Evidence for God from Science

DBowling wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:DB, perhaps this has been hashed out, I'm sure it has so it's laziness on my part here to go digging backward.

no problem... it is a loooong thread

It is. In my response below I've been very particular so as to be clear.
Applying a fine-tooth comb if you will... to gain better understanding of what you believe.

DBowling wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: BUT, if a person places their faith in Christ and then goes on sinning...

I think we all agree that even after regeneration takes place, believers will sin, so I think it is more like when than if.
The question at hand is whether regeneration will typically result in good works or whether regeneration will necessarily result in good works of some sort. I hold the position that regeneration will necessarily result in good works.

What is "regeneration"? Such a word is scarce in Scripture.
How does it take place? Who is responsible?

DBowling wrote:

Is there some test, like a bunch of questions, you might ask them to try figure out whether or not their faith is authentic?

I can only speak for myself, but God has not called me to be the judge of anyone else's salvation. My job is to examine myself and focus on the log in my eye.

I do believe there is something to be said for an authentic faith in Christ.
Although to be clear, really it's just faith in Christ that results in knowing God. Through faith in Christ, Christ's righteousness is imputed to us thereby making us acceptable to God (i.e., "saved"). An "inauthentic faith" then, would simply mean fake, not real, lacking the substance of faith. It may look real, but it's merely an imitation. To know then whether a faith is an imitation, we must then look for the substance of faith.

You are not the judge of anyone else's salvation who is in Christ,
but we are encouraged by Jesus to look at fruits to not be fooled by false prophets.
I in fact think we are to judge others so far as if they do not know God, but we are to not begrudge them.
We are to forgive and be gracious as our Father in heaven forgives and is gracious towards us.
We are to love them, forgive the 77 times 7, that's the majority of meaning in Matthew 6 and into 7 .

It is revealing what you attach on the back of not judging another's salvation.
On the back of that you say your job is to examine yourself. Why, what are you worried about?
Hasn't Christ got your back? Are you worried that your faith isn't authentic?

Scripture says we are to stand firm and not be entangled again by the yoke of the law. (Galatians 5:1)
If we doubt our faith based upon what we do, then aren't we being entangled again?

DBowling wrote:It is God's job to judge the works of men, not mine, and he has a perspective that I don't.
Man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.

Indeed we are not the Judge and the destiny of others is not in our hands.
Nonetheless, we have received it on good word that righteousness only comes to us from Christ.
If another person doesn't have Christ, then we should identify them and try to help in our love for them.
Otherwise they will not know God and stand alone on judgement day when our lives are laid bare.

When Scripture says God's righteousness is so high that our best works are like blood-stained menstrual rags (Isaiah 64:6; Romans 3:10), then I really fear for anyone who ends up before God's righteous judgement without Christ. For any and all sin, which is an affront to God, must receive a reckoning if God truly is sovereign and truly is God.

We who are in Christ escape God's penetrating righteous gaze, because in Christ we are seen as righteous.
God will not judge the works of those who are in Christ according to his righteousness. (John 5:24)

Kurieuo wrote:

DBowling wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:DB, perhaps this has been hashed out, I'm sure it has so it's laziness on my part here to go digging backward.

no problem... it is a loooong thread

It is. In my response below I've been very particular so as to be clear.
Applying a fine-tooth comb if you will... to gain better understanding of what you believe.

Fair enough
It's nice to have someone actually ask me what I believe instead of throwing out all kinds of misrepresentations about what I believe even if I say just the opposite.

DBowling wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: BUT, if a person places their faith in Christ and then goes on sinning...

I think we all agree that even after regeneration takes place, believers will sin, so I think it is more like when than if.
The question at hand is whether regeneration will typically result in good works or whether regeneration will necessarily result in good works of some sort. I hold the position that regeneration will necessarily result in good works.

What is "regeneration"? Such a word is scarce in Scripture.
How does it take place? Who is responsible?

I directly equate regeneration with becoming a new creation and with being born again.
It is a work of the Holy Spirit that takes place in the life of a person who has trusted in Jesus to save them from their sins.
I understand the sequence of events as
1. faith
2. regeneration
3. sanctification

DBowling wrote:

Is there some test, like a bunch of questions, you might ask them to try figure out whether or not their faith is authentic?

I can only speak for myself, but God has not called me to be the judge of anyone else's salvation. My job is to examine myself and focus on the log in my eye.

I do believe there is something to be said for an authentic faith in Christ.
Although to be clear, really it's just faith in Christ that results in knowing God. Through faith in Christ, Christ's righteousness is imputed to us thereby making us acceptable to God (i.e., "saved"). An "inauthentic faith" then, would simply mean fake, not real, lacking the substance of faith. It may look real, but it's merely an imitation. To know then whether a faith is an imitation, we must then look for the substance of faith.

Let me quibble a bit here.
I believe the difference between authentic faith and fake faith is the object of faith.
1. The object of authentic faith is the person of Jesus Christ
2. The object of fake faith is our knowledge of theological truths about Jesus

This is a key distinctions that is sorely needed in the church today that I think LS gets absolutely right.
Good works (as opposed to works) are a result of faith (see Mat 7 for the difference).

You are not the judge of anyone else's salvation who is in Christ,
but we are encouraged by Jesus to look at fruits to not be fooled by false prophets.
I in fact think we are to judge others so far as if they do not know God, but we are to not begrudge them.
We are to forgive and be gracious as our Father in heaven forgives and is gracious towards us.
We are to love them, forgive the 77 times 7, that's the majority of meaning in Matthew 6 and into 7 .

I have no problem with that...

It is revealing what you attach on the back of not judging another's salvation.
On the back of that you say your job is to examine yourself. Why, what are you worried about?
Hasn't Christ got your back? Are you worried that your faith isn't authentic?

The reason I examine myself is to see if my walk matches my talk.
Which has nothing to do with assurance of salvation. Jesus already took care of that.

DBowling wrote:It is God's job to judge the works of men, not mine, and he has a perspective that I don't.
Man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.

Indeed we are not the Judge and the destiny of others is not in our hands.
Nonetheless, we have received it on good word that righteousness only comes to us from Christ.
If another person doesn't have Christ, then we should identify them and try to help in our love for them.
Otherwise they will not know God and stand alone on judgement day when our lives are laid bare.

And this is where I think we need to be sensitive to the leading of the Holy Spirit. I should be talking about my relationship with Jesus and showing the love of Jesus to everyone, not just those I think might not be saved. It is the Holy Spirit who truly knows the heart, and it is the Holy Spirit who convicts hearts.

Hope that helps

In Christ

Jac3510 wrote:

But now that the lexicon supports my assertions and contradicts yours, all of a sudden the lexicon is 'irresponsible'. I think I detect a little bit of a double standard here.

No, it's not, but I don't think you understand Greek well enough for me to explain it to you. But rather than appeal to my own authority, which includes an undergraduate degree in this stuff plus two masters in the same material, I already appealed to the authority of the very lexicon you are citing. The 2nd edition does not have the gloss. So what . . . you think the scholarship of the definition of pisteuo suddenly advanced enough to introduce an entirely novel aspect into it that was not there before? I ask this in all sincerity, DB, since you feel qualified to point out why the 3rd edition is superior to both previous editions as well as other standard Greek lexicons: what specific findings can you cite between the publication of the 2nd and the 3rd edition of BDAG that justify its updated definition?

That is not a rhetorical question. I'm going to demand an answer to that.

I am not appealing to personal qualifications and authority at all...
I am not qualified and I am in no position to assert that a lexicon is 'responsible' or 'irresponsible' based on whether it agrees or disagrees with my personal presuppositions and opinions.

And when I observe the roles that misrepresentation and personal bias play in your argumentation technique,
you have not given me any reason to believe that you are a more credible source of information than the lexicon.

Now I will do this, based on this conversation I will take the next opportunity available to discuss the accuracy of this lexicon entry with someone whose academic credentials and credibility I do trust... and who also happens to identify with the free grace camp.

In Christ

You are confusing an assessment of your position (that you don't agree with) with a mispresentation. Again, you can agree with the words "we must use the lexical definition of 'faith'." But just because you agree with those words, it does not follow that we agree with the same proposition. I gave you an example to illustrate that point, to demonstrate why it isn't a misrepresentation. As is your habit, you've chosen to ignore contradictory evidence and argument and merely assert your position.

I also note that you are unable to provide any defense or counter-evidence for the actual evidence I've presented with reference to the validity of BDAG3's gloss. So for the sake of public discussion, just let the record show that DB's position is based on his personal acceptance of authority he cannot defend, against which that same authority is against his positon (BDAG2) as well as the absolute agreement of the rest of the scholarship on the matter (as I cited in my previous thread). As he cannot defend that acceptance, and as he is rejecting the authority of previous BDAG and all other lexical authorities, we must ask what motivates his astounding claim that BDAG3 is right over all others. In view of his admission that it is not evidence that drives his acceptance, we must conclude that it is his preexisting theology. And that is rather damning. All of this means that DB is holding is position out of pure, blind faith.

In short, DB is very good at asserting his position and offering no evidence for it, while ignoring the evidence against it. In such a case, there is no way to persuade him of his error, as he has demonstrated a disinterest in evidence. You cannot dissuade someone who holds to anything on blind faith. But for those of us who need evidence and who wish to accept what the Scriptures actually say as opposed to what we blindly will assert that it says (when all evidence is to the contrary), it should be clear that either 1) DB's position is false and heretical, that he is holding to and preaching a doctrine of demons (which is what a false gospel is--Paul takes that very seriously in Gal 1:8-9); or else 2) he is unable to defend his position, even though it may be right, and so he holds to a correct position without reason. In any case, I appreciate this conversation very much because it puts in stark relief the difference in FG and LS, which is this:

At least in this thread (so far, unless DB wishes to actually change his tactics and engage with the arguments and with the text itself)--free grace theology is the position that takes the words of Scripture seriously, that takes the scholarship and hermeneutical commitments of NT studies seriously; it is, in short, the gospel. Lordship salvation is the product of eisegesis, contradicts the words of Scripture, and does not take seriously the scholarship of NT studies; it is, in short, a false gospel. The former is the result of a reasoned study of the evidence. The latter is the result of blind faith in the proclamation of a (heretical) thelogy divorced from the text of Scripture. People are, of course, free to choose which position they'd like to follow.

What's telling is that LS's primary preacher (MacArthur), as well as the others, can't even state the Free Grace position correctly and without pejoratives.

Jac3510 wrote:

DBowling wrote:

Philip wrote:OK, DB, so what questions do you ask yourself?

First and foremost does how I spend my time and resources reflect the importance of my relationship with God?
Do I take advantage of opportunities to share the Gospel that God gives me?
Am I showing God's love to my wife, children, those in my church, those at work... my daughters boyfriend?
Am I willing to forgive others the way Christ forgave me?

And guess what?
I regularly fail spectacularly at all of the above.
That's why I'm not part of the sinless perfection crowd, and why I have no interest in judging others.
I have too much to work on in my own life.

Some thought off the top of my head

In Christ

• This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not God’s child, nor is anyone who does not love their brother and sister. - 1 John 3:10, NIV

By DBs theology, he's a child of the devil and unsaved. He can say that he isn't part of the sinless perfection crowd, but the fact is that ANYONE who doesn't love their brother is of the devil and not a child of God. He's admitted to not knowing the devil. More

• The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. - 1 John 1:8

He says he's sinning, so he must be of the devil.

And more:

• No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him. . . . No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God. - 1 John 3:6, 9

So he says he fails a lot, so he's sinning a lot. He keeps on sinning. So apparently our brother has neither seen nor known Christ.

Now, he'll either have to lower the standard for himself--which is to say, to water down God's word and explain it away--or admit that he has no assurance that he's saved. He'll have to say, at a bare minimum, that he has good evidence to think he probably is NOT saved. And that's the theology of LS. No assurance whatsoever. All condemnation. Sad. Just sad.

So how do you interpret those verses?

Thanks DB for your response.

DBowling wrote:I believe the difference between authentic faith and fake faith is the object of faith.
1. The object of authentic faith is the person of Jesus Christ
2. The object of fake faith is our knowledge of theological truths about Jesus

Curious as to how you see one has faith in the person of Christ?
How do they come to possess such faith? What does it look like?

Regarding knowledge of theological truths, why don't you see that as like evidence of an authentic faith? Like one professing with their lips Christ as Lord, such is an outward expression of one's faith though it isn't the faith itself.

What of Jesus' parable of the sower which clearly places importance upon understanding theological truths (Matt 13:18-23)?

• 18 “Hear then the parable of the sower. 19 When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. This is the one on whom seed was sown beside the road. 20 The one on whom seed was sown on the rocky places, this is the man who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; 21 yet he has no firm root in himself, but is only temporary, and when affliction or persecution arises because of the word, immediately he falls away. 22 And the one on whom seed was sown among the thorns, this is the man who hears the word, and the worry of the world and the deceitfulness of wealth choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful. 23 And the one on whom seed was sown on the good soil, this is the man who hears the word and understands it; who indeed bears fruit and brings forth, some a hundredfold, some sixty, and some thirty.”

DBowling wrote:This is a key distinctions that is sorely needed in the church today that I think LS gets absolutely right.
Good works (as opposed to works) are a result of faith (see Mat 7 for the difference).

I'm not sure of the difference between "good works" as opposed to "works"?
Works isn't mentioned in Matt 7. Can you explain?

DBowling wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:It is revealing what you attach on the back of not judging another's salvation.
On the back of that you say your job is to examine yourself. Why, what are you worried about?
Hasn't Christ got your back? Are you worried that your faith isn't authentic?

The reason I examine myself is to see if my walk matches my talk.
Which has nothing to do with assurance of salvation. Jesus already took care of that.

What if your walk doesn't match your talk?

Further, what if you were living a homosexual lifestyle and having lots of same sex partners.
There's no immediate turn-around, you even see nothing wrong with such.
And then you come to Christ and continue living such a way.

You may not want to judge, but what does your intuition tell you: legitimate faith or illegitimate?

Vines Expository Dictionary defines Faith as:

Vines Expository Dictionary wrote:Faith

pistis (G4102), primarily, "firm persuasion," a conviction based upon hearing (akin to peitho, "to persuade"), is used in the NT always of "faith in God or Christ, or things spiritual."

The word is used of (a) trust, e.g., Rom3:25 [see Note (4) below]; 1Co2:5; 1Co15:14, 1Co15:17; 2Co1:24; Gal3:23 [see Note (5) below]; Phi1:25; Phi2:17; 1Th3:2; 2Th1:3; 2Th3:2;

(b) trust-worthiness, e.g., Mat23:23; Rom3:3, RV, "the faithfulness of God"; Gal5:22 (RV, "faithfulness"); Titus 2:10, "fidelity";

(c) by metonymy, what is believed, the contents of belief, the "faith," Acts 6:7; Acts 14:22; Gal1:23; Gal3:25 [contrast Gal3:23, under (a)]; Gal6:10; Phi1:27; 1Th3:10; Jude1:3, Jude1:20 (and perhaps 2Th3:2);

(d) a ground for "faith," an assurance, Acts17:31 (not as in KJV, marg., "offered faith");

(e) a pledge of fidelity, plighted "faith," 1Ti5:12.

The main elements in "faith" in its relation to the invisible God, as distinct from "faith" in man, are especially brought out in the use of this noun and the corresponding verb, pisteuo; they are:

(1) a firm conviction, producing a full acknowledgement of God's revelation or truth, e.g., 2Th2:11-12;
(2) a personal surrender to Him, John1:12;
(3) a conduct inspired by such surrender, 2Co5:7. Prominence is given to one or other of these elements according to the context.

All this stands in contrast to belief in its purely natural exercise, which consists of an opinion held in good "faith" without necessary reference to its proof. The object of Abraham's "faith" was not God's promise (that was the occasion of its exercise); his "faith" rested on God Himself, Rom4:17, Rom4:20-21. See ASSURANCE, BELIEF, FAITHFULNESS, FIDELITY.

Belief, Believe

A. Verbs.

1. pisteuo (G4100), "to believe," also "to be persuaded of," and hence, "to place confidence in, to trust," signifies, in this sense of the word, reliance upon, not mere credence.

It is most frequent in the writings of the apostle John, especially the Gospel. He does not use the noun (see below). For the Lord's first use of the verb, see John 1:50. Of the writers of the Gospels, Matthew uses the verb ten times, Mark ten, Luke nine, John ninety-nine. In Acts 5:14 the present participle of the verb is translated "believers. See COMMIT, INTRUST, TRUST.

AMG Complete Word Study Dictionary mentions this about the Hebrew word translated believe

AMG Complete Word Study Dictionary wrote:Hebrew: Believe

ָאַמן

’āman: A verb meaning to be firm, to build up, to support, to nurture, or to establish. The primary meaning is that of providing stability and confidence, like a baby would find in the arms of a parent.

It is used to signify support of a pillar (2Ki18:16); nurture and nourishment (Num11:12; Rth4:16; thus, a nurse, 2Sa4:4); cradling in one's arms (Isa60:4); a house firmly founded (1Sa2:35; 1Sa25:28); a secure nail that finds a solid place to grip (Isa22:23); a lasting permanence (Psa89:28 [29]; with negative particle, Jer15:18).

Metaphorically, the word conveys the notion of faithfulness and trustworthiness, such that one could fully depend on (Deut7:9; Job12:20; Psa19:7 [8]; Isa55:3; Mic7:5).

Therefore, the word can also signify certitude or assurance (Deut28:66; Job24:22; Hos5:9) and belief, in the sense of receiving something as true and sure (Gen15:6; Exo4:5; 2Ch20:20; Psa78:22; Isa53:1; Jon3:5).

There is a host of other sources and commentaries that pretty much stick with the above definitions for faith and believe in both Hebrew and Greek correlate with Both Vines and AMG' cited above.

Faith-believing as mere mental ascent alone is not saving faith in God's Grace. It is merely a mental exercise.

Faith in God's grace will change a person, if it does not, then it is not faith in God at all but faith in man's definitions.

There are kinds and types of faith and belief.

For example, Even the devils believe in God as it mentions in James 2: 19, therefore, I guess you can say that they become saved because they believe.... However, this is not the case at all as the context makes it clear demons cannot be saved because they exercise simple belief in God and tremble.

So if it is by pure intellectual assent, mere persuasion alone that saves as is suggested by several well meaning and intentioned folks here, then, demons are likewise saved because they believe too. Of courses those of you that teach that mere intellectual assent and persuasion in Jesus is what saves know that this is not the case - demons are not saved because they believe in God (Jesus is God manifest in the flesh and demons trembled before him too in the gospel account of the demonic man and the swine).

What the basics of the words believe and faith used in both OT and NT meaning according to the context of scripture they are used in in reference to God conveys that we attach ourselves to the Lord because He is always faithful. That as a child we are nurtured, taken care of by the Lord. He is trustworthy.

The Holy Spirit teaches us, we learn of him, it takes faith to be changed by him as well as folks will see the results of this change as well as failures and God's grace that restores us from our failures in living action. However the modern church will seldom forgive or accept those who fail and endless debate whose is right, who is on first, etc and etc.

Our faith is in God's grace through Jesus Christ and according to the bible, such grace from the Lord will do what in our lives?

Well what does the bible say - Titus 2:11 NIV, Titus 2:12 NIV and Titus 2:11,12 NASB

Sorry folks, as it says - Grace instructs us to deny ungodliness.

In this I rejoice because like every other christian we we will fall short from time to time. This in turns unleashes God's gracious chastisement that teaches me I am loved by God and thus rely on him alone to cleanse me because he is faithful. This in turn teaches me to become more attached to the Lord, more faithful to him to forsake ungodliness in my personal life. This is not sinless perfection in this life doctrine. It is how saving Faith in Jesus works. A child needs many baths but remains prized by the parents nevertheless. So how is it with God toward us?

He is trustworthy, He changes me, often with harsh lessons, and He instructs me. I learn obedience,I learn to love God, and I learn to become also trustworthy to God as well too as he is doing this in my life - Romans 8:29.

To reduce the meaning to faith and believe to a one size fits all definition of merely intellectual credence to a list of facts is not saving anyone, nor transforming anyone into what Romans 8:29 mentions.

I like the old Hebrew Idea of Grace and faith. God so loved, that he granted me the favor of his Grace to change me, so I attach myself to his trustworthy nature and character to learn of him so I am translated out of darkness into his marvelous light. I am, by faith/belief learning to shed darkness and walk in His light.

Lets us not forget what Jesus said about this concept:

Mat 5:14 "You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden; 15 nor does anyone light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. 16 "Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.

Mat 5:13 "You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men. NASB

The manner in which faith and belief is taught in modern times justifies hiding the light under a basket and doing nothing with ones salt of the earth.

If that is what you desire, so be it. Not so with me.

Lordship Salvation is one matter as it teaches work based to stay saved salvation. The Hyper Grace movement is another matter well as it leads to justify a saltless form of Christianity. Personally, I find both these sides unappealing.

No matter what one thinks, Romans 8:29 is true. There will be change wrought by God's Grace in a Christian's life that is measurable. Even the person who the moment comes and finds Christ's salvation and dies the next millisecond shows a change.

So do not waste my time with the same old arguments used to support ones' superior faith his or her intellectual abilities and not Christ. Instead learn to surrender your life, your pride, your need to be right, your need to be important, significant, accepted, esteemed by people.

Learn to rest that the Lord God is the only one who matters and the only one who gives true esteem to you. Trust him - he will change you from seeking these things to seeking him alone, all in due course of time till one goes home to be with Jesus.

He is faithful and by his faithfulness we too will become faithful to him. It is that simple.
-
-
-

Vine's is not a lexicon. It is an "expository dictionary," which means it starts with lexical entries and proceeds to offer exegetical insights. Likewise, AMG-CWSD is not a lexicon. It is a compendium of word studies. Moreover, both Vines and AMG-CWSD are popular level, non-scholarly material. These are little more than mini-sermons on what these individua ministers think a word means. Professional versions of these types of tools would be the TDNT (aka Kittel, although not to be confused with the Kittel Lexicon, which is actually a lexicon), TDOT, TWOT, etc. These still need to be used with great caution, and by and large scholars themselves don't make much use of them except for a very narrow purpose. But at least the professional ones are a bit more even handed. I'll see if I can offer an example later. I have the eleven volume TDNT sitting right here next to me. Maybe I'll have time to offer some of it later.

Anyway, for still those interested, I just want to drive home the point in my previous post this way: I am not saying that there are not scholarly defenses from people who claim that pisteuo has, as part of the lexical meaning of the word, the idea of submission. My point is that DB hasn't seen fit to appeal to any of those. And why? He doesn't know them. And that should tell you something. When you hold a position and then go looking for the evidence to support it, then you have to admit to yourself that you are being fundamentally dishonest about your position. Now, I do know those authorities (and no, I won't share, because I won't do the LS'ers job for them). Likewise, I know why they are wrong. That would take an extensive conversation to show, but it is one we could have. But that is all entirely beside the point I'm making, which, again, is that DB is holding is position in complete absence of an evidence, and instead of interacting with the evidence he is given, he waves his hand in dismissal and complains about being misrepresented. And that's the practical point that I think is the takeaway for us here. Most people just are not going to get multiple postgrad degrees in linguistics or NT studies. It's unfair to ask them to before they think about or debate about or take a position on any particular theological idea--LS v FG included. But what everyone, formally educated or not, must do is be willing to submit their thoughts and ideas to evidence and not hold something on blind faith. Even if DB is ultimately right, he's still wrong, because he is holding his position in blind faith.

On a final note, when it comes to evidence, BW has provided a good example of what not to do in posting non-scholarly, unrelated data. I've already covered the value of Vine's above. Use it for personal study, but please don't ever use it in debate except to ask a question. If you are really going to insist on using such an outdated, non-scholarly source, at least get a copy of Renn's Expository Dictionary of Bible Words, which was published much more recently and, while not scholarly, certainly takes into account scholarship that Vines and others never had access to! The article on pisteuo, which I don't have time to type out here, never once uses the words "submit" or "obedience" or "commit" or anything at all related. Again, that this is coming from a fairly recent, even if popular and non-scholarly, publication should give us pause when making use of these other tools. And that is part of the takeaway in being able to defend your position, even if you aren't a scholar. Know as much as you can, but for the love of God, if you're going to use a tool, please learn how to use it and use the best ones at your disposal. Just recognize that when you do use less credible tools, you are setting yourself up for embarrassment.

I'd also fuss a bit at you directly, BW. Earlier, you were one of the ones who earlier demonstrated that you have no grasp of what free grace theology teaches. And that's being charitable. Because if you does grasp what it teaches, then you are being intentionally disingenuous in misrepresenting it as "Obedienceless Christianity" and now as "hyper grace," which is a totally unrelated heresy that no one on these boards holds to. Moreover, you now even misrepresents LS itself by saying it says you must do good works to stay saved. Now, DB, for all your complaints that I have misrepresented you, you have a real misrepresentation on your hands here. BW, you are wrong. That is not the doctrine of LS.

Nicki wrote:So how do you interpret those verses?

I'm working on a full write up of that now, actually. Hopefully it will be done tonight. If you go to the Bible Studies forum, you'll find a thread on 1 John. I'm commenting all the way through the book. Take a little time and read my comments up through chapter two. That way, when I post chapter 3 tonight or tomorrow, you'll have the context.

In the meantime, I'll just say that the short answer is that I take them to mean exactly what they say. I'm not being snarky. If a person doesn't love their brother, then they are a child of the devil. If a person sins, they are not living in Christ. The one born of God cannot sin (it's a logical impossibility). If you do sin, you don't know God. All of those are completely true statements as written. There is no reason to have any problem with them. The reason Christians do is that they assume that "real Christians" are necessarily and always and at all times children of God, that they are necessarily and always and at all times living in Christ, that they necessarily and always and at all times know God, etc. But that assumption is wrong. All of those ideas speak to our fellowship with God, not whether or not we are "Christians." The fact is, there are some children of the devil who are going to heaven. And children of the devil don't know God. But Jesus didn't say in John 6:47 that whosoever acts like Me is going to heaven, now did He? We need to stop disbelieving Jesus. He called Peter the devil himself, and if we don't think that we're capable of doing much worse than Peter did, then it's our arrogance and hubris that's going to do us in and lead us to do the very thing we think we aren't capable of!

The upshot to this: you want to stop sinning? Quit trying to hard. Just get to know God. The more you know God, the less you will sin. The answer to the problem of sin in your life is the same answer as the problem of hell: it's Jesus. It's not trying really hard. It's not working to please God. It's not doing everything you can to produce good fruit. It isn't even submitting to Jesus' Lordship, because let me tell you this: Jesus is Lord whether you accept or submit to it or not. Do you think Jesus needs your submission to sanctify you? Please. Let's not be so offensive. Jesus doesn't say, "BOW TO ME AND I'LL SAVE YOU!!!" That's what a middle eastern dictator does (or, an old, bald CEO hung up on his own power). Rather, Jesus says, "I love you. You are a total mess. So just stop. Let Me fix it for you, okay? In fact, stop thinking about your mess. Just think about Me. Get to know Me and watch what I do." So we stop. It's just trusting Him, getting to know Him, no more and no less. And that, by the way, is not only why salvation isn't and can't be by works. Further, it is why faith is not a work. Faith/trust is about NOT working. By way of analogy, if light and heat are things and darkness and cold are lack of things, then work and effort is a thing whereas faith and trust are just a lack of that thing. Faith and trust are just where you intentionally stop working to allow someone else to do that work that you were going to do.

If I can reduce this as far as I can, I'd say it like this: not only do I believe in justification by faith alone, I believe in sanctification by faith alone. We need to get works out of the Christian life all the way around. Our works have NOTHING to do with our faith. The more we stop and trust, the more we'll find Christ working in and through us, starting with our salvation and continuing on to bearing fruit through us. But the moment we try to start doing even a little tiny piece of the work, we mess it all up. We break it. We put ourselves under law. And then Jesus steps back and says, "Okay, when you're ready to put your faith in Me again, just let me know." That simple.

You don't have to have a masters or doctorate to understand what Scripture says faith entails. You do not have to have the perfect resources, and all that (and resources are good, study and scholarship are important). Scripture was not written so as that only scholars could understand its basic, simple truths - especially, concerning the essentials. And when it takes pages and pages of posts to prove what a simple man can understand from how Scripture is worded - well, if that were true, next to no one could understand Scripture or have confidence that they truly are saved.

It's clear that salvation is not earned or sustained through works. Based upon some of the examples of people in Scripture, it is also clear that based upon mere observation, we might sometimes doubt that someone actually saved, indeed is. And a better approach, as opposed to endless arguments over what might be possible with people of no discernible works, would be to develop some good questions that spur self examination in ourselves and others, as to whether we truly have ever come to faith. And that is a different matter than trying to add up our works and lack of them as if an accountant debiting and crediting their books. LS, as I often see preached, is that there are people walking around with measuring sticks that are not entirely accurate. And what is often expected of people - especially those whom are new in Christ, to exhibit, as a sign of salvation, is unScriptural, outside of outright denial of Christ by them. If a person says they have called upon Jesus, believe Him to be their Savior, then who am I to definitively say this is untrue? Is there an accurate measure for MAN? If I saw Solomon, Sampson, or only the words of the saved thief, I might doubt their salvation, based upon what some LS people assert on must exhibit as proof.

For the record, Phil, I agree with your post in the main. I don't think I'm the one who raised BDAG. I simply said we have to work with the meaning of the word "believe." No more and no less. If DB is going to introduce an authority, we must presume that he understands the authority well enough to use it. And that's where I questioned it. And if BW is going to introduce Vines and AMG, I assume he understands them well enough to use it. And that is where I questioned that.

The simple truth is, "Whoever believes in [Jesus] has everlasting life." You ask for questions that spur self-examination. The only question is this: have I believed in Jesus? That is to say, have I placed my faith in Him? Talk of works, of submission, of obedience, of commitment, all of those are fine questions, but they are not related to the question, "Have I believed in Jesus?" and that by the very meaning of the terms in the question. It is DB and those like him who attempt to make it complicated by insisting that believe doesn't really mean believe after all, that it really includes notions like commitment. And he persists in that confusion when offered concrete examples that disprove him. And rather than address those examples, he simply ignores them and repeats the confusion, and turns instead to an authority he refuses to explain or defend when that authority is questioned.

So yes, I agree with you that we shouldn't need all these pages or posts or scholarship. We should just need the words of Jesus. He was clear what He said, and I would invite DB and everyone else to stop disagreeing with Him and just believe what He actually said.

Jac: So yes, I agree with you that we shouldn't need all these pages or posts or scholarship.

And, so, that's the thing, is it not - how could a plain, simple man, of little education, understand the message of what is required for salvation, if it was in anyway deeper and more complex than what such a person could understand, given the common understandings of the words as written? Our studies should, hopefully, validate these simple understandings (of the essentials, like salvation), rather than make them more complex to grasp. The more complexity of understanding required to explain, the more I often have doubts about a simple truth being validated, because I know that God provided Scripture for the common man first, and for scholars to only further illuminate those simple truths. If the simple requires the complex to explain its basics, then most of us are in a heap of trouble! And a child being able to understand what is required for salvation - forget about it! It would be impossible.

Sure, and I blame LS for that confusion. I blame theologians in general. I have often said, "It takes a theologian to mess up the gospel." My father took a course at Bible college. He came away amazed at some of the complexity but finally settled on the realization that, by and large, his "education" was about unlearning a lot of stuff he thought he knew. And that's the sad state of things. The reason people are confused is because preachers and teachers get in pulpits and sunday school lecterns and rather than saying what the text says, they say things like, "Now, you know that 'believe' doesn't just mean 'believe.' It necessarily includes submission and commitment. So this verse is actually saying that real 'belief' is committing yourself completely and submitting entirely to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. How do you know if you've done that? That's a great question! Jesus did say to get the log out of your own eye, so here's ninety-seven bajilliion tests to apply. But don't worry when you don't actually pass any of them. Don't worry that you really do continue in sin, that you don't love Jesus as much as you want to, that you aren't seeing the changes you want to see, that you aren't really as loving to your brother as maybe you let on. Forget all that. Just lower the bar and you'll be okay!"

I mean, really, who wouldn't be confused? Bah. It's what false prophets have always done, and they'll be with us until Jesus comes back. Lots of them are going to be appealing to their good works to prove they were really saved--BUT LORD LOOK AT MY FRUIT!!!! And Jesus will say to get away. If only they had just believed Jesus . . .

Kurieuo wrote:Thanks DB for your response.

DBowling wrote:I believe the difference between authentic faith and fake faith is the object of faith.
1. The object of authentic faith is the person of Jesus Christ
2. The object of fake faith is our knowledge of theological truths about Jesus

Curious as to how you see one has faith in the person of Christ?
How do they come to possess such faith? What does it look like?

I'd be interested in your opinion...

The model I am inclined to embrace is the illumination model.
In order for a person to understand and accept the Gospel message, the Holy Spirit must first open his eyes to the truth that he is a sinner, and that he must trust in Jesus Christ to be delivered from their sin. If the person responds to this work of the Holy Spirit and trusts in Jesus then they are Born Again.

Regarding knowledge of theological truths, why don't you see that as like evidence of an authentic faith? Like one professing with their lips Christ as Lord, such is an outward expression of one's faith though it isn't the faith itself.

Oh... theological truths are definitely important. Before you trust in Jesus to save you from your sins, you need to accept the theological truth that you are a sinner and that Jesus is the person can deliver you from your sin.
I would say that theological truths are important to authentic faith but they are not an adequate object for authentic faith.

DBowling wrote:This is a key distinctions that is sorely needed in the church today that I think LS gets absolutely right.
Good works (as opposed to works) are a result of faith (see Mat 7 for the difference).

I'm not sure of the difference between "good works" as opposed to "works"?
Works isn't mentioned in Matt 7. Can you explain?

Ephesians 2:8-10 tells us that we are saved by grace through faith to do 'good works'
I think Matthew 7:21-23 demonstrates the difference between the two.
works are represented by "Lord, Lord, did we not..." and are a function of doing our own will
'good works' are those which are a function of doing the will of God

I would say that the fundamental difference between works and good works is that works are initiated by the will of man. 'good works' are initiated by the Holy Spirit

DBowling wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:It is revealing what you attach on the back of not judging another's salvation.
On the back of that you say your job is to examine yourself. Why, what are you worried about?
Hasn't Christ got your back? Are you worried that your faith isn't authentic?

The reason I examine myself is to see if my walk matches my talk.
Which has nothing to do with assurance of salvation. Jesus already took care of that.

What if your walk doesn't match your talk?

If we confess our sins He is faithful and just to forgive our sins...

Further, what if you were living a homosexual lifestyle and having lots of same sex partners.
There's no immediate turn-around, you even see nothing wrong with such.
And then you come to Christ and continue living such a way.

You may not want to judge, but what does your intuition tell you: legitimate faith or illegitimate?

legitimate faith is trusting in the person of Jesus to deliver me from my sin.
I don't think a person can genuinely trust in Jesus to deliver them from sin if they have no desire to be delivered from sin.... hence the concept of repentance.

But again God knows the heart and I don't.

In Christ