Evidence for God from Science

Jac, I am hoping to soon post a second partial response to your last long post, but I am far from having absolute certainty wrt that matter...so here's a response to your last (shorter) post

Jac3510 wrote:You cannot say, "Well, in modern English, the idea of faith is uncertain, and because people use 'to believe' synononymously with 'faith,' then the modern meaning of 'to believe' is to hold an idea with uncertainty. Therefore, since pisteuw or aman mean 'to believe,' then those words mean to hold an idea with uncertainty."

you are right, and that is why I never made that argument...I was just pointing out that your understanding of "believe" (of the modern english variety) was wrong.

Now - question: do you agree at this point, yes or no, that the biblical concept of faith means absolute certainty?

no...I would stop short of absolute...full of certainty yes. Part of our problem is that you think saving faith is an instantaneous thing...that one only has to believe (with absolute certainty) the right things for but a moment and that fellow is saved. That (IMHO) is not the biblical concept of faith. Saving faith is not just a flash in the pan....and I don't think absolute certainty is always there.

not necessarily. That would be like saying that agape and philanthropia are the absolutely synonymous b/c the hebrew had but one word for these two loves.

Yes, necessarily. You've taken one particular concept of modern belief and used it to define an ancient concept found in aman and pisteuw on the basis of a word in a definition. In other words, you have equivocated (not differentiated) the senses in which "believe" is used in modern English and have applied that incorrect meaning to the biblical idea.

you'll have to point out to me where I did such a thing...cuz I think you are mistaken.
What I am saying is that the hebrews used a word ("aman") and that a word can have a number of meanings that are quite different. The example I gave was love...it can mean brotherly love or the love of God and these are two quite different things. Wrt aman, you must be careful as to what you assert. We are agreed that when used wrt to saving faith, aman meant a faith full of certainty (you would go even farther to absolute certainty). This does not mean that whenever aman was used, it meant a belief that was full of certainty. Out of curiosity, do you know what word the hebrews used when they believed that it would rain the next day, but could not be absolutely certain wrt rain?

Can there be degrees of certainty, ttoews? If so, can you give me examples? I mean, what would it mean to be "sort of" certain?

Turgonian wrote:This discussion is getting way over my head... Let me just comment on a very small part...

Jac3510 wrote:I want you to see this VERY clearly, ttoews: You don't believe what I am saying is the Gospel. Therefore, if what I am saying IS the Gospel, then you don't believe the Gospel. That is a scary and sobering thought. Does that mean you aren't saved? Only if you've never believed the Gospel, and that is something you shouldn't play around with.

Do you know you are saved? Right now? And based on what?

The Gospel: by grace we are saved through faith. I believe this, as does ttoews. We only distinguish between saving faith and spurious faith. We believe that Jesus 'gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works'. If you're still on about the 'Calvinism is salvation by works!' issue, maybe you should check a little booklet by Spurgeon -- which, by the way, brought ME to faith... It's called Around the Wicket Gate -- I copied it into Word and made the font a lot smaller, which made it more legible. What do you think of this quote?

C.H. Spurgeon wrote:Don't trust the Lord in mere sentiment about a few great spiritual things; but trust him for everything, for ever, both for time and eternity, for body and for soul. See how the Lord hangeth the world upon nothing but his own word! It has neither prop nor pillar. Yon great arch of heaven stands without a buttress or a wooden center. The Lord can and will bear all the strain that faith can ever put upon him. The greatest troubles are easy to his power, and the darkest mysteries are clear to his wisdom. Trust God up to the hilt. Lean, and lean hard; yes, lean all your weight, and every other weight upon the Mighty God of Jacob.
The future you can safely leave with the Lord, who ever liveth and never changeth. The past is now in your Savior's hand, and you shall never be condemned for it, whatever it may have been, for the Lord has cast your iniquities into the midst of the sea. Believe at this moment in your present privileges. YOU ARE SAVED. If you are a believer in the Lord Jesus, you have passed from death unto life, and YOU ARE SAVED. In the old slave days a lady brought her black servant on board an English ship, and she laughingly said to the Captain, "I suppose if I and Aunt Chloe were to go to England she would be free?" "Madam," said the Captain, "she is now free. The moment she came on board a British vessel she was free." When the negro woman knew this, she did not leave the ship—not she. It was not the hope of liberty that made her bold, but the fact of liberty. So you are not now merely hoping for eternal life, but "He that believeth in him hath everlasting life." Accept this as a fact revealed in the sacred Word, and begin to rejoice accordingly. Do not reason about it, or call it in question; believe it, and leap for joy.

If you believe Spurgeon was a representative Calvinist and not a half-blood Arminian or No-Lordship Salvationist (behold, something few would defend! ), this should destroy your, hmm, 'faith' that Calvinism relies on works for salvation. Works only play a part in sanctification; justification, which ensures salvation forever, is an unmerited gift of God, and has nothing to do with works.

Actually, I would defend "no-Lordship salvation." That's a purjorative term people like MacArthur have applied to our position to try to disuade people from even considering it. You know what they say . . . if you don't define yourself, the enemy will do it for you. Must Christ be my Lord to be my Savior? No.

As for Spurgeon, he admited himself that he wasn't a good Calvinist. He talked about how he longed for God to save the elect and then go and and elect some more. Seems like Chuck loved people more than god, eh?

In the end, Turgonian, you do NOT believe the same Gospel I am presenting -- not at present, anyway. Maybe you did at some point in the past. I certainly hope so. As I've quoted a million times before, we aren't saved by believing biblical language. We are saved by believing biblical truth. It doesn't impress me for you to say, "Yes, we are saved by grace through faith alone." Why? Because what you MEAN by that phrase is very different from what I mean. For you, we don't even believe to be saved; rather, we believe BECAUSE we are saved. You believe that the saved - the elect - will show themselves to be such by things like confession, repentance, baptism, perseverance in faith and good works, etc. Thus, a person gains progressive assurance of their salvation, a thing they didn't even know they had. And, in reality, they don't KNOW they have it. They are just pretty sure.

Of course, all that is contradictory to John 6:47 or Heb 11:1. If you aren't certain of your salvation, then you don't, at present, believe the Gospel. Assurance is faith. And that's where Calvinism teaches salvation by works, because you believe that the more works you do, the more you can "know" you are saved. Consider this analogy - 80%+ of Americans claim to believe in God. Yet how many are "practical atheists"? That is, they believe in God, but they live as if they don't. He makes no difference to them whatsoever. They are, for all intents and purposes, atheists.

Consider Calvinism. You claim to believe salvation by grace through faith alone (although that faith isn't from you - it was granted, so even faith was by grace - thus, it's more accurate to say that you believe you are saved by grace through grace alone, but I digress). And yet, you may have two people who both claim to have faith, and yet one has no works. Which is saved? In your theology, the one with works. What, then, makes the difference? Works. God gives a person (by grace) the faith (by grace) that procudes works (by grace). Thus, by grace, a person is capable of producing the works to save. Just as most americans are practical atheists, Calvinism, for all intents and purposes, teahces a practical worksism.

So - to everyone - if faith ALWAYS produces good works and a changed life, why did Simon Magnus behave with such evil that most people regard him as lost? Or why did the Pharisees who actually believed refuse to confess Christ publically (John 12:42)? Or why were the Corinthian christians so carnal that God had to kill some of them? (1 Cor. 11:29-30). If "real" faith ALWAYS produces perseverance, why were genuine believers rejecting their faith and going back to Judaism? (Heb 10:26-31; or are lost people "sanctified"?) What of the story Jesus Himself told of the four seeds? Did He not say that the first seed was taken away so that the person might not believe the Gospel and be saved? And yet, the next three believed, and two of them only for a short time. Were they saved, and yet Jesus was wrong?

God bless

Jac, doesn't this verse say that the faith that we live by is evidence of our salvation, making it a kind of assurance? I know what I mean but am having trouble explaining it.

Rom 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

Jac3510 wrote:Can there be degrees of certainty, ttoews?

in modern usage, yes.

If so, can you give me examples? I mean, what would it mean to be "sort of" certain?

I'll assume that you watch shows such as "Law and Order". Picture the one lawyer asking a series of witnesses about the guy(the accused) that they saw exiting the building at 3:30 pm. The one witness actually bumped into the accused when he exited, made eye contact and had known the accused for 10 years. Another witness only casually knew the accused and was twenty feet away. A third witness had never met the accused before and was 30 feet away. All will say that they are certain that it was the accused that they saw, but if challenged the 3rd will admit that he can't be as certain as the 1st witness is. That sort of usage happens all the time...now you may wish to protest that such is not proper usage, but popular usage determines meaning and there is no rule that a meaning must stay fixed for all time. The opposite is in fact true...and of that I am certain.

continuing with your earlier post...

I would disagree that faith is "a faith that is full of certainty." Faith is full certainty. Look again at Heb. 11:1. It does not say, "Now faith holds the evidence of things hoped for, the assurance of things unseen." It says "Faith is the evidence . . ."

I am not sure what point you are trying to make here,,,if it is that having faith (of a saving variety) in God is having full certainty in God, then I concur. And since you brought up Hebrews 11, I note that having faith in God is tied to action repeatedly in the passage

If it helps, I'll concede that there is a popular usage in which "believe" carries the idea of a tenative commitment to an idea. But, that is simply incorrect usage of the word, which is what Huxley is taking issue with here.

no, Huxley is not taking issue with a popular usage in which "believe" carries the idea of a tentative commitment to an idea. Huxley is saying that such does not work for science. Science requires a belief based on strong evidence, a strong foundation. Likewise, the OT contemplates a saving faith that is full of certainty which is different than the popular usage in which "believe" carries the idea of a tentative commitment to an idea. It is not that the popular usage is incorrect, but rather it is inappropriate with regards to certain matters.

Now, in the above quote, you bring up a separate issue, which is other faiths. I do believe that there is such a thing as "non-saving faith." When I put my faith in my car everyday, that doesn't save me. Now--this is IMPORTANT--Jesus wasn't talking about saving faith when He talked about such things as the faith of a mustard seed. ...The kind of faith you are talking about is faith in the ability of God to work in our lives. The disciples had little faith on the Sea of Galilee, not because they had NO faith in God, but because they didn't believe He could or would save them. They were afraid. They were doubting, and it was for THAT doubt that Jesus castigated them. He did that because they were doubting God. They had little faith, and in that little faith, they were sinning, because doubt=unbelief.

when Peter got out of the boat to go to Jesus while He was walking on the water, Peter sees the wind and becomes afraid and starts to sink. Jesus chastises Peter for having "little faith" and doubting vs. having no faith and doubting or for losing his faith by doubting etc. To doubt therefore does not entail the total absence of belief. Now it seems that you want to distinguish this example on the basis that the "belief" in question was "water walking belief" and not "saving belief" ...but then you still must establish why (based on scripture) "water walking faith" can exist with a level of doubt and "saving faith" can not exist concurrently with some uncertainty. Or if you want to distinguish my other examples on that same basis then you must demonstrate why (based on scripture) "non-saving faith" can exist with a level of doubt and "saving faith" can not exist concurrently with some uncertainty. I understand that part of your explanation is that when the disciples say "increase our faith", you understand that:

They were saying, "Increase the realm of our certainty about what God is capable of doing!" In other words, "Let us belief more about God!"

...the trouble for you is that the passage reads "increase our faith" and not "increase the number of things that we have faith about". From an objective perspective , your's sounds like an interpretation that is forced onto the passage so as to accommodate your (mis)understanding of "faith".

It is saving faith that possesses full certainty.....and so one in the free grace school of thought should still be asking himself, "Did I or do I believe with full certainty.?...Did I believe strongly enough?"

Hopefully the above should answer this question. It is impossible to believing "strongly enough." That is like saying, "Can water be any wetter?" The question is simple: "Have I believed in Jesus' promise to give me everlasting life?" If you haven't believed it, then you don't have it.

well, I understand that you want to define "belief" so that you it only exists if there is 100% certainty/absolute certainty and that it doesn't exist if there is anything less than 100% certainty/absolute certainty....but I have seen nothing that causes me to think that your definition is correct...and I have pointed to passages that indicate (to me) that it is wrong.

I can have "great" faith in Target to provide all my needs. I can be absolutely sure that ANYTHING I need, they have. I could, of course, be wrong. My faith could be misplaced. But, I could certainly believe that. On the other hand, I could have "little" faith in Target. Here, I can be absolutely sure that they will have some things I need, but not everything. Or, I can have no faith in Target. I don't know they will have ANYTHING I need. There is, you see, no progression is the certainty of the faith. There is progression in the realm that certainty covers.

this example simply does not match my experience....actually I have no experience with Target. The problem arises b/c you don't specify the "things" in question. Since I have no experience with Target, I'll substitute Walmart. Ask yourself not whether Walmart will be able to provide all your needs, but rather ask if Walmart will have the 60 watt light bulb that you need for the closet. Now you can have great faith that Walmart will have the bulb (b/c 60 watt bulbs are very common and you have seen such in the store before and in fact have gotten 60 watt bulbs there on every previous occasion when they were needed) but you must concede that it is possible that this is one of those rare occasions where they ran out of stock and so you can't be absolutely certain that they will have the bulb....still you believe that Walmart will have the bulb. Your belief is full of certainty b/c you have determined that the possibility that Walmart will not have the bulb is too remote to be of concern.

Yes, and I will flat say that every Sadducee (supposing that they had NEVER believed in the resurrection of the dead) died lost in their sins.

again I see you focusing too much on form and ignoring substance...but, alas, that is what you get when you see salvation as a matter of contract

What was the basis of salvation in the OT? It was believing in the promise of God, not simply that the Messiah would come (even Judas believed that!).

and I would say that it was loving God, relying on Him ....which would mean that you would believe God's promises to the extent that you understood them

I disagree. First, I already said that I don't accept the Totality concept as Holding applies it. If you agree with that, you'll have to prove it. ....
Now, unless you can prove that your view of ST is correct, then your claim absolutely is unsubstantiated. [/

this cuts both ways...until you can disprove it, it is unrefuted.

There is no reason to assume that the Jews looked at aman in such a way as to believe that it necessarily produced good works, else it was not truly aman.

well, obedience is a characteristic associated with aman in the OT...and yet again I ask, is aman ever present w/o any obedience? Now, to this sort of question you object:

There are several problems with your first question. First, it is an argument from silence.

not really, for evidence I can point to those with aman and obedience. If I argue that thunder follows lightening, is it an argument from silence to ask for an occasion when thunder didn't follow? Don't think so.

As for your second question, I'll refer you to John 12:42 --

Yet at the same time many even among the leaders believed in him. But because of the Pharisees they would not confess their faith for fear they would be put out of the synagogue (NIV)
This answers the heart of your question. Belief did not necessarily result in obedience, in this case, confession. You may say, "Ah, but it doesn't say they NEVER confessed," but it never says that did confess at some point in the future, either, does it? The simple fact is that, in this case, faith did not produce obedience. It did not produce confession.

you just don't get it..I am not saying that perfect obedience will follow. Your claim is that no obedience need follow and mine is that some obedience will follow, but you respond as if I say that only obedience will follow. All John 12:42 states is that obedience was lacking in one area at a certain time....this in no way refutes the idea that some obedience will follow.

The point here is that your claim that faith necessarily produces good works is unsubstantiated thus far by both Semetic Totality and Scripture in general. In fact, it is contrary to at least two Scriptures I've already provided--the parable of the seeds and John 12:42.

could you please direct me to your parable of the seeds refutation....I seem to have missed it.

in modern usage, yes.

I'm going to have to disagree:

• cer‧tain  /ˈsɜrtn/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sur-tn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
  
  —adjective 1. free from doubt or reservation; confident; sure: I am certain he will come.
  2. destined; sure to happen (usually fol. by an infinitive): He is certain to be there.
  3. inevitable; bound to come: They realized then that war was certain.
  4. established as true or sure; unquestionable; indisputable: It is certain that he tried.
  5. fixed; agreed upon; settled: on a certain day; for a certain amount.
  6. definite or particular, but not named or specified: A certain person phoned. He had a certain charm.
  7. that may be depended on; trustworthy; unfailing; reliable: His aim was certain.
  8. some though not much: a certain reluctance.

Or how about

• cer‧tain‧ty  /ˈsɜrtnti/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sur-tn-tee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
  
  —noun, plural -ties. 1. the state of being certain.
  2. something certain; an assured fact.
  —Idiom3. for or of a certainty, certainly; without a doubt: I suspect it, but I don't know it for a certainty.

You are either certain of something or you are not. If you have doubt, you do not have certainty. Of course, you can certainly be wrong. You could even recognize the logical possibility that you could be wrong. But if you doubt that you are right, then you are not certain.

As for your example:

I'll assume that you watch shows such as "Law and Order". Picture the one lawyer asking a series of witnesses about the guy(the accused) that they saw exiting the building at 3:30 pm. The one witness actually bumped into the accused when he exited, made eye contact and had known the accused for 10 years. Another witness only casually knew the accused and was twenty feet away. A third witness had never met the accused before and was 30 feet away. All will say that they are certain that it was the accused that they saw, but if challenged the 3rd will admit that he can't be as certain as the 1st witness is. That sort of usage happens all the time...now you may wish to protest that such is not proper usage, but popular usage determines meaning and there is no rule that a meaning must stay fixed for all time. The opposite is in fact true...and of that I am certain.

The first is not "more certain" than the last. The first may have more of a reason for being certain. The third may be certain for the wrong reasons. He may be more easily prompted to doubt. But certain is certain is certain.

Now, getting specific: Gleason Archer, who is is going to use words correctly, said the biblical concept of faith is one of certainty. So . . . forgetting how people misuse words, do you agree that the biblical concept of faith means belief without doubt?

I am not sure what point you are trying to make here,,,if it is that having faith (of a saving variety) in God is having full certainty in God, then I concur. And since you brought up Hebrews 11, I note that having faith in God is tied to action repeatedly in the passage

The point I am making is that is not "full of certainty." That would imply that there is this thing called faith, and then there is thing called certainty, and that faith can have more or less certainty. What I am saying is that faith IS certainty. It IS assurance. It IS hope (in the biblical sense).

no, Huxley is not taking issue with a popular usage in which "believe" carries the idea of a tentative commitment to an idea. Huxley is saying that such does not work for science. Science requires a belief based on strong evidence, a strong foundation. Likewise, the OT contemplates a saving faith that is full of certainty which is different than the popular usage in which "believe" carries the idea of a tentative commitment to an idea. It is not that the popular usage is incorrect, but rather it is inappropriate with regards to certain matters.

You are going to have to stop using the phrase "full of certainty." It is incorrect. Besides, my point still stands. Whether anyone likes it or not, Huxley said that he did not BELIEVE anything with regard to the origins of life. I suspect he had some ideas. I suspect he had some things I would put his money on. But, in his own words, he didn't BELIEVE anything. And why not? Because "to believe" something means to regard it as true. If you doubt the truthfulness of something, then you are not regarding it as true, and therefore you don't believe it. It should be obvious why scientists are less inclined to "believe" something . . . they need evidence to help them regard something as absolutely true. That's their job. It is no different with you and me. Jesus said to believe in Him. We are called to consider what He said as absolutely true.

when Peter got out of the boat to go to Jesus while He was walking on the water, Peter sees the wind and becomes afraid and starts to sink. Jesus chastises Peter for having "little faith" and doubting vs. having no faith and doubting or for losing his faith by doubting etc. To doubt therefore does not entail the total absence of belief. Now it seems that you want to distinguish this example on the basis that the "belief" in question was "water walking belief" and not "saving belief" ...but then you still must establish why (based on scripture) "water walking faith" can exist with a level of doubt and "saving faith" can not exist concurrently with some uncertainty. Or if you want to distinguish my other examples on that same basis then you must demonstrate why (based on scripture) "non-saving faith" can exist with a level of doubt and "saving faith" can not exist concurrently with some uncertainty. I understand that part of your explanation is that when the disciples say "increase our faith", you understand that:

Jac3510 wrote:They were saying, "Increase the realm of our certainty about what God is capable of doing!" In other words, "Let us belief more about God!"

...the trouble for you is that the passage reads "increase our faith" and not "increase the number of things that we have faith about". From an objective perspective , your's sounds like an interpretation that is forced onto the passage so as to accommodate your (mis)understanding of "faith".

When Peter had his eyes on Jesus, he walked on water. The moment he took his eyes of Jesus, he began to doubt. At that moment, he had stopped believing. Period. He had no faith, so he fell. Jesus said he had "little faith" because he was not able to believe the greater things.

As for the second part of the above quote, what does the word "increase" mean? It means to add to or make bigger, right? (I'll assume what don't have to argue over what "increase" means ). What is faith? It is trust, and within man, it is his ability to trust. You make the assumption that they were asking Jesus to remove their doubt, but the text doesn't say that. It says "increase our faith." Or, "Let us trust more." More what? Are they saying "let the trust that we have be stronger" or are they saying "let us trust You more to do and work in us as You will"? The second seems much more likely. They are confessing that they don't believe that Jesus can do everything He says He can, but they want to believe it. They want to be able to rely on Jesus to do the things He says He can. There are something things they CAN trust Him with - i.e., eternal life. But what about other issues? So they cry out, "Increase our faith."

well, I understand that you want to define "belief" so that you it only exists if there is 100% certainty/absolute certainty and that it doesn't exist if there is anything less than 100% certainty/absolute certainty....but I have seen nothing that causes me to think that your definition is correct...and I have pointed to passages that indicate (to me) that it is wrong.

I'm just working off the definitions provided by leading lexicons such as the BADG, TNDT, TWOT, etc. Perhaps you could offer the same type of support for your position?

this example simply does not match my experience....actually I have no experience with Target. The problem arises b/c you don't specify the "things" in question. Since I have no experience with Target, I'll substitute Walmart. Ask yourself not whether Walmart will be able to provide all your needs, but rather ask if Walmart will have the 60 watt light bulb that you need for the closet. Now you can have great faith that Walmart will have the bulb (b/c 60 watt bulbs are very common and you have seen such in the store before and in fact have gotten 60 watt bulbs there on every previous occasion when they were needed) but you must concede that it is possible that this is one of those rare occasions where they ran out of stock and so you can't be absolutely certain that they will have the bulb....still you believe that Walmart will have the bulb. Your belief is full of certainty b/c you have determined that the possibility that Walmart will not have the bulb is too remote to be of concern.

This doesn't get at what I was saying. Here I am not certain that Walmart WILL HAVE the lightbulb. I am certain that they carry it, and that if it is not out of stock, it will be there. Now, I am pretty sure that it will be there, because that is the kind of thing that usually doesn't go out of stock. But I certainly don't KNOW it will be there. I don't BELIEVE it will be there.

The point I was making is I can have a little faith in Walmart and trust them with only a few things, like light bulbs. I happen to have very little faith in Walmart. I'm more of a Target guy. I'm not disposed to think that they will have what I'm looking for, and what they do have, I expect it to be more expensive. Perhaps, though, you have greater faith in Walmart. You might believe that they have more than I believe they do. Of course, you could be wrong, as could I. But that doesn't change the fact that you know (based on your extensive experience) that they carry items that I don't know they carry. Thus, your faith is greater, even as your certainty is not. Why? Because the scope of your faith is greater.

It works exactly the same way with God. We can trust God with big things easily, like salvation. If we don't have any choice BUT to trust God, that's not too tough to do. But, the hard part is trusting God with the more mundane parts of life. That's where "Great faith" comes in. It means being able to rely on God with those other issues. Think about it, ttoews: God said that He will take care of our every need, right? So, if you think that you have to take care of some small thing, what you are saying is that God either can't or won't take care of it. Thus, you do not believe God in that area. You consider Him untrue. That doesn't change the fact that you trust Him absolutely on other things like salvation. And you should definitely increase your faith - you should consider His words true in all areas and not just a few.

Faith is about scope. It is not about depth.

again I see you focusing too much on form and ignoring substance...but, alas, that is what you get when you see salvation as a matter of contract

God offers salvation freely. I take it freely. The more people believe that, the better.

and I would say that it was loving God, relying on Him ....which would mean that you would believe God's promises to the extent that you understood them

You don't think the Pharisees loved God? What about Judas? Didn't he love God? They all thought - they were SURE - the Messiah was coming. They certainly believed those things were true. So why weren't they saved? Paul himself talks about love and zeal not being enough - but what we need is knowledge and the belief that it is true (cf. Acts 22:3; Rom. 10:2).

When Paul testifies against you (to use his terminology), you might want to reconsider

this cuts both ways...until you can disprove it, it is unrefuted.

And I provided a discussion out of the ISBE that showed the false roots of your version of ST. Did you read it?

well, obedience is a characteristic associated with aman in the OT...and yet again I ask, is aman ever present w/o any obedience? Now, to this sort of question you object:

Jac3510 wrote:There are several problems with your first question. First, it is an argument from silence.

not really, for evidence I can point to those with aman and obedience. If I argue that thunder follows lightening, is it an argument from silence to ask for an occasion when thunder didn't follow? Don't think so.

If your proof that thunder ALWAYS followed lighting was that you, nor anyone else, had ever seen lightening followed by thunder, you'd be giving a silly argument. You would have to demonstrate the reason for it, which, as it happens, isn't too hard to do.

Second, it is an argument from silence by definition. Scripture never records someone who had aman and was not obedient. Therefore, aman always produces obedience. I don't think the flaw needs to be pointed out there. Would you care to put that into a clearer sylogism?

Jac3510 wrote:As for your second question, I'll refer you to John 12:42
Yet at the same time many even among the leaders believed in him. But because of the Pharisees they would not confess their faith for fear they would be put out of the synagogue (NIV)
This answers the heart of your question. Belief did not necessarily result in obedience, in this case, confession. You may say, "Ah, but it doesn't say they NEVER confessed," but it never says that did confess at some point in the future, either, does it? The simple fact is that, in this case, faith did not produce obedience. It did not produce confession.

you just don't get it..I am not saying that perfect obedience will follow. Your claim is that no obedience need follow and mine is that some obedience will follow, but you respond as if I say that only obedience will follow. All John 12:42 states is that obedience was lacking in one area at a certain time....this in no way refutes the idea that some obedience will follow.

Then stop asking for Scriptural examples. I could provide dozens of examples, and using the logic above, in EVERY case you could say, "Yes, but we don't know that they didn't become obedient later on. Besides, this was only one area they were disobedient in. There could have been others."

Now, the point is that FAITH DID NOT RESULT IN OBEDIENCE. It's up to you to explain why sometimes it does and sometimes it does not, and why it will in some cases and in some catagories and not in others. You are the one who asserts that faith always results in good works as it is a NECESSARY result. So, where is the necessary result here, ttoews? If the necessary result of faith is obedience, including confession, and these people did not confess, then how is it John can say that had faith?

[quote="Jac3510"The point here is that your claim that faith necessarily produces good works is unsubstantiated thus far by both Semetic Totality and Scripture in general. In fact, it is contrary to at least two Scriptures I've already provided--the parable of the seeds and John 12:42.

could you please direct me to your parable of the seeds refutation....I seem to have missed it.[/quote]
I discussed it in depth with Turgonian . . . I don't have time to look it up now as I have to go back to work.

I expect you'll still be working on responding to the second have of my Aug 31 post, yes?

God bless

edited for tone and lenth

Actually, I wanted to deal a little bit more with the lexical issue.

As we talked about earlier, the issue is what do the words aman and pisteuw mean. I just want to make sure this is very clear. The standard lexicon for NT Greek is the BADG. It defines pisteuw simply as "to believe (in) something, to be convinced of something" (660). Louw and Nida's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic-Domains, another very highly respected lexicon, defines it as "to think to be true." (II, 198) They further comment, "In a number of languages the equivalent of pisteuw is simply 'to think to be true' or 'to regard as true,' but in some languages an idiomatic expression is employed, for example 'to think in the heart,' or 'to think in the liver' or 'to hold in the heart.'" (II, 370) Appealing further to Louw, we see that several words that related, but not having exactly the same meaning. For example, diakrinomai means "to think that something may or may not be true or certain - 'to doubt, to be uncertain about, doubt'." (Jas 1:6); plerophoreomai is another verb meaning "to be completely certain of the truth of something - 'to be absolutely sure, to be certain, complete certainty.'" (Rom 4:21) Peithomai, epexw, katexw, and antexomai all have similar meanings - to believe something certainly or without doubt. The fact that pisteuw is in this word group should tell us something.

Moving on, Bultmann says that pisteuw's basic idea in the classical sense is to "to trust." (VI, 175) Concerning General Christian usage, see this extended quote (VI, 205-6):

Bultmann wrote:Pisteuw often means to believe God's words. Belief is thus put in Scripture (Jn 2:22), in what is written in the Law and the prophets (Ac 24:14), in what the prophets have said (Lk. 24:25), or simply in the prophets (Ac. 26:27), in Moses or his writings (Jn. 5:46 f.), also in what God is saying at the moment, e.g., through an angel (Lk. 1:20, 45; Ac. 27:25). In this sense John the Baptist can also be mentioned as one whom people should believe (Mk. 11:31; Mt. 21:32). In this sense, too, John's Gospel (and his alone) says that people believe, or should believe, Jesus or His Word. He is sent by God (5:38) and speaks the words of God (3:34 etc.). What Jn. means by this is materially none other than believing in Jesus. . . .

. . . The fact that "to believe" is "to obey," as in the OT, is particularly emphasized in Heb. 11. Here the pisteuein of OT characters has in some instances the more or less explicit sense of obedience. How naturally pisteuein includes obeying may seen from the use of peithesthai rather than pisteuein for receiving the Christian message. Unbelief can be denoted not merely by apistein but also by apeithein. Paul in particular stresses the element of obedience in faith. For him pistis is indeed hupakoe, as comparison of R. 1:8; 1 Th. 1:8 with R. 15:18; 16:19, or 2 C. 10:5 f. with 10:15, shows. Faith is for Paul hupakouein to euaggeliw, R. 10:16. To refuse to believe is not to obey the righteousness which the Gospel offers for faith, R. 10:13. Paul can call believing confession of the Gospel the hupotage tes homologias eis to euaggelion tou Christou, 2 C. 9:13. He co9ins the combination hupakoe pistews, R. 15.

He goes on to talk about how trusting is often the idea as well, and here closely related to hope. Hope is the firm expectation of a future, and "This is indeed the predominant sense in Hb. 11." (VI, 207) In this, we see the word conveys the idea of trusting God for a future promise, considering His Word to be true.

William Mounce has just come out with a great tool for those who don't read Greek but want something better than Vines. Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary talks about the various words for believe. In the OT: "Aman means 'to believe, trust.' . . . The most common usage of 'aman connotes belief, recognizing that something is true." (cf. Gen 45:26; Ex. 4:1, 8; 1 Ki. 10:7; 2 Chr. 32:15; Isa. 53:1).

Now, you will find support from Mounce at this point. On page 60-61, He goes on to say:

Mounce wrote:[T]he full biblical concept of believingin both the OT and NT is not merely acknowledging something to be true, nor is it the popular notion of belief that implies little more than having a deep emotional resonance with something. The biblical concept of believing involves action. "Abram believed the Lord, and he credited to him as righteousness," for his "believing" involved doing (Gen. 15:6; see the argument of James in Jas. 2:20-24). At least twice before this pronouncement from God, Abraham left his "comfort-zone" to obey God (Gen. 12:1-4; 13:14-18), and later he was willing to sacrifice his son Isaac (Gen. 22). . . . It is from this same root that we get the word "amen" (GK 589; see Num. 5:22; Deut. 27:15-26; 32:30; 1 Chr. 16:36; Ps. 72.29). . . . Like the idea of faith in general, "amen" is to be followed by a commitment to enact it: "At this the whole assembly said, 'Amen,' and praised the Lord. And the people did as they had promised" (Neh. 5:13). To amen the Lord's commandments is not to just say they are good ideas. It is to say, "I commit myself to obeying them."

Concerning pisteuw, he follows Baur and defines it "to believe, be convinced of something." (61) With reference to certainty, he says, "pisteuw is used to mean 'to be convinced of' what is spoken or written . . . People respond to hearing the gospel message by believing it." He futher defines the word as meaning "to accept as true." (61) He cites examples of chief priests and elders not believing John the Bapist, while tax collectors and prostitutes believed him (Mt. 21:25; 32), as well as Abraham's faith (Rom 4:3; Gal. 3:6). (62) His next comment is revealing. Because he has just defined pistuew as "to accept as true," he (being a Lordship guy) goes on to say:

Mounce wrote:Someone can believe God and still not possess saving faith, since even demons believe God (Jas. 2:19). This indicates that to believe is not simply to give mental assent, but to turn one's whole being over to God.

It is painfully obvious that this is a theological position rather than a lexical one. Two severe problems are brought up in this comment: first, he fails to recognize that nowhere in Scripture is salvation offered to angels under any circumstances. There is no reason to believe that they do not believe the Gospel! However, the greater problem is that, by his own admission, a person may "believe God" and not be saved, and yet Jesus says, "Whoever believes has everlasting life." (Jn 6:47) Mounce defines believe at the last moment, then, as "turning one's whole being over to God," but it is telling that he does not include this as an actualy definition, but only a comment. Futher, NO lexicon defines pisteuw as "to turn one's whole being over to," or anything like it.

Given all this, we can see that from a lexical perspective, there is no doubt that to believe means to regard something as true. This belief is certain. There is no doubt. If we doubt, we do not believe because we do not regard the idea as true.

in modern usage, yes.

I'm going to have to disagree...The first is not "more certain" than the last. The first may have more of a reason for being certain. The third may be certain for the wrong reasons. He may be more easily prompted to doubt. But certain is certain is certain.

I believe we have better things to do with our time than to continue to argue over modern meanings, but one last foray before I leave this topic. I say that in modern usage "levels of certainty" exist. You must disagree and think that such is not the case. Here is what I propose. Google phrases such as "levels of certainty", "various levels of certainty" or "greater certainty". If I am right, the searches should locate a number of pages using those phrases on the net....and if you are right, there shouldn't be that many...only people like you saying such things as, "there are no levels of certainty" or "there can't be various levels of certainty". You might want to compare the number of "hits" to the number of "hits" for something like "levels of intelligence" to get a taste of how common the usage actually is. Go ahead, give it a try...I'll wait here.

"musical interlude"

Well, you are back ...so, tell me...who was right about modern usage? (I don't know about yours, but my googling got 43500 "levels of certainty" in 0.07 seconds and "105,000" "levels of intelligence" in .14 secs.) Now modern usage doesn't tell us much about "aman", but what I find interesting about this bit of our discussion is your determined refusal to acknowledge a meaning of "certainty" that can be found in a fairly common modern usage.... when it is of very little or no significance to the actual issue at hand. (no doubt you are already deciding how to explain away 43500 hits of the one phrase alone). In light of that determined refusal one can only marvel at the level of determination that must exist in your desire to hold onto all things that are of actual importance to free grace soteriology.

Funny, ttoews, I never pegged you to be the postmodern type.

Word usage is important so far as conveying ideas goes. I've already said that I could care less how you define belief, certain, or other such words. I've said that if you want to use them in the popular incorrect sense, then I'm fine with that - just tell me what word you DO want to use. You've not done that. I can only venture a guess as to why . . .

So, how about you lay off the subtle and left handed ad hominems, and let's deal with the evidence I've presented for my position. I've offered lexical evidence that the words pisteuw and aman mean belief without doubt, or certainty. I've offered both lexical and exegtical arguments against the idea of "faith containing certainty." I've given exegetical and theological arguments against "levels of faith," and instead have provided simple reasons for understanding "faith" as a concerned with realm rather than depth. I've shown repeatedly that the only requirement for salvation is belief. I've offered several Scriptures in which belief did not necessarily result in obedience, and especially my understanding of the parable of the seeds disproves the entire line of thought. I've offered theological considerations as they relate to assurance proving that it is logically impossible that faith must necessarily produce works.

In the end, the Bible says that "faith" is the only requirement for salvation. You want to redefine it. I have more than adequately supported my position that faith is simple belief/trust in Christ for eternal life. I'm waiting on you to either show the weaknesses in that position (which is not done by quibbling over English word usage or subtle personal attacks), as well as lexical, exegetical, and theological support for your own.

God bless

Hey Jac, again sorry for the slow progress...you said:

I disagree. First, I already said that I don't accept the Totality concept as Holding applies it. If you agree with that, you'll have to prove it.

I don't know that I have to....as it seems that the quotes you have provided from your experts have done the job for me. Look again at your quotes from when you are "dealing with the lexical issue".
first, you consider Bultmann and say:

Moving on, Bultmann says that pisteuw's basic idea in the classical sense is to "to trust." (VI, 175) Concerning General Christian usage, see this extended quote (VI, 205-6):
Bultmann wrote:
Pisteuw often means to believe God's words. ....
. . . The fact that "to believe" is "to obey," as in the OT, is particularly emphasized in Heb. 11. Here the pisteuein of OT characters has in some instances the more or less explicit sense of obedience. How naturally pisteuein includes obeying may seen from the use of peithesthai rather than pisteuein for receiving the Christian message. Unbelief can be denoted not merely by apistein but also by apeithein. Paul in particular stresses the element of obedience in faith. For him pistis is indeed hupakoe, as comparison of R. 1:8; 1 Th. 1:8 with R. 15:18; 16:19, or 2 C. 10:5 f. with 10:15, shows. Faith is for Paul hupakouein to euaggeliw, R. 10:16. To refuse to believe is not to obey the righteousness which the Gospel offers for faith, R. 10:13. Paul can call believing confession of the Gospel the hupotage tes homologias eis to euaggelion tou Christou, 2 C. 9:13. He co9ins the combination hupakoe pistews, R. 15.

then you consider Mounce:

William Mounce has just come out with a great tool for those who don't read Greek but want something better than Vines. Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary talks about the various words for believe. In the OT: "Aman means 'to believe, trust.' . . . The most common usage of 'aman connotes belief, recognizing that something is true." (cf. Gen 45:26; Ex. 4:1, 8; 1 Ki. 10:7; 2 Chr. 32:15; Isa. 53:1).

Now, you will find support from Mounce at this point. On page 60-61, He goes on to say:
Mounce wrote:
[T]he full biblical concept of believing in both the OT and NT is not merely acknowledging something to be true, nor is it the popular notion of belief that implies little more than having a deep emotional resonance with something. The biblical concept of believing involves action. "Abram believed the Lord, and he credited to him as righteousness," for his "believing" involved doing (Gen. 15:6; see the argument of James in Jas. 2:20-24). At least twice before this pronouncement from God, Abraham left his "comfort-zone" to obey God (Gen. 12:1-4; 13:14-1, and later he was willing to sacrifice his son Isaac (Gen. 22). . . . It is from this same root that we get the word "amen" (GK 589; see Num. 5:22; Deut. 27:15-26; 32:30; 1 Chr. 16:36; Ps. 72.29). . . . Like the idea of faith in general, "amen" is to be followed by a commitment to enact it: "At this the whole assembly said, 'Amen,' and praised the Lord. And the people did as they had promised" (Neh. 5:13). To amen the Lord's commandments is not to just say they are good ideas. It is to say, "I commit myself to obeying them."

so then, according to your authorities, "to believe" in the OT includes obedience (Bultmann) and involves action (Mounce). I concede and can do nothing but agree with your authorities....when Jesus said "whoever believes in me" to His Jewish audience, that audience would have understood believing to include obedience and to involve action....fortunately this is exactly what I have been saying from the start and is very much in line with the Totality concept. Well done Jac!...

Given all this, we can see that from a lexical perspective, there is no doubt that to believe means to regard something as true. This belief is certain. There is no doubt. If we doubt, we do not believe because we do not regard the idea as true.

yes, it means to regard something as true...but you go too far in asserting that this can only mean that there is no doubt. You must keep in mind that both Bultmann and Mounce understand that "believing" is not a flash-in-the-pan thing that may only last a second.....both see "belief" as something that lasts long enough to produce action/obedience....neither quote you give establishes that either Bultmann or Mounce hold that absolute certainty must be maintained throughout the time period that is required for obedience/action to blossom and bear fruit. However, as I have been saying, I think that it is fair to say that "belief" is full of certainty such that doubt does not establish itself to an extent necessary to defeat the obedience/action.

So, how about you lay off the subtle and left handed ad hominems, ...

what is it with this prejudice of yours against left-handedness? As for ad hominems, I have never suggested that your argument is flawed b/c of some personal deficiency of your's,....however, I do think your bias is worth noting in light of your repeated insistence that you are in a superior position b/c you were once on the other side of the fence. Also I do not think my remark was any more of an ad hominem than your repeated claim that I "disagree for the sake of disagreement". May I suggest that you check your own eye for logs?...and perhaps you could be a little less sensitive?

I don't know that I have to....as it seems that the quotes you have provided from your experts have done the job for me. Look again at your quotes from when you are "dealing with the lexical issue".
first, you consider Bultmann and say:

Sorry, you still have to. I provided the quotes because those were the best ones I could find that would possibly support your position. However, with Bultmann we see that faith is first and foremost belief (as per the first part of the definition that you conveniently ignored . . . taking lessons from PL, now?). Mounce, who is a Lordship guy and would certainly argue for you has been provided, but I already showed in my discussion why he is wrong. Further, his lexical discussion was about certainty. It was his theological commentary where he gets into your ideas. So, from a LEXICAL perspective, you still have no support.

so then, according to your authorities, "to believe" in the OT includes obedience (Bultmann) and involves action (Mounce). I concede and can do nothing but agree with your authorities....when Jesus said "whoever believes in me" to His Jewish audience, that audience would have understood believing to include obedience and to involve action....fortunately this is exactly what I have been saying from the start and is very much in line with the Totality concept. Well done Jac!...

For what? Spending less than ten minutes with five major lexicons and providing a couple of quotes that MIGHT support your position to MAYBE stimulate to do your own lexical research? Quotes that I've already shown don't help you, but in fact, run counter to your claims? I suppose that I have done a good job

Anyway, I'll give you the fair chance to retract your agreement, or at least qualify that you only agree with the parts you quoted, because if you read the entire set of quotes again, you'll find that both Bultmann and Mounce argue that faith is certainty, which is the exact opposite of your position. Or are you going to admit that you were wrong there?

yes, it means to regard something as true...but you go too far in asserting that this can only mean that there is no doubt. You must keep in mind that both Bultmann and Mounce understand that "believing" is not a flash-in-the-pan thing that may only last a second.....both see "belief" as something that lasts long enough to produce action/obedience....neither quote you give establishes that either Bultmann or Mounce hold that absolute certainty must be maintained throughout the time period that is required for obedience/action to blossom and bear fruit. However, as I have been saying, I think that it is fair to say that "belief" is full of certainty such that doubt does not establish itself to an extent necessary to defeat the obedience/action.

How do I go to far in saying that it means not having doubt? If you doubt something, then you don't regard it as true as per the idea of certainty, which both Bultmann and Mounce support. Now, yes, both of these men, being Calvinsts, hold to perseverance of the saints. Thus, they believe that "genuine" faith will produce good works. However, that is their THEOLOGICAL position. Their LEXICAL position - that is, what the word ACTUALLY MEANS - is exactly what I am saying. It means to have certainty that something is true. No doubt. To believe. Now, THEY go on and say that such faith will produce good works. Fine. Good for them. They are theologians just like the rest of us. However, from a LEXICAL perspective, they DEFINE the word as being doubtless, certain belief (as if there could be any other kind in the proper usage of the word).

So, I'm still waiting on you to show me a lexicon - a Greek dictionary - that defines faith or belief as something containing doubt or less than certainty or what have you. As of right now, you haven't. And, you won't be able to do it, because it is not what the word means.

Too bad for you, I've provided what . . . five or so such references now, plus offered a brief discussion on related words to further the point? I've provided theological evidence that the position is wrong, and the point of the four soils has never even been challenged, much less refuted. You're going against Jesus' words here, not mine. So, I've provided at least three lines of evidence for my position:

1. Lexical: i.e., Baur, Louw and Nida, NIDNT, Mounce, TWOT - the word means "to regard something as true" or "to have certainty"
2. Theological: i.e., You cannot say that faith MUST produce works, or else you destroy and potential for assurance, which is the absolute basis of salvation. Such an idea naturally leads to works-based salvation.
3. Scriptural: i.e, no passages directly saying that faith produces works, Jesus parable of the four soils directly says otherwise.

Of course, these are each samples - we could expand each catagory, and if you go through this thread, you'll see more than a few of such arguments posted. Some of them have been discussed, others haven't. But here's my point: YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR YOUR POSITION. Thus far, you have not.

what is it with this prejudice of yours against left-handedness? As for ad hominems, I have never suggested that your argument is flawed b/c of some personal deficiency of your's,....however, I do think your bias is worth noting in light of your repeated insistence that you are in a superior position b/c you were once on the other side of the fence. Also I do not think my remark was any more of an ad hominem than your repeated claim that I "disagree for the sake of disagreement". May I suggest that you check your own eye for logs?...and perhaps you could be a little less sensitive?

You are a better debater than that. You are well aware of what you are doing. There have been more than a few, but let's take this little beauty:

You wrote:Now modern usage doesn't tell us much about "aman", but what I find interesting about this bit of our discussion is your determined refusal to acknowledge a meaning of "certainty" that can be found in a fairly common modern usage.... when it is of very little or no significance to the actual issue at hand. (no doubt you are already deciding how to explain away 43500 hits of the one phrase alone). In light of that determined refusal one can only marvel at the level of determination that must exist in your desire to hold onto all things that are of actual importance to free grace soteriology.

This is beautifully played. You have spent up to this point a couple of days arguing that "certainty" doesn't mean absolute certainty - that there can be levels. And before this, you argued that the lexicons didn't define "faith" as "certainty." Now that I've proven both of those arguments wrong,

1) You act as if it really isn't important, in attempt to portray me as argumentative and put yourself on the high ground, and
2) You run to "popular usage," as if that proved anything about our argument, totally ignoring the proper usage that the LEXICONS USED, and then attack me personally by painting me as overly closed minded.

Subtle. Left handed. Beautifully played. Not to mention deceptive, deceitful, and nothing more than a debate tactic. You were wrong on the certainty issue. Rather than attacking me personally, why don't you admit it?

Now, faith IS certain belief. That means there is no doubt. That is what the lexicons say. If you cannot show me a lexicon that says otherwise, you have to concede I am right, or at least that you were wrong, assuming, of course, you are trying to have an honest discussion.

If, then, we can stop arguing for the sake of arguing, can we get back to the actual points of the discussion? Why don't you consider my arguments, point out where you see problems, and then provide evidence for your own position so I can offer the same service? Fair enough?

Jac3510 wrote:
Sorry, you still have to. I provided the quotes because those were the best ones I could find that would possibly support your position.

well, I have yet to see something from a lexicon that doesn't support my position

However, with Bultmann we see that faith is first and foremost belief (as per the first part of the definition that you conveniently ignored . . . taking lessons from PL, now?).

two birds with one ad hom is it now?....btw agreeing with is not ignoring

Mounce, who is a Lordship guy and would certainly argue for you has been provided, but I already showed in my discussion why he is wrong. Further, his lexical discussion was about certainty. It was his theological commentary where he gets into your ideas. So, from a LEXICAL perspective, you still have no support.

so when someone agrees with you, it is a lexical perspective....but then when he doesn't its theological commentary? Please...have you ever considered that the reason that Mounce, Bultmann and Archer have all concluded that "OT belief" is full of certainty is b/c they also have seen that "belief" in the OT always produces obedience, action and righteous works? Nice try Jac, but the lexica are one my side (just like the dictionaries)....keep in mind that we are in the midst of two key issues. They are:
1 when Jesus laid out the requirement of "belief in Him", what would He have meant with "belief" and would He and His Jewish audience have understood "belief" to mean something that entailed obedience?

2 when Jesus laid out the requirement of "belief in Him", what would He have meant with "belief" and would He and His Jewish audience have understood "belief" to mean something that entailed absolute certainty?

later you proclaim:

But here's my point: YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR YOUR POSITION. Thus far, you have not.

look again Jac....
wrt #1, I have argued from the very start that they would have understood "belief" to be accompanied by obedience. Why, b/c of the contents of the OT. As I have asked before, perhaps you could refer me to the Jew in Christ's audience who understood circumcision to be an option, who thought sacrifices were not required or who thought that the commandments were merely suggestions that one could choose to follow or not? Until you do, why should I think that the 1st century Jew thought that obedience could be divorced from faith?....especially when "aman" is always accompanied by obedience in the scriptures that they had. You attempt to dismiss this as an argument from silence (which it isn't) and refer me to a verse that establishes that in the NT faith did not result in complete obedience (irrelevant).

wrt #2 I have shown you how Jesus used "faith" in a fashion consistent with the existence of faith in levels....and where levels exist, absolute certainty can only exist in one level...Christ used terms such as "little faith", "great faith" and "faith with doubt". You attempt to dismiss this by distinguishing between Christ's use of faith in the context of saving faith and Christ's use of faith in the context of non-saving faith (an unwarranted distinction) or by saying "great faith" or "an increase in faith" really meant having faith in a greater number of things and increasing the number of things that one believed (a forced interpretation).

Frankly, I find your dismissals lacking in validity and your point to be unfounded.

Anyway, I'll give you the fair chance to retract your agreement, or at least qualify that you only agree with the parts you quoted, because if you read the entire set of quotes again, you'll find that both Bultmann and Mounce argue that faith is certainty, which is the exact opposite of your position. Or are you going to admit that you were wrong there?

there is nothing to retract Jac....please read this again to understand why there is nothing for me to retract(I have added a few words that might help you follow my reasoning):

yes, faith/belief means to regard something as true...but you go too far in asserting that this can only mean that there is no doubt ever. You must keep in mind that both Bultmann and Mounce understand that "believing" is not a flash-in-the-pan thing that may only last a second.....both see "belief" as something that lasts long enough to produce action/obedience....neither quote you give establishes that either Bultmann or Mounce hold that absolute certainty must be maintained throughout the time period that is required for obedience/action to blossom and bear fruit. However, as I have been saying, I think that it is fair to say that "belief" is full of certainty such that doubt does not establish itself to an extent necessary to entirely defeat the obedience/action.

from your response I can tell that you can't understand how I can agree with Bultmann and Mounce and disagree with you....so read the above till you can understand how it is that I agree with Bultmann and Mounce

So, I'm still waiting on you to show me a lexicon - a Greek dictionary - that defines faith or belief as something containing doubt or less than certainty or what have you. As of right now, you haven't. And, you won't be able to do it, because it is not what the word means.

Part of the problem is that you understand "belief" to be like a light switch ...it is either fully on or fully off and there is no in between. So when a lexicon defines it as "to think to be true" you read it as "to think to be true with absolute certainty". Consider the possibility that the authors of the lexica understand "belief" the same way as I do....that is it is like a dimmer switch that can range from being fully on to being fully off and anywhere in between. Archer is saying that modern usage understands belief to be almost anywhere but fully off...and that OT usage is closer to other end of the spectrum. We understand that a person of faith is a person who has a fairly bright light and not (like you would suggest) only a fellow whose light is fully on. Reread the bits from the lexica that you have provided whilst keeping in mind what I have just told you about my perspective and then tell me what it is that I should find disagreeable...and when you think you got something, look again b/c I can't find something to disagree with (and I believe I that I understand my beliefs better than do you)

You are a better debater than that. You are well aware of what you are doing. There have been more than a few, but let's take this little beauty:
You wrote:
Now modern usage doesn't tell us much about "aman", but what I find interesting about this bit of our discussion is your determined refusal to acknowledge a meaning of "certainty" that can be found in a fairly common modern usage.... when it is of very little or no significance to the actual issue at hand. (no doubt you are already deciding how to explain away 43500 hits of the one phrase alone). In light of that determined refusal one can only marvel at the level of determination that must exist in your desire to hold onto all things that are of actual importance to free grace soteriology.

This is beautifully played. You have spent up to this point a couple of days arguing that "certainty" doesn't mean absolute certainty - that there can be levels.

no, I had been arguing that modern usage wrt "belief" doesn't mean absolute certainty.

And before this, you argued that the lexicons didn't define "faith" as "certainty."

show me where....I can see where I would have argued that OT "belief" does not mean absolute certainty (as I would describe your view)....but, please show me where I made this argument.

Now that I've proven both of those arguments wrong,

no you haven't...tell me, (cuz I'm curious) what colour is the sky in this imaginary world of yours?

1) You act as if it really isn't important, in attempt to portray me as argumentative....

modern usage isn't that important...but I expect you are inclined to argue that point

2) You run to "popular usage,"....

I didn't run there...you brought out the modern dictionaries...and ended up providing an expert who agreed with my position...again thank-you

.... as if that proved anything about our argument,

already said it didn't prove anything wrt OT usage...

.... totally ignoring the proper usage that the LEXICONS USED, and then attack me personally by painting me as overly closed minded.

I have been happy to look at the lexica, it seems that you are rather defensive wrt this matter...is it b/c you are sensitive about your close mindedness?

Subtle. Left handed. Beautifully played. Not to mention deceptive, deceitful, and nothing more than a debate tactic.

BTW, whilst I am helping you with terminology, please understand that the term is "left-handed compliment"...your insults here, however, are bold-faced and are not "left-handed"

I've provided what . . . five or so such references now, plus offered a brief discussion on related words to further the point? I've provided theological evidence that the position is wrong, and the point of the four soils has never even been challenged, much less refuted. You're going against Jesus' words here, not mine.

not from my point of view, I am of the belief that I am going against your flawed understanding of Jesus's words, your flawed understanding of the apostles' words, your flawed understanding of modern words, your flawed understanding of the words you find in lexica and your flawed understanding of what you think I have said....alas, so many mistakes and so little time

....and since you have crowed that your point of the four soils has never been challenged, please allow me to dismiss that flawed point as well....please wait here while I try to find it.....I found this brief bit:

However, I would like to see you deal with Jesus' interpretation of the parable of the seeds and soil. It is in 100% contradiction to what you are saying. I would also say that you can't argue "But we have to take the whole Scriptural witness into account" unless you want to admit that there are contradictions in the Bible. I'm sure you don't believe that. If Jesus says here, as I assert, that MOST saved believers will not produce good works, then you cannot argue "Yeah, but the rest of the Bible teaches that we will produce good works if we are saved!" You create a contradiction. Either you get this parable to line up with what you are saying, or you have no foundation to stand on.

is that the unchallenged point? If so, the answer is simple... Jesus doesn't say in that parable, as you assert, that MOST saved believers will not produce good works. Hopefully, you can recall that (from the very start) I have argued that a "flash in the pan" type of faith does not save...so from my perspective the second type of soil is not about a saved group. Also, I have argued that a "shallow faith" that has the holder loving the world and not loving Jesus is a type of faith that does not save....and so from my perspective the third type of soil is not about a saved group. I expect that you look at verses such as Luke 8:11-13 which read:

11 "This is the meaning of the parable: The seed is the word of God. 12 Those along the path are the ones who hear, and then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved. 13 Those on the rock are the ones who receive the word with joy when they hear it, but they have no root. They believe for a while, but in the time of testing they fall away.

...in particular you read the bold bit and infer that the three other groups represent those who are saved...but that is an inference.

On the other hand, one might look at these verses from Matt 13:

13 Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14 And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says: 'Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, And seeing you will see and not perceive; 15 For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.'....23 But he who received seed on the good ground is he who hears the word and understands it, who indeed bears fruit and produces: some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.

...if so, you would note that only the last soil is said to understand the word...and in the context of the quote from Isaiah, those that do not understand may be rightly viewed as the lost. As such, wrt the 2nd and 3rd soils it doesn't expressly say whether they are saved or not and it doesn't expressly say whether they understood or not. It merely says that they believe and fall away and are unfruitful. You are inclined to believe that the 2nd and 3rd group described saved individuals and I am inclined to believe otherwise...ironically, I am inclined to see greater support for a very strong/extreme lordship soteriology in that parable than for your free grace soteriology. In any event, this parable can be understood as being compatible with a number of soteriologies and is therefore not a trump card for your free grace view.

Jac, continuing with your post of some time ago...

thanks for the question, as it sets up my answer perfectly. In response how do you know that you haven't deluded yourself into thinking that you once believed with absolute certainty? Memories are rather fallible, they fail and change...perhaps you only think that you once believed with absolute certainty. To this you might reply, "Ahh, but I still believe with absolute certainty, and therefore, I know I believe in that fashion and have objective assurance of my salvation". In that case you have just described perseverance as being required for your objective assurance....but perseverance is something that you deny as necessary. You can't have it both ways. Also, how do you know you will continue to believe with absolute assurance?

First, let's say that tomorrow I start to doubt that I ever really did believe. You are right that, in that moment, I have no certainty, and I, in fact, have no faith. However, does that negate the fact that I believe NOW? No, it does not. Thus, it does not negate the fact that I am truly saved.

I didn't say it negated salvation...I said it negated your objective assurance...as soon as you stop persevering in "belief" then you must admit that you might have deluded yourself into thinking that you once believed with absolute certainty. Your "objective" assurance must be lost at that point.

Jac3510 wrote:
Of course, you can assume I am lying, and thus, you do not know, but assuming I am telling the truth (or with a bit of prodding as to WHAT I claim to have believed), you can know objectively about my state of belief.

this is such an inappropriate use of "objective" that I just can't let it pass w/o comment. Get thee to a good dictionary immediately!

Does Dictionary.com qualify?

4. being the object or goal of one's efforts or actions.
5. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
6. intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
7. being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective).
8. of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.
It seems to me that 5-8 all fit my usage well enough? As I am the object of your study, you know objectively (without personal bias or interpretation) about the reality of my faith. How you interpret that obervation my be subjective .

let me see how this would work...you hear the gospel message and come to the understanding that Jesus died for your sins and by believing in Him you will be saved. That understanding would be your personal interpretation of the gospel message and so at the very base of this analysis (that is supposed to result in objective assurance of salvation) is a subjective understanding of what it takes to be saved.....After that, you tell me what you believe (or, said another way, you tell me what it is that you think to be true)
Now, can I know objectively what you believe? To know what you believe I can only rely on what you have said...I have no means of testing it scientifically. So my conclusion is influenced by your personal feelings/interpretations, deals with things internal to your mind including your thoughts and feelings, concerns the thinking subject and deals with something dependent on thought....there goes all your definitions and as I said, any claim you make wrt "objective" assurance of salvation (if such were possible) would be further negated by the fact that your understanding of what it takes to be save is a subjective thing.

.

Anyway, if you want to quibble over English words, then feel free to tell me what word you would rather I use. Call it "foo." Call it "subjective." I don't care.

good let's call it subjective then...'tis what works for most of the english speaking world. But better yet, let us see the value in this thing you call "objective":
Think about our friend Bob for a moment and let's apply the bold bit from what you have said above. Bob tells you that he believes X and you assume that he is telling the truth and so you "objectively" know that he believes X. At the same time, Bob tells me that he does not believe X and I assume that he is telling the truth and so I "objectively" know that he does not believe X. So we both "objectively" know the opposite to be true. If that is how you use "objective', then "objective" knowledge is nothing but a joke

So you acknowledge that it is possible that in ten years, you may no longer believe (if it turns out you didn't REALLY believe). So, you have an assurance based on your works, although this isn't certainty. You don't KNOW that you won't fall away in ten years. So, you don't KNOW you are saved. You are just pretty sure you are saved.

You say you are trusting Jesus to keep you in the palm of His hand. How do you know you were ever in it?

from what the NT states...it would appear that I am in it....and if so, it would appear that in 10 years I will still believe...and that is my certainty

I was referring to Pharisees prior to Jesus' coming. It's pretty clear that most of the Jewish leadership did not believe in Jesus. And yet, they certainly looked really good on the outside. Now, ttoews, if assurance of salvation comes through works, and these people had works, then how is it that they did not have assurance of their salvation?

assurance comes through good works...not just works. The pharisees might have looked good if one didn't understand the difference between good works and bad...given that all the commandments were summed up in one command..."love the Lord...." one must start by asking if the work has that love at its foundation....Jesus had little difficulty in showing how that love was often lacking.

If they did have assurance, but it was a false assurance, then we have established that works can not guarantee that your faith is real.

agreed...the scriptures refer to Jesus as our guarantee and to the HS as guaranteeing....not works as a guarantee

Therefore, if you are appealing to your works, then how do you know that your faith is real and that it is not the same type of faith that the Pharisees had?

vs. the pharisees I have the advantage of the NT and the Holy Spirit...but in answer to your question...I believe that my faith is real and that it is not the same type of faith that the Pharisees had b/c based on what is said about them in the NT, I can see that I believe differently than they did....but as I have pointed out above, my understanding of what it takes to be save is a subjective thing.

You missed the point of the question. In this question, you are implicitly recognizing that a person may profess false doctrine, and thus be an unbeliever, and yet produce behavior that is consistent with genuine belief. Yet, how can an unbeliever produce such behavior? And, if an unbeliever CAN produce such behavior, then how does your behavior prove that you are actually a believer? How do you know that you are not an unbeliever who is producing a false-good fruit, like the Pharisees did or the Mormons do?

I guess the same way you know that your understanding is correct such that you are a true believer

again, their mistaken doctrine is a fairly easy fruit to observe...however, I am also not prepared to say all Mormons are damned. If God told me that only one of the following two fellows was saved:
a) fellow one...a Mormon fellow who has some false doctrine, but follows the mormon teaching that Jesus died on the cross for his sins and to gain his salvation, and has dedicated his life to loving God and his neighbour; and
b) fellow two...a free grace fellow who believed for a moment, but has no love of God in him and has refused to follow Jesus.

.

I'll write this off to your ignorance on Mormon doctrine . . . Let me just let them tell you what they believe:

I'd rather have a Mormon tell me what he believes...which is why I have spent a considerable period of time talking to Mormons regarding their beliefs...(Though I think you did a fairly good job wrt a large chunk of the Mormon population)

Jesus Christ did what only He could do in atoning for our sins. To make His Atonement fully effective in our individual lives, we must have faith in Christ, repent of our sins, be baptized, receive the Holy Ghost, obey God's commandments, and strive to become like Him. As we do these things through His Atonement, we can return to live with Him and our Heavenly Father forever.
So, fellow (a) is out, unless he has believed the Gospel, which is faith alone in Christ alone.

we differ on the importance we place on correct doctrine...I note verses like 1 Cor 13:12-13
12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. 13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
....and have come to the conclusion that wrt matters of salvation substance should be valued over form and/or the spirit is more important than the letter of the doctrine

As for fellow (b), I ask a simple question - did he believe (even for a moment) or not? John 6:47 says everyone who believes HAS everlasting life. I'd rather not contradict the Bible.

and I would rather not misunderstand it..and see a contradiction that isn't there.

At what point would you be CERTAIN you were saved? How many works do you have to do before you have that kind of knowledge?

at what time was the one thief on the cross certain of his salvation? Quite possibly it is when Christ told him that he would be with Him in paradise....I share much with that thief...I look to what Jesus tells me for my assurance

And, given (A), which you disagree with, that means that you aren't saved until you GET that certainty, which still proves my original point, which is that you aren't saved at the moment of "belief."

I have no idea what you are saying here...are you saying that I think salvation requires certainty...if so, you are wrong.

Tit for tat, ttoews Maybe we can stop assaulting each other now . . . we've dug sufficiently to ah . . . level the field. Or would you care to claim the moral high ground?

Let me summarize rather than point by point this. If I missed some especially important claim to your argument, let me know.

1. I assert that "Salvation is absolutely nothing more or less than the pure acceptance of the free gift of salvation offered by Jesus Christ. I can conceive of many people who would accept salvation but refuse to follow Jesus." (1). You argued that is not salvation, as God will not save those who mock Him. (2) You clarified later by saying, "In my mind, purporting to take the benefit of the cross while not loving the person who died on the cross is a form of mocking." (3) Thus, you argue a person must be obedient to God to be saved, later clarifying that this is a necessary result of "saving faith." You argued it is not a matter of works that save, but "it is about a certain quality of faith." (4) So, here we have seen my assertion against yours: I say salvation is by freely receiving, whereas for you, to receive requires some sort of subsequent obedience, love, repentence, etc.

2. Naturally, I accuse you of salvation by works. (5) The initial line of argument proved fruitless - I argued that if A->B, then the existence of B is a proper condition of the existence of A. (ibid) You reject that, and we can leave our readers to sort out the truthfulness of that claim. However, from here, the object of faith is up for discussion. I stated:

I wrote:The problem is with the object of the faith itself. Your object is different from mine, and that is where my concern is. You say, "I have to trust Jesus for my salvation to be saved." Now, I use the same terminology, but we mean different things. For you, "trusting in Jesus" actually means "repenting of your sins and committing my whole self to the Lordship of Jesus Christ." After all, "real faith" does these things. Thus, if these are not present, then you haven't had "real faith." Well, my question is simple, what is "real faith" and what is it in?" (6)

As an aside, this was never addressed by you, and it's one of the central arguments you have to deal with. Unfortunately, we got sidetracked by a couple of pages of discussion over the "Lord, Lord" passage. As good as that was, I think it got away from the primary argument, first, What saves, second (implied, but not stated yet, what is the nature of saving faith), and third, what is the object of saving faith? As an aside, it should be of MUCH interest to everyone that you have a problem with a person who "simply" believes. (7) This became the ground for what it means to "believe." For example, you assert that genuine faith is one in which the person loves Jesus (8).

3. Your basic idea of faith is one that necessarily produces good works. For example:

You wrote:I would say that believers will (not may) produce good works in due course (as a result of God's Spirit at work)....in contrast, Jac says that true believers may or may not produce good works ever (9)

Now, it is at this point that we get into what it means to really believe. We all know the word pisteuw means "to believe." I noted that Webster means to believe is to regard something as true (10), and thus "uncertainty is not allowed." I therefore argue, and you disagree, that doubt and faith cannot coexist. (11)

Now, let's point out that here, you make an important assertion that you later deny:

You wrote:Jac, if you want to appeal to the Webster's definitions to say doubt and belief do not coexist shouldn't those definitions at least read "total absence of belief" instead of "uncertainty of belief" and "absolute refusal to believe in the slightest degree" instead of "inclination not to believe"?

And again:

You wrote:I believe that your difficulties stem from your desire to equate belief with absolute certainty. . . .
where in that definition from Webster's is there any indication that uncertainty is not allowed? "Having a firm conviction" is not the same as "having absolute certainty". Likewise "considering to be true" is not the same as "having absolute certainty". (12)

Now, against this, my view is fairly simple: "You either regard something as true or you don't." (13)
Because of this, you rightly ask me to prove that "pisteuvw" actually meant "believe w/o any reservations whatsoever". (14) I did exactly this, first, by quoting from the TWOT (15), which says:

• 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.

Interestingly, you never really dealt with this. You appealed to the Semitic view of totality, but never conceded that belief entails absolute certainty (16). Later, you tried to justify yourself as follows:

You wrote:I agree that in the OT saving faith is a faith that is full of certainty. The same is true of the NT and, of course, the same is still true today. That, in part, is why I call saving faith a profound faith and not a simple faith. Certainty is also not the only characteristic of this saving faith. What you must keep in mind is that just b/c scripture describes saving faith as a faith with full certainty, does not mean other types of faith (lesser faiths) don't exist...in fact, scripture clearly talks about belief/faith that does not save and of levels of faith. (17)

So, you seem to agree, contrary to your claims earlier, that faith is fully certain ("full of certainty," as you put it), and yet you go on to say, "Salvation requires knowing that you are saved" Where in the world did you get this idea from? ...It most certainly isn't my psoition." (ibid)Further:

You wrote:I would stop short of absolute...full of certainty yes. Part of our problem is that you think saving faith is an instantaneous thing...that one only has to believe (with absolute certainty) the right things for but a moment and that fellow is saved. That (IMHO) is not the biblical concept of faith. Saving faith is not just a flash in the pan....and I don't think absolute certainty is always there. (18

Now, of course, I don't believe absolute certainty is "always there," but as you noted yourself, in my view, a person must believe at a point in time, and to believe, in the biblical sense, is to possess absolute certainty. On this point, Mounce, Bultmann, Baur, Louw, and Archer all agree with me. (19)

Therefore, my position is firmly established by the dictionaries: to believe is to regard something as true with absolute certainty.

You have argued that to believe is to regard something as true with a degree of certainty so as to necessarily result in obedience for some unstated length of time.

4. Considering this, we come to the main problem with your position: to be saved, we must have absolute certainty of our salvation. However, in your view of "faith," no such assurance is possible. When Jesus says in John 6:47, "Whoever believes has everlasting life," I say, "Did you believe?" You say, "Sure." I say, "So do you have everlasting life?" You say, "If I really believed, sure."

So, you don't know if you have REALLY believed, because your works may or may not confirm it. Let's just refer again to the Mormons, who I hope you would agree are not preaching a saving gospel.

TO SUMMARIZE:

A) The gospel we preach is different. For me, it is simple belief. For you, it is "profound belief." Thus, the channel of salvation is different.
B) The terms of the gospel we preach are different. For me, it is simple belief. For you, it is a belief that results necessarily results in obedience, good works, etc.
C) For me, full certainty of salvation is required, because that is what belief is. For you, full certainty is NOT required, because that is not what belief is.
D) For me, salvation comes by a simple, one time act of belief. For you, salvation does not come from "flash in the pan" belief, but requires some sort of continuation and fruitation of that belief.

I think it is fair to say that is as good a summary as we are going to get. Let the reader decide. I simply say your gospel is a false gospel. You say mine is. Hey, clarity, not consensus.

God bless