Evidence for God from Science

Byblos wrote:

jlay wrote:

Faith when I get on a plane in the pilot and the plane is NOT the same as the faith I put in Christ.
So yes, to ME, there is a difference.

Is it different? I can see that the object is different. You are not trusting the pilot to save you from your sins. You are trusting him to fly you safely to a destination. But, this only shows me the object of your faith is different. You are definately trusting him for something. If you had any doubt the pilot could not perform his duties, you would not get on the plain. If you had any doubt that Christ was the Son of God, rose from the dead, healed the sick, or was Messiah, you wouldn't trust Him as savior.

It is different. While I am trusting the pilot to fly the plane, I am also trusting a whole host of other safety nets in case the pilot does not or cannot perform his duties. I am also trusting the co-pilot, the plane itself, the engineers who built it, the mechanics who serviced it, the inflatable rafts available in case of a crash, the control tower personnel to direct the plane safely, the navigation equipment, and so on and so on. While I do trust the pilot to fly the plane and land it safely, I am by no means putting my full and total trust in him or her. Contrast that with the complete and total trust placed in Christ for salvation. No engineers, no mechanics, no safety nets, nothing but Christ. So yes, I do see a difference in the two. You might say that's just a degree of trust then and not necessarily a different kind of trust. To which I would reply exactly, so they are in fact different kinds of trust.

All you have done, Byblos, is say that the object of your trust is different. Trusting the plane means trusting a lot of other things at the same time, whereas trusting Christ means just trusting Him (theoretically--although we could also argue that you have to trust the mechanism by which you heard what Christ said! Since Christ didn't say the words to you HIMSELF--and even if He did, you would have to be trusting your senses to get the message right, etc. . . .)

Again, then, trust is trust. Trusting a plane is EXACTLY the same kind of trust as trusting Christ. The difference is WHAT you are trust and HOW MANY THINGS you are trusting. But trust is still trust.

It's the object of our trust that saves us. Not the trust itself.

Jac3510 wrote:

Byblos wrote:It is different. While I am trusting the pilot to fly the plane, I am also trusting a whole host of other safety nets in case the pilot does not or cannot perform his duties. I am also trusting the co-pilot, the plane itself, the engineers who built it, the mechanics who serviced it, the inflatable rafts available in case of a crash, the control tower personnel to direct the plane safely, the navigation equipment, and so on and so on. While I do trust the pilot to fly the plane and land it safely, I am by no means putting my full and total trust in him or her. Contrast that with the complete and total trust placed in Christ for salvation. No engineers, no mechanics, no safety nets, nothing but Christ. So yes, I do see a difference in the two. You might say that's just a degree of trust then and not necessarily a different kind of trust. To which I would reply exactly, so they are in fact different kinds of trust.

All you have done, Byblos, is say that the object of your trust is different. Trusting the plane means trusting a lot of other things at the same time, whereas trusting Christ means just trusting Him (theoretically--although we could also argue that you have to trust the mechanism by which you heard what Christ said! Since Christ didn't say the words to you HIMSELF--and even if He did, you would have to be trusting your senses to get the message right, etc. . . .)

Again, then, trust is trust. Trusting a plane is EXACTLY the same kind of trust as trusting Christ. The difference is WHAT you are trust and HOW MANY THINGS you are trusting. But trust is still trust.

It's the object of our trust that saves us. Not the trust itself.

We all agree (at least I hope) that it's Christ that saves and not trust (or faith itself) but faith is the mechanism by which one is saved so it is an essential element of the equation. There really is no way for me to discuss this point without going back into the semi-pelagianism thing and why some have faith and other don't and I really don't want to derail the thread down that path (besides, we've been there a few times ). All I wanted to point out is that the types (maybe that's the wrong term, think degrees here) are different between trusting fully and completely versus trusting conditionally.

Byblos and Jac,
You both seem to be saying pretty much the same thing, from your own perspectives. After reading what both of you wrote, I seem to agree with what you both said. Just my 2 cents.

Jac wrote: Of course we are all friends, Hana. We can have theological disagreements--even sharp ones--and not break fellowship over it. I'll address this, but indulge me a quick little story.

I do not like sharp things. Let's avoid them by friendliness and peace. Even disgreements can be told in a friendly way. So peace, please

Jac wrote: The best we can do is offer our best interpretation of Scripture, pray for humility and honesty, and recognize that as important as the debate is, at the end of the day, we are all responsible to God. Job 42:7 is VERY important here and has become something of a life verse for me. We need to remember that in discussing the issues, we are making claims about the way God Himself is. To be wrong about that is to be wrong about the most important thing in the world, but He is the one who takes offense. I don't have any reason to be offended on God's behalf. I would hope you see that you don't, either. And I would hope we all see the same thing.

Honesty is VERY important to me.
I looked at the first part of Job 42. Yes, God was angry, but those two guys were told to burn offering for them. And Job was also praying for them, so not sure whether they are end in hell or not. I also am not offended.
By the way, I like Job 42:4.

Jac wrote:
So, speaking for myself, at least, while I deeply disagree with Calvinism and frankly believe it is a heresy that is leading souls to Hell, I'm not angry at Calvinists and I don't have problems being friends with them. All I can do is proclaim the truth as best I understand it, and they the same, and trust God to sort it all out.

Calvinism leading souls to hell? Why to hell? Is there a support for that from Scripture?
And Calvinists also may do their best to understand the truth.

---

Jac, thank you for the grammatical study. Day ago I already asked my friend John your question about faith gift. One must admit tat 'it' does not refer to gift. He teaches me but he is open and hopes one day I will teach him.

Rick, I just saw this verse in one of BW's posts:
Mat 18:14 Even so it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.
Compare it with 2 Peter 3:9.

1over137 wrote:Rick, I just saw this verse in one of BW's posts:
Mat 18:14 Even so it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.
Compare it with 2 Peter 3:9.

Hana, I believe the parable of the lost sheep is a beautiful story of Jesus'(the shepherd)love. All of us as humans have gone astray, and Jesus wants us all to come back to Him.

And, I guess 2 Peter 3:9 also tells of God's love. And how His patience for us as the human race, is born out of His love.

That's how I see it.

RickD wrote:

1over137 wrote:Rick, I just saw this verse in one of BW's posts:
Mat 18:14 Even so it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.
Compare it with 2 Peter 3:9.

Hana, I believe the parable of the lost sheep is a beautiful story of Jesus'(the shepherd)love. All of us as humans have gone astray, and Jesus wants us all to come back to Him.

And, I guess 2 Peter 3:9 also tells of God's love. And how His patience for us as the human race, is born out of His love.

That's how I see it.

Following is from John 10:
"25Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, 26but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. 27My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me,1 is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. 30I and the Father are one.”"

Notice the bold part which also refers to not perishing. And notice that not everybody belongs to his flock.

Oh, so you're saying the sheep, in the parable, are believers, and the lost sheep is a believer who has gone astray? I really don't have a problem with that interpretation either. I guess I just focused on the parable as being about the love of God, not so much about the sheep.

Throughout Scripture the Bible, passages assert that anyone who wills to believe can do so by exercising saving faith. This is the case everywhere in which the Scriptures call upon unbelievers to believe or repent to be saved. Also, the Bible describes faith as OURS, but not God’s. It references “your faith” (Luke 7:50), “his faith (Romans 4:5), and “their faith” (Matthew 9:2), but NEVER “God’s faith.”

Does God give us the ABILITY to exercise faith that yet He makes POSSIBLE and available? Absolutely! So, can an unbelieving/unsaved person be willing to positively pursue and respond to what God has already been wooing and opening their eyes to – BEFORE they are saved (or regenerated, etc?). Unquestionably! Look at the Roman Centurion, amongst the first of the gentile converts, in Acts 10.

Scripture tells us Cornelious was:
- “a devout man who feared God with all his household”

- Who “gave alms generously to the people, and prayed continually to God”

And thus God honored Cornelius’ WILLINGNESS to pursue what God had already opened his eyes to, yet BEFORE he subsequently heard the Gospel – as only after this was he saved.

“Your prayers and your alms have ascended as a memorial before God.”

Per instructions by the Lord, the men sent by Cornelius to find Peter described him as being “an upright and God-fearing man, who is well spoken of by the whole Jewish nation, was directed by a holy angel to send for you to come to his house and to hear what you have to say.” And so God was instructing and enlightening Cornelius some time BEFORE he was actually able to believe, and thus Cornelius was RECEPTIVE, WILLING, and OBEDIENT to God’s wooing and instructions, as He wanted to know God and to understand what God had in mind for him. And so Cornelius wanted to truly know God, and God, seeing that Cornelius was WILLING and desirous to know Him, honored that by bringing him the Gospel through Peter and unto salvation.

And so God reached FIRST to Cornelius, a person He knew would be WILLING to positively respond to all He required of him - yet with GOD FIRST initiating, and that would be impossible without His prompting and guidance - all the way to salvation. But Cornelius COULD have been UNWILLING and resistant, and thus God would not have forced Cornelius to do as he did (repent/have faith). This is His gift of free will. Remember, we CAN resist the Holy Spirit (Acts 7:51), but Cornelius chose to obey His prompting.

1over137 wrote:Calvinism leading souls to hell? Why to hell? Is there a support for that from Scripture?
And Calvinists also may do their best to understand the truth.

I think so.

1 John 5:13 says we can know that we are saved. Any "gospel" that denies such knowledge is therefore not the Gospel John preached. Paul says in Galatians 1:8-9 that anyone preaching a different gospel is preaching no gospel at all and are anathema (variously translated "cursed" and "eternally condemned").

Byblos and Rick have gone through this issue several times, actually. Byblos is absolutely right on these points. I think this is the thread I have in mind.

Jac, thank you for the grammatical study. Day ago I already asked my friend John your question about faith gift. One must admit tat 'it' does not refer to gift. He teaches me but he is open and hopes one day I will teach him.

Then, I again just suggest that you consider carefully whether or not you should adopt a position that has no scriptural support. And going back to 2 Pet 3:9, if you assume that faith is not a gift (simply on the basis that there is no verse that says as much anywhere), I think you'll find the Calvinistic interpretation a bit of a stretch. Put differently, Calvinists have to interpret 2 Pet 3:9 in light of their theology. When you don't assume that theology, you can't get to that interpretation.

That is, I think, a good broad point to make. Our methodology is very important. Do we assume a theology and interpret Scripture in light of it, or do we let Scripture determine our theology? I say the latter. We should never assume a theology and take it to the text. That is called eisogesis (reading into a text). We want to do exegesis (reading out of a text).

fdit:

By the way, I'm not at all suggesting that all, or even most, Calvinists are going to Hell. I think the Gospel is rather simple and that many people have believed it even though they process to believe a different gospel entirely. That is, I think a lot of people are saved in spite of their theology rather than because of it. As a believer in eternal security, I don't think those people lose their salvation when, after believing the simple Gospel of Christ, go on and get confused by their own theology and end up denying the Gospel.

edit2: Regarding the thread I linked you to earlier, it is helpful. I'd also just recommend searching for the term "moral assurance." Byblos has done an excellent job explaining that position as it relates to this discussion. I think you would find those discussions very helpful.

Assuming that you are correct that these various groups are both mistaken in their exegesis of Scripture and that they deny eternal security (plenty would deny both but that isn't the debate)- is salvation "trust Christ and you will be saved" or "trust Christ and believe in eternal security and you will be saved"? Maybe a person could contend that if you don't believe in eternal security you don't actually have faith in Christ, but doesn't this fall victim to the same criticism discussed here, that this implies that there are "different types of faith"?

narnia4 wrote:Assuming that you are correct that these various groups are both mistaken in their exegesis of Scripture and that they deny eternal security (plenty would deny both but that isn't the debate)- is salvation "trust Christ and you will be saved" or "trust Christ and believe in eternal security and you will be saved"? Maybe a person could contend that if you don't believe in eternal security you don't actually have faith in Christ, but doesn't this fall victim to the same criticism discussed here, that this implies that there are "different types of faith"?

While the bible doesn't explicitily mention different types of faith in the sense that it numbers them or anything like that,James does state the contrats between the faith the produces good works and the faith that doesn't, though one can argue that what james is doing is NOT stating that there are different TYPES of faith but that how one express their faith may be what lends a certain "validity" or "correctness" to their faith.
Of course the bible doesn't HAVE to mention that there are different types of faith for their to be a doctrine of 'different" types of faith.
One can certainly read through the bible and get the impression that there are different types of faith without the words "there are different types of faith" appearing.

Narnia,

There are some in my camp who mistakenly argue that the Gospel is trust Christ and believe in eternal security. That's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is "trust Christ" may mean different things to different people, and if you don't understand it properly, then you aren't really trusting Christ, are you? That is not to say that there are different kinds of faith. It is to say that there is only one kind of faith, and some people fail to understand that. For instance, suppose you drew me a picture of a circle and I called it a square. Does that mean that there are two different kinds of circles--circular ones and square ones? No. It means that I just don't know what a circle is!

Just so, there are people who say, "I trust Christ," but they mean something very different than I do when I say "I trust Christ." To emphasize, that is NOT to say that there are different kinds of faith. That is to say that one of us has faith and the other has something he merely calls faith but is not faith at all. It's not a deficient kind of faith. It's just something else entirely (usually, it's commitment, not faith, that they have in mind).

Now Calvinists, in virtue of their belief in the final perseverance of the saints, cannot know that they are saved at any given moment. Since all "true believers" will persevere until the end, but some have thought themselves to be "true believers" only to fall away in the future thereby proving they were never really saved to begin with, no Calvinist know whether or not he is a true believer. He may hope he is. He may pray he is. He may be really sure that he is. But, he may eventually fall away and prove to himself and everyone else that his belief was "spurious," and that his assurance was merely a self-deception. Therefore, Calvinists cannot affirm 1 John 5:13. They cannot know that they have eternal life. Therefore, they have a different gospel in mind than John did. Therefore, they have a false Gospel. And preaching a false Gospel sends people to Hell.

Given this, it's easy to see how some in my camp have gone on to say that eternal security is the Gospel itself. Their mistake is in failing to recognize that human beings have this wonderful capacity for believing self-contradictory things. Eternal security is a logical and necessary corollary of the Gospel, but being a corollary, it is not identical with it. So if I believe the Gospel, then logically, I ought to believe in eternal security and absolute, unconditional assurance. Some, however, believe the Gospel and irrationally, illogically believe in subjective, moral assurance. Being irrational, thank God, is not grounds for eternal damnation!

On the other hand, to preach a "gospel" that logically and necessarily results in subjective, moral assurance is to preach a false gospel. Granted, some people may be saved through such preaching, but it would be in spite of the theology, not because of it. Such people who come to faith under the preaching of a false gospel (i.e., Calvinism) would either

1. Be illogical, in accepting the Gospel and accepting the contradictory notion of moral assurance, or
2. Be confused and/or fallen, in accepting the Gospel and then accepting the contradictory notion of moral assurance and thereby denying the Gospel they had just previously believed

So, again, some can be saved and believe Calvinism. I'm sure a great many are. But they are saved in spite of their Calvinism, not because of it. Calvinism itself is a false gospel, because it's view of faith necessarily results in moral assurance. Or, more correctly, it is a false gospel because it has a false view of faith, and we can know that its view of faith is mistaken because that view of faith results in moral assurance, which is denied by Scripture (at least, that's my view!)

jlay wrote:

Faith when I get on a plane in the pilot and the plane is NOT the same as the faith I put in Christ.
So yes, to ME, there is a difference.

Is it different? I can see that the object is different. You are not trusting the pilot to save you from your sins. You are trusting him to fly you safely to a destination. But, this only shows me the object of your faith is different. You are definately trusting him for something. If you had any doubt the pilot could not perform his duties, you would not get on the plain. If you had any doubt that Christ was the Son of God, rose from the dead, healed the sick, or was Messiah, you wouldn't trust Him as savior.

Here is the thing though, can a person believe that Christ is all that WITHOUT the HS?
Paul seems to imply that it is via the HS that one believes and that belief goes hand in hand with faith.

I would also point out, Narnia, that there are at least two kinds of Calvinists with two different gospels. One camp is represented by MacArthur and makes "faith" equivalent to commitment. They argue that faith equals discipleship--that "believing in Jesus" is equivalent to fully submitting to Christ's Lordship and to be His disciple. That view, to me, is obviously heretical just on its face, because it flatly misdefines "faith." For them, the Gospel is, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotton Son, that whosoever fully commits to Him will not perish, but has everlasting life." In doing so, they deny the Gospel (if I'm right that faith is just a personal trust).

The other kind is represented by men like Darrell Bock. Their view of faith is more nuanced. For them, faith is probably better understood as a personal trust (with lots of qualifications), but it is the kind that necessarily results in discipleship. They'll say that if a person fails to submit to Christ's lordship, then they didn't really "trust" in Christ after all. So commitment is still smuggled in . . . it's just through the backdoor.

It's much easier to hear the true Gospel in Bock's Calvinism than MacArthur's. MacArthur's is far worse, and the problems I have with Bock's are more technical and theological than they are with the basic presentation of the Gospel itself. Anyway, all that's just full disclosure.