Evidence for God from Science

SoCalExile wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Care to dialogue with what I've said SoCal rather then quote a verbose amount of text?

Pot meet kettle.

You've already lead in with the pejorative "mere intellectual assent" fallacy, so it's going to go downhill from there.

Fact is, the bible doesn't differentiate between "head knowledge" and "heart knowledge"; it's used interchangeably, and that dichotomy is an invention of modern philosophers. One that's used against LS-teacher's opposition without realizing their own logic undermines their own position.

Are you saying there's no such thing as intellectual assent, believing in a proposition or several?

In anticipation of any accusation, if anyone believes I'm advancing the heart over and above belief, or that I'm adding the heart as an additional requirement to belief, I'm doing nothing the sort.

Rather, I think it is better to understand that I'm espousing an onotology of belief, that is, the nature of belief. Can the head believe without heart? Can the heart be fulfilled without belief? Perhaps that is the dichotomy you believe it is wrong to distinguish, or do you merely think it wrong to separate the two?

Paul in Romans 10 I see describes much. If there is no distinction between "belief" and the "heart" then why does Paul say it's with the heart one believes. If there is absolutely nothing to be said for the heart, please explain Romans 10:10 without being tautologous.

Please don't talk Calvin, or this or that, cause quite frankly I don't care much for any systematic theology. Such is frivilous and people are often trapped into forcing Scripture and reason to fit their preferred system. Such is silly to me. Talk to me, not as one system of theology vs another but in free discussion.

As far as I see it, one can either believe directly in Christ, and Christ alone, or they can believe in some proposition about Christ; they can believe in philosophy, some logical proposition. I don't place my faith in philsophy but Christ Himself.

PS. I never mentioned "heart knowledge", and right there you're talking with loaded terms from one system of theology attacking another. Front-loading rather than reading what was actually said by myself.

That's funny, you use the pejoratives of the Lordship Salvationists, but you don't; want to be stuck with their philosophical baggage or logical fallacies? Not going to happen.

Take a look at Proverbs 23:7(KJV).

You've already turned my attitude toward you in the negative with the pejorative used to support a false LS narrative. So the philosophizing is a clanging cymbal to me. I really don't care what your opinion is at this point.

K wrote:Are you saying there's no such thing as intellectual assent, believing in a proposition or several?

In anticipation of any accusation, if anyone believes I'm advancing the heart over and above belief, or that I'm adding the heart as an additional requirement to belief, I'm doing nothing the sort.

Rather, I think it is better to understand that I'm espousing an onotology of belief, that is, the nature of belief. Can the head believe without heart? Can the heart be fulfilled without belief? Perhaps that is the dichotomy you believe it is wrong to distinguish, or do you merely think it wrong to separate the two?

Paul in Romans 10 I see describes much. If there is no distinction between "belief" and the "heart" then why does Paul say it's with the heart one believes. If there is absolutely nothing to be said for the heart, please explain Romans 10:10 without being tautologous.

Please don't talk Calvin, or this or that, cause quite frankly I don't care much for any systematic theology. Such is frivilous and people are often trapped into forcing Scripture and reason to fit their preferred system. Such is silly to me. Talk to me, not as one system of theology vs another but in free discussion.

As far as I see it, one can either believe directly in Christ, and Christ alone, or they can believe in some proposition about Christ; they can believe in philosophy, some logical proposition. I don't place my faith in philsophy but Christ Himself.

PS. I never mentioned "heart knowledge", and right there you're talking with loaded terms from one system of theology attacking another. Front-loading rather than reading what was actually said by myself.

I, for one, in this context see no distinction between the head and the heart. To answer your question, Paul talks about believing "with the heart" in Romans 10, the text explains itself. Paul is distinguishing not between head and heart belief (much less is he drawing an ontological distinction in the nature of belef), but between what you believe with and what you confess with. In other words, belief<>confession. We must recognize that there are two distinct conditions of the "salvation" being spoken of In Rom 10:9-10. Now, confession is an external act--so it is from the mouth. Belief is an internal act, and so it is "with the heart" (a figure of speech). That means that to suggest that there are different kinds of belief or that this speaks to an ontology of belief is to misread the text. Belief, again, is just an internal thing we do. I believe/trust. There's absolutely no connotation of commitment or obedience or any such nonsense in that idea.

And so I would point you back, K, to my earlier comments. You are wanting to talk about the ontology of belief, but you've gotten way ahead of yourself. This question is linguistic, not ontological. The question is what the word "belief" (or better, pisteuo) actually means. That's a lexical question, and what it means is comparable to what the English word "trust" means. You can't get around to asking ontological questions until you already understand what this text means, and that, in turn, means that you can't bring an ontology of belief to the text to understand the text. That's doing eisegesis in the same way that using systematic theology to understand a text is doing eisegesis. And, of course, that's not to say that there is not an ontology of belief or that such conversations are useless. They are useful. But they are useful after exegesis because they are informed by exegesis, never vice-versa.

So lexically, SoCal and Rick are exactly right. LS'ers who try to redefine "faith"--for any reason, be it lexical or theological or ontological--just don't believe the gospel.

fakeedit: I would, though, encourage to read the articles SoCal posted. Pretty good in approaching things from a common sense and logical perspective. Lots of exegetical and linguistic work to do, but that's not their purpose. For what they're trying to do, I think they're rather on point.

SoCalExile wrote:You've already turned my attitude toward you in the negative with the pejorative used to support a false LS narrative. So the philosophizing is a clanging cymbal to me. I really don't care what your opinion is at this point.

I do hear your frustration with K here, SoCal. But I would encourage you, in this case, to take his position a bit more seriously. I know that's hard to do when he's using standard LS tactics and then tries to distance himself from the LS position, but this is just the hard part of apologetics. Our job is to defend our position and, where necessary, point out errors we see in the positions people hold as they hold them. I don't think we get to say that K is somehow required to adopt the baggage of LS when that isn't a position he claims to hold. And even if he's wrong and he does hold the position, there's no value in chasing that argument, because either 1) he truly think's he doesn't hold to LS and so your telling him he is and arguing against LS is going to feel like a straw man to him; or 2) he knows he does and so is being intentionally disingenuous, and in that case, what is the point of the conversation at all? But given that, you would do well to consider the possibility that he really might have a different view--one that has something in common with LS, including errors it sees in our position. But in that case, we need to respond to his actual position rather than one he doesn't hold.

I'm not declaring which of the three positions he's in, just like I wouldn't declare whether DB is a front loader or a back loader. There's no need or use in me making such a judgment. I just think that it's worth responding to his actual arguments.

But maybe I'm wrong. I've been known to be wrong before.

I think.

Or maybe I'm wrong about that . . .

SELF-DEFEATING ARGUMENTS FTW!!!

Again, this is getting more and more complex, but it is VERY simple. Faith is something you either HAVE in your heart and mind, or that you do not. It IS more than mere intellectual belief. And it most certainly is a trust and a commitment that involves desiring that Jesus becomes your Lord, and EVEN THOUGH in that initial trust and commitment, one cannot comprehend what that actually will mean, as GOD will change us, in things we do not and cannot yet understand. It IS a trust that Jesus is the Christ of Scripture, and that He can do what He says He desires to, and that we are helpless to escape our sins without Him, that we NEED Him. So, it is a recognition of our condition, and a trust that is based upon only VERY simple and basic understandings of what becoming a Christian is all about and all which our commitment to Jesus will entail. Even the comparison with marriage might be somewhat suspect, in that people tend to have a fairly deep, if imperfect, understanding of what their spouse is all about before committing to them. But it is an apt analogy in that we can't know our future spouse on a complex level without years of living with them. In Christ, we've committed to a journey without more than basic knowledge given in His road map (Scripture) and the abilities to have a basic understanding of Who Jesus is, what He desires of us, and to trust that the AUTHOR (God!) of the map given is trustworthy.

The other side of this commitment issue is that our WILLINGNESS to respond in small increments toward what God is providing and teaching us, as we can otherwise be UNWILLING and resistant to all He is showing us. I believe the words of Revelation 3:20 are perfect: "Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me." I see the heart/mind/will of a person as being that "door," into which Jesus wants to walk, and so our elements that make up that door (and what is behind it: heart/mind/will) cannot be changed if WE are unwilling to unlock and open our "door" (thus our willingness) to receive what Jesus wants to give us and how He wants to change us upon entering. But WE must want to and be willing to OPEN THE DOOR! He's ALREADY there, He is already WILLING, He already wants us, and HE created the door, and HE gives us the ability to realize Who is behind the door, as well as the ability and option as to whether or not to open the door to Him, or to keep it dead-bolted shut. Calling upon Jesus is to open that door. But what we don't have before opening up our door is more than a very simple understanding about Jesus, or about what the commitment will entail - we have no certainties other than we trust He is the God of Scripture, that we need Him, and that He can and will save us. And the uncertainties we have before we open that door to Jesus, and that we nonetheless open it, IS stepping out in faith. It is OUR faith that God provides and makes possible through our willingness to RESPOND to all that He has done. The key is our willingness to embrace what God wants for us - which He will NOT do against our will (our closed "door.")

Analogies are always imperfect, but ultimately, the WILL is the door which one we will either open or leave bolted shut. Jesus will not break it down to change what lies behind it (heart/mind). But we can HEAR what God wants, know that He is outside, without opening the door - and thus remain unwilling to open it.

Please don't use Rev 3:20 as having anything to do with salvation. The "door" metaphor is not "the door of the heart," and it is not a picture of Jesus coming "into" the person. In context, the "door" is the door of the church, and if anyone opens that door, then Jesus would come in to that person (not into that person) and would have fellowship with Him. In short, that passage is an invitation to a church to reconnect with and deepen the fellowship with Jesus. It's not about anything like salvation.

edit:

Here's an easy article that talks about that verse: https://faithalone.org/magazine/y2001/01A2.html

edit2:

And here's a great little booklet called Seven Reasons NOT to Ask Jesus into Your Heart that talks about this verse in some detail as well: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... 8448,d.cWw

Jac3510 wrote: So lexically, SoCal and Rick are exactly right. LS'ers who try to redefine "faith"--for any reason, be it lexical or theological or ontological--just don't believe the gospel.

That is true of ANYONE tries to redefine faith, no matter what theological camp they align themselves with.
Sometimes that redefinition involves addition.
Sometimes that redefinition involves subtraction.

Either way it distorts the Gospel.

In Christ

Of course it's true for anyone, but since that is what LS'ers do--if they didn't do it, they wouldn't be LS'ers--then I advise you to stop doing it. Faith does not include the ideas you say it does, and K's ontological distinctions are equally invalid.

Bottom line: someone entrusts themselves to Jesus--even if they refuse to love, worship, or obey Him--then they have everlasting life. If you don't believe that, then you don't believe the gospel.

Jac3510 wrote:then I advise you to stop doing it.

I would suggest that you seriously consider your own advice...

Oh geez!
I know you are, but what am I.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WasRS2XclpY

Rick is absolutely right...
I apologize to Jac and the rest of the board.

No apology necessary, DB. Rick just likes to pick.

I understand you think I'm redefining faith. If you didn't, you wouldn't be LS, now would you? But that's why I thought your comment was a bit off the mark. If you would like to respond to the substance of my claims as to why and how LS'ers redefine "faith," I would be open to discussing your perspective on my perspective. I at least appreciate that you seem willing to accept the lexical definition (unless I've misread you there). My concern for you, again, is the same concern I have for K. Your methodology is flawed insofar as you are allowing a perceived ontology of belief (which I take it you draw from your theology) to "pack" or "overload" the lexical meaning. And, insodoing, you end up denying the lexical meaning in and of itself. Thus my charge of eisegesis.

Now, maybe I'm wrong, but I think that's a substantive point worth addressing.

DBowling wrote:Rick is absolutely right...
I apologize to Jac and the rest of the board.

This is a really good thread. I hope we can continue discussing the points made by one another, instead of just picking on DB and Kurieuo, the two heretics.

Just kidding. I wish I had more time to get deeper into the topic. Sorry to all I haven't responded to yet. I'll respond when I can.

I've been busy trying to figure out how to be submissive, and keep my commitment, so I don't lose my eternal life.

Jac, per the link: "The second and third chapters of Revelation are seven letters to seven churches."

I should have realized this was written to believers/churches. And yet, Revelation is the book I am least knowledgeable about. I can tell you then that this verse has been redundantly misused as being a verse of evangelism. Even so, I believe that the analogies of one's willingness or unwillingness and only what very simple understandings one must have for faith to be possible are true.

EVERY time I look at LS assertions, I see you cannot apply to the simple understandings that Scripture says are necessary but also effective to God saving and beginning to change us. The LS message is so often that some deep, complex understanding and unshakable commitment must be made so as to be honored by God with one's salvation. And if not outright stated, that is redundantly implied. Whenever the typical LS assertions are applied to certain people the Bible notes were saved, or the very basic, simple things required, then the typical laundry list of supposed "proofs" disappears. And whether or not one believes works are definite in a Believer, if they can't necessarily accurately be discerned by Christians, what is the point of the argument? If you say a person "just prayed a prayer" and that "they surely aren't a Christian because no works are apparent," and the reality is that we can't always know or see in hearts and minds behind such "simple prayers," when you apply the criteria to young children who we believe to be saved, it just all falls apart as pontificating rhetoric that has millions doubting their own salvation.

The silliness of the "prayer" criticism is that we have a beautiful example of someone who was pronounced, "saved by faith" by Christ, without so much as a word, much less any indication of baptism or proof of perseverance. And yet it is a passage almost totally ignored by popular preachers:

Luke 7:36-50.

Fact is, she believed, and it was sufficient.

Luke 7:47, is a very understated verse, because her sin, when you consider James 2:10, is no worse than the Pharisee's. The severity (or lack thereof) of our sin is inversely proportional to our pride. That is the tragedy of LS and any system of salvation that places any stock in performance, because we're all 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 according to our own merit.