Evidence for God from Science

Nicki wrote:

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?

I think Yankee nails it:

SoCalExile wrote:

Nicki wrote:

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?

I think Yankee nails it:

ADD/cliff notes/condensed version please.

DBowling wrote:

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...

It can be read in this post, although I don't consider it all merely opinion :

• The only solution that I see, is to understand that "faith" is something God gives us, and is of our heart.
  Those who are saved are the circumcision of heart, and God is the one who circumcises us.
  This message has been the same in the OT:
  
  • "The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live." (Deuteronomy 30:6)
  And it is true in the NT:
  
  • No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person's praise is not from other people, but from God. (Romans 2:29)
  It has always been true, at all times that God's objective was our hearts. It is something God works to produce within us, through his constant calling out to us in life and drawing us unto Himself. (John 6:44) We merely respond over time, and eventually collide with God resulting in belief, this faith of which we are now talking.
  
  Our faith in Jesus Christ is not our righteousness. Our faith does not constitute our righteousness.
  Faith is simply the instrument by which we receive Christ's righteousness, Christ's works who obeyed God's Law completely. The moment anyone talks of their faith saving them, they turn faith at once into works and immediately have something to boast of: "Oh my faith has saved me, thank God I'm not like those wicked Atheists!"
  
  Audie debated here not long ago that belief isn't something we choose.
  Some said belief is something we choose to believe. I only loosely followed, but who is correct?
  I see that there is a process that leads one to belief, that a true and authentic belief cannot be forced even by ourselves. Coming to belief is in part not any one decision, but a process of internal changes. This Audie is right... but then, intellectual assent and belief in Christ often happens on the back of this inner changing. Authentic belief or faith in Christ is finally had as a consequence of, not in spite of, a changing of our hearts.
  
  This change within us, our belief, our trust in Christ, our faith, is not something we do.
  No, God has effected change within us. Your heart merely responded to God's pinging and echoed back.
  You and God drew closer and closer together until collision happened, and then you believed -- an outworking of this process in your heart. And now you desire all that God desires, how could you not? You desire to do that which is good, and wage war until you die against your fleshly desires. Paul thankfully and reassuringly talks much of this conflict of two natures within us (Romans 7:15-25):
  
  • 15For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. 16But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good. 17So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. 18For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. 19For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. 20But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.
    
    21I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. 22For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, 23but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. 24Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? 25Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.

DBowling wrote: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.

What I'll say here is meant to be an encouragement to unpack your words, not necessarily an attack on your response.
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but this feels like a rather scripted and learnt response.

I asked how one trusts in Jesus, how the come to possess faith.
You responded by responding to the work of the Holy Spirit and trusting in Christ then they are Born Again.

Ok, doesn't that seem tautologous? Christians often talk in terms that I find inauthentic which leave many unanswered questions and it all just sounding like they've been hypnotised with a certain response.

Such a response doesn't really broken away from religious terms to unpack them in a practical way. For example, what does "the work of the Holy Spirit" look like would help understand how some comes to faith. And trusting in Christ, non-Christians would still be left wondering what is this trusting in Christ? Especially given it's not like we can trust in Christ in the same manner we might a close friend we see.

Interestingly, it seems in your response that accepting the Gospel message as the final defining point for faith.
Perhaps for you an authentic faith is really intellectual after all? Perhaps you are closer to Jac's and SoCal's beliefs (as I understand them) at least in this respect more than initially thought:

DBowling wrote: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.

I'm not sure I see that the discussion being had here between many is very healthy at all, if it even be called a discussion as that actually requires talking to each other rather than past.

I'm not the most patient sort, to watch a 45-minute video - but I gotta say I got a lot of of doing it!

SoCal, that is a wonderful video. It so plainly explains the difference between trust in God and mere intellectual belief that Jesus is the Christ (like the demons have), or those who haven't truly placed their trust in Him. Trusting means you go beyond mere belief to trusting what He says is true, to desiring Him and what He offers - even though you only initially understand that He is God and died for you, and that you desire and want to follow Him.

Great takes on:

The Old man, vs. the new man

Birth of the flesh vs. the new man, birthed of the Spirit

That the flesh will continue to sin vs. the New Man born of the Spirit, which cannot sin

The importance of translation vs. the dangers of interpretation

As much as Yankee appreciates the King James (because he sees its superiority as a translation), I don't suppose he's a "King James Only" fellow?

Philip wrote: SoCal, that is a wonderful video. It so plainly explains the difference between trust in God and mere intellectual belief that Jesus is the Christ (like the demons have), or those who haven't truly placed their trust in Him. Trusting means you go beyond mere belief to trusting what He says is true, to desiring Him and what He offers - even though you only initially understand that He is God and died for you, and that you desire and want to follow Him.

Do you believe that intellectually? If so, you must not mean it.

Do you believe that intellectually? If so, you must not mean it.

Explain! You must believe what Scripture says He has done (died for our sins, was Resurrected) and Who He said He is. You think differently? Otherwise, your trust is not in the REAL Jesus.

Philip wrote:

Do you believe that intellectually? If so, you must not mean it.

Explain! You must believe what Scripture says He has done (died for our sins, was Resurrected) and Who He said He is. You think differently? Otherwise, your trust is not in the REAL Jesus.

So in other words, "mere intellectual belief" about those things?

That's a pejorative phrase that has no basis in reality, and those who use it subject themselves to it.

So in other words, "mere intellectual belief" about those things?

That's a pejorative phrase that has no basis in reality, and those who use it subject themselves to it.

OK, now you're playing word games, which is unnecessary to the subject. I think you understand the difference I was pointing out, between the belief of demons and those saved.

Philip wrote:

So in other words, "mere intellectual belief" about those things?

That's a pejorative phrase that has no basis in reality, and those who use it subject themselves to it.

OK, now you're playing word games, which is unnecessary to the subject. I think you understand the difference I was pointing out, between the belief of demons and those saved.

That verse has nothing to do with salvation. It's about unproductive faith as seen by an unbelieving world.

That verse has nothing to do with salvation.

WHAT verse? I was referring to the video, in general - that is in contrasting what Yankee shows is ONLY necessary to salvation and what is not (that goes beyond it, like LS). But I was also contrasting the difference between the required simple, saving trust in Jesus with the (mere) belief that demons have.

Philip wrote:

That verse has nothing to do with salvation.

WHAT verse? I was referring to the video, in general - that is in contrasting what Yankee shows is ONLY necessary to salvation and what is not (that goes beyond it, like LS). But I was also contrasting the difference between the required simple, saving trust in Jesus with the (mere) belief that demons have.

James 2:19. And Yankee is adamant about James being about service and not salvation.




The "mere intellectual belief" is phrase LS adherents use to ridicule Biblical faith, see #14:
http://www.freegracealliance.com/pdf/baiting.pdf

SoCalExile, you seem to be kind of shaking sticks at anyone.
I'd be interested to hear your own answers to similar questions DBowling was kind enough to answer.

Curious in your own words as what you believe a Christian faith is?
How does one come to possess it? What does it look like?

As a side, you appear to believe "intellectual assent" is something coined by LS adherents. That's just bogus and irrelevant. I'm not LS, Philip ain't either and it was Jac who first introduced me to the term "intellectual assent" in discussions had years ago.

The "mere intellectual belief" is phrase LS adherents use to ridicule Biblical faith, see #14:
http://www.freegracealliance.com/pdf/baiting.pdf

Which is not what I was referring to. In fact, if you have been following my input, I have been very critical of the LS view. I was referring to the fact that demons well know WHO Jesus is, even calling Him "Son of God" (Matthew 8:29). So there IS a difference in belief of demons and those who are saved - as TRUST-placing does go beyond MERE (or no more than cognitive understanding of Who He is) belief. But LS would appear to say mere TRUST-placing belief is insufficient, that some validation of observed works is also necessary for proof. Which has nothing at all to do with what I was referring to - which if you had been paying attention to me, you would have realized.