sorry for our sins and ask Him to help us live for Him and surrender our lives to Him. That is another issue, and it's something we should want to do every day. Something that we have to do everyday if we want to experience His presence and life in His name. I'm not talking about eternal life, that has already been settled at Calvary when you believed. I'm talking about the abundant life that is promised to all believers who walk according to his Spirit in this life.


Kerux, if you have genuinely believed in Jesus for eternal life, than God who is not a liar and keeps His promises has made you His child for eternity. All the other garbage that every one of us here still fall into is another issue.

Does that help or did I just confuse you more?

Take care
FFC

Kerux wrote:I did what Jac [and my wife] told me I had to do. Do I "have life through Jesus' name?" just like it says in John 20:31?

If I do, how do you know?

First you must concede Jac's point here, so that it removes any doubt that the person IS trusting Jesus for eternal life. It only makes sense to continue if you confirm that the person was not just saying that he believes in Jesus, but that he actually does.

So if you can agree that:

Jac3510 wrote:The Bible teaches that "to believe in Jesus" is to entrust to Him our eternal destination. It means to recognize His promise and consider it true and trustworthy, and them rest in that.

then I can respond. If you disagree, then the person was just lying and didn't believe, and the rest of the discussion is vaccous...

The answer to your question is that the person does have life through Jesus' name. First I would generally appeal to you that if you can accept that this person just has too much sin to be saved, then you're on a very slippery slope and the immediate question becomes how much is too much? We all sin constantly, and it's only because Jesus' sacrifice cleanses us of ALL sin, that we can have a certainty about our salvation. It would be inconceivable to me to look in the mirror and ever wonder "have I sinned too much to be saved by Jesus?" which is the innevitable result of any line of thinking that begins to consider how a degenerate sinner must not be saved.

More specifically, this particular person you describe sounds a lot like one that comes to mind from scripture.

1 Corinthians 5:1-5
It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father's wife. And you are proud! Shouldn't you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this? Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present. When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature[or flesh] may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.

This person who is a believer (among the Corinthians), and is actively involved in what everyone will consider reprehensible sin and is unrepentent. The church is told to disavow him and leave him to his life of sin. The consequences are clear: his life will be miserable and his flesh destroyed as he is handed over to Satan (which I interpret as a life of unrepretant sin). Of course you see where I'm going with this: ultimately the man's spirit will be saved on the day of the day of Lord. This is despite the fact that he has been handed over to Satan for the destruction of his life and flesh. The only reasonable conclusion (to me) is that through his belief in Jesus he has been saved, and naturally, God's grace is sufficient to cleanse any sin.

I suspect that Jac (as I've heard his interpretation before) will speak to the James passage in a similar light; understanding the physical consequence of sin being seperate from our ultimate salvation which is sure and absolute in the name of Jesus. But he can speak for himself.

Edit: FFC and I composed our posts at the same time...

FFC wrote:Yes believing is all that is required for salvation, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't tell God we are sorry for our sins and ask Him to help us live for Him and surrender our lives to Him. That is another issue, and it's something we should want to do every day. Something that we have to do everyday if we want to experience His presence and life in His name. I'm not talking about eternal life, that has already been settled at Calvary when you believed. I'm talking about the abundant life that is promised to all believers who walk according to his Spirit in this life.

Yes, well said FFC. This is exactly my understanding also.

Kerux, if you have genuinely believed in Jesus for eternal life, than God who is not a liar and keeps His promises has made you His child for eternity.

I have no doubt as to my salavation and God's gift of eternal life. That is not the point here. The point here boils down to 'what is believing?"

And you've used a term that makes my point:

"genuinely believed"

At the very end of your statement, when you're trying to find words to convince me of your position and assure me of eternal life, you use the adjective 'genuinely." That is my point. Believing [acknowlegding] isn't enough. "The demons also believe and tremble." "Also," ie, just like you.

"But wilt thou know, O vain man, that [genuine] faith without works is dead?" How do we know we have genuine faith? By our repentance and turning to God, ie by our works. Are we saved by our works? Absolutely not. Was Abraham saved by his works? Absolutely not. Was Rahab? Absolutely not. They were saved by faith, faith that was evidenced by their works. And so are we.

You refer to the I Co. 5 passage. There is no evidence that the person involved in the sin in question is even saved. You even point this fact out:

"is actively involved in what everyone will consider reprehensible sin and is unrepentent." You connect no repentance to this person.

Putting him out of the fellowship was for the purpose of making him think about his sin, to shake him from his 'everything I'm doing, even my gross sin, must be okay, because I'm still in fellowship with God's people and, of course, I "believe," to repentance.

[And sad to say, this is the condition of the vast number of 'churches' today. Multitudes are allowed to fellowship among the 'genuinely saved' and are not 'put away.' If these leavened 'believers' were asked if they believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, no doubt they would say "Of course I believe." Because the 'pastors' of the churches look to numbers to fill the pews and the collection plates, these unsaved 'believers' are allowed into fellowhsip, and the 'church' has become leavened. That is another topic, but it does show how one error leads to another].

Why would Paul turn a Christian over to Satan? The turning of the sinful person to Satan is for that person to come to the point where he realizes his sin and repents, turning to God, "that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord."

Paul even refers to the person as 'leaven' and the believers as 'unleavened."