Evidence for God from Science

So ran into two things today. First, the JWs stopped by and I got into the same discussion with them that I get into with LS, Mormons, Catholics, Calvinists, etc. on faith and how we are saved. They give the same lip-service to Ephesians 2:8-9, but they really redefine faith the same way that the other groups do.

Two, an informative graphic:

SoCalExile wrote:So ran into two things today. First, the JWs stopped by and I got into the same discussion with them that I get into with LS, Mormons, Catholics, Calvinists, etc. on faith and how we are saved. They give the same lip-service to Ephesians 2:8-9, but they really redefine faith the same way that the other groups do.

Two, an informative graphic:

You had Jehovah Witnesses actually quote Ephesians 2:8-9?

abelcainsbrother wrote:

You had Jehovah Witnesses actually quote Ephesians 2:8-9?

They agreed with it when I stated it. However, in their New World Translation, John 3:16 says,"...that whoever exercises faith in Him should not perish..."

It's the same thing I run into with the other groups, they will quickly agree with the sentiment of 'salvation by grace through faith alone', but when you get further in the discussion, they'll start with the same proof-texts we with the other groups against it. It's a psychological game of trying to find common ground, even while deceiving the mark (me) of their actual beliefs.

But when you use the Yankee Arnold example of, "so can an unrepentant homosexual, who trusted Christ, die and go to heaven...?" the mood changes.

DBowling wrote:

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.

As promised... it looks like this weekend will provide me an opportunity to discuss the accuracy of the definition of pisteuo in the 3rd edition of BDAG with a knowledgeable and credible source who has taught both Hebrew and Greek for longer than I've been alive and who was also a close personal friend of Zane Hodges who wrote Absolutely Free, the rebuttal to MacArthur's LS books. So I won't be getting a LS biased opinion.

I'm looking forward to this, and I hope to deep dive both pistis and metanoia.

In Christ

SoCalExile wrote: It's the same thing I run into with the other groups, they will quickly agree with the sentiment of 'salvation by grace through faith alone', but when you get further in the discussion, they'll start with the same proof-texts we with the other groups against it. It's a psychological game of trying to find common ground, even while deceiving the mark (me) of their actual beliefs.

But when you use the Yankee Arnold example of, "so can an unrepentant homosexual, who trusted Christ, die and go to heaven...?" the mood changes.

I used Hebrews to point out the Divinity of Christ to 'them'.
..Then their bible changed again

Not sure what ever happened with DB and his friend, but for anyone who is interested, he's an execellent article on BDAG's revision of the definition of pisteuo.

https://faithalone.org/journal/2004ii/makidon.pdf

And be sure to look up Poythress' article as well, which is referred to in Makidon's article here.

Jac3510 wrote:Not sure what ever happened with DB and his friend, but for anyone who is interested, he's an execellent article on BDAG's revision of the definition of pisteuo.

https://faithalone.org/journal/2004ii/makidon.pdf

And be sure to look up Poythress' article as well, which is referred to in Makidon's article here.

Thanks! It's gotten really bad in pop-theology that this site took the simple Strong's definition of the Greek word for "faith" and made it 2% actual definition and added 98% man-made interpretation by pop-preachers:
http://biblehub.com/greek/4102.htm

Jac3510 wrote:Not sure what ever happened with DB and his friend

My son-in-law graduated from college last month and my father who has taught Greek and Hebrew for decades came up for the graduation. So I had a chance to spend hours basically rehashing the things that I have posted in this thread to see where we agreed and disagreed.

As I have mentioned elsewhere, My father and Zane Hodges were close friends and Zane was the best man at my father's wedding. My father is no fan of John MacArthur, and my father and I have had many long 'discussions' about Lordship Salvation over the years.

Right up front my father established that he was much closer to Hodge's Free Grace position than MacArthur's Lordship Salvation position.

As mentioned before, I was very interested in my father's opinion as a Greek scholar regarding some of the allegations that have been made here about the BDAG third edition definition of 'pisteuo'.
We looked at the entry and my father noted that the entry was well documented with multiple sources.
He also had no problem with updating definitions from earlier editions when additional scholarship provides additional information.
So there was no real drama there because my father didn't see any problem with the BDAG third edition definition of 'pisteuo'.

When I asked my father to read the "Introduction to Lordship Salvation" link that we have been referencing in this thread, he was a real trooper and humored me.
As expected my father disagreed with a number of points in the article. The biggest distinction he drew was that he considered much of what the article said to be 'normative' but not 'required'. And that distinction between 'normative' and 'required' kept resurfacing as we discussed in detail the 'Distinctives of Lordship Salvation' in the link.

Since my father is very close to the Free Grace position, I specifically wanted to know if he considered the position represented in the Introduction to Lordship Salvation link to represent, "aberrant Christianity", "a false gospel", "works salvation" or "heresy". My father was unwilling to attribute any of those descriptions to Lordship Salvation.

We did spend some time talking about about the similarities and differences between Lordship Salvation and "works salvation". The similarity that many "Free Grace" proponents jump on is that the logical truth table for Lordship Salvation and works salvation are identical. However, the cause/effect relationship for Lordship Salvation and works salvation are totally different. The difference in cause/effect is the reason that you cannot equate Lordship Salvation with works salvation.

One of the things I really appreciate and respect about my father is we can have differing opinions about theology and still have respectful discussions without the name calling and personal attacks that too often poison theological discussions. In fact my father's biggest issue with MacArthur is not his position on Lordship Salvation. Rather it is MacArthur's attitude of dogmatism and intolerance for differing opinions.

OK... that is a quick summary of some of the things that I remember. My father is a godly man who has spent decades in Christian ministry as a scholar, professor, and pastor. And it is a special treat when I have a chance to sit down and hash out soteriology, eschatology, origins, calvinism, etc with my dad. And as always I treasured the time we spent together 'discussing theology' yet again last month.

In Christ

DBowling wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:Not sure what ever happened with DB and his friend

My son-in-law graduated from college last month and my father who has taught Greek and Hebrew for decades came up for the graduation. So I had a chance to spend hours basically rehashing the things that I have posted in this thread to see where we agreed and disagreed.

As I have mentioned elsewhere, My father and Zane Hodges were close friends and Zane was the best man at my father's wedding. My father is no fan of John MacArthur, and my father and I have had many long 'discussions' about Lordship Salvation over the years.

Right up front my father established that he was much closer to Hodge's Free Grace position than MacArthur's Lordship Salvation position.

As mentioned before, I was very interested in my father's opinion as a Greek scholar regarding some of the allegations that have been made here about the BDAG third edition definition of 'pisteuo'.
We looked at the entry and my father noted that the entry was well documented with multiple sources.
He also had no problem with updating definitions from earlier editions when additional scholarship provides additional information.
So there was no real drama there because my father didn't see any problem with the BDAG third edition definition of 'pisteuo'.

When I asked my father to read the "Introduction to Lordship Salvation" link that we have been referencing in this thread, he was a real trooper and humored me.
As expected my father disagreed with a number of points in the article. The biggest distinction he drew was that he considered much of what the article said to be 'normative' but not 'required'. And that distinction between 'normative' and 'required' kept resurfacing as we discussed in detail the 'Distinctives of Lordship Salvation' in the link.

Since my father is very close to the Free Grace position, I specifically wanted to know if he considered the position represented in the Introduction to Lordship Salvation link to represent, "aberrant Christianity", "a false gospel", "works salvation" or "heresy". My father was unwilling to attribute any of those descriptions to Lordship Salvation.

We did spend some time talking about about the similarities and differences between Lordship Salvation and "works salvation". The similarity that many "Free Grace" proponents jump on is that the logical truth table for Lordship Salvation and works salvation are identical. However, the cause/effect relationship for Lordship Salvation and works salvation are totally different. The difference in cause/effect is the reason that you cannot equate Lordship Salvation with works salvation.

One of the things I really appreciate and respect about my father is we can have differing opinions about theology and still have respectful discussions without the name calling and personal attacks that too often poison theological discussions. In fact my father's biggest issue with MacArthur is not his position on Lordship Salvation. Rather it is MacArthur's attitude of dogmatism and intolerance for differing opinions.

OK... that is a quick summary of some of the things that I remember. My father is a godly man who has spent decades in Christian ministry as a scholar, professor, and pastor. And it is a special treat when I have a chance to sit down and hash out soteriology, eschatology, origins, calvinism, etc with my dad. And as always I treasured the time we spent together 'discussing theology' yet again last month.

In Christ

Sounds like I would also like to have a biblical conversation with your father also.I also like to discuss things without name calling and personal attacks.I try to avoid name calling and personal attacks and to me it is a sign of weakness and not strength when discussing things. As far as Lordship
Salvation I think a lot of the things it promotes are things a Christian would pretty much already choose to do if they are saved and being led by the Holy Spirit but they are not requirements when it comes to salvation. I believe that if a person is a Christian their fruit will show their faith but the difference is they are doing it because they are a Christian,not to remain saved,etc by doing them things and I think this is what the book of James was saying.

abelcainsbrother wrote: Sounds like I would also like to have a biblical conversation with your father also.I also like to discuss things without name calling and personal attacks.I try to avoid name calling and personal attacks and to me it is a sign of weakness and not strength when discussing things.
As far as Lordship Salvation I think a lot of the things it promotes are things a Christian would pretty much already choose to do if they are saved and being led by the Holy Spirit but they are not requirements when it comes to salvation. I believe that if a person is a Christian their fruit will show their faith but the difference is they are doing it because they are a Christian,not to remain saved,etc by doing them things and I think this is what the book of James was saying.

I pretty much agree with what you are saying here...

Even though I did use the word 'required' in my post it was not meant to be understood as any requirement for salvation. Neither my position nor the position of LS is that works are required to be saved.
The more precisely worded question is this:
Are good works a 'normative result' of being born again or are good works a 'necessary result' of being born again?

My father and I disagree on that specific question
My father believes that good works are a 'normative result' of being born again.
I believe that good works are a 'necessary result' of being born again.

In Christ

abelcainsbrother wrote: Sounds like I would also like to have a biblical conversation with your father also.I also like to discuss things without name calling and personal attacks.I try to avoid name calling and personal attacks and to me it is a sign of weakness and not strength when discussing things. As far as Lordship
Salvation I think a lot of the things it promotes are things a Christian would pretty much already choose to do if they are saved and being led by the Holy Spirit but they are not requirements when it comes to salvation. I believe that if a person is a Christian their fruit will show their faith but the difference is they are doing it because they are a Christian,not to remain saved,etc by doing them things and I think this is what the book of James was saying.

The problem is LS does teach these things as salvific requirements for maintaining or evidencing faith, which is contrary to the Bible. Salvation is a free gift. It's like giving someone a car, saying it's a gift, then requiring them to pay in order to keep it (in the case of Arminian LS) or as evidence (in Calvinist LS) that they have a car! In either case, it's not really a gift.

DBowling wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote: Sounds like I would also like to have a biblical conversation with your father also.I also like to discuss things without name calling and personal attacks.I try to avoid name calling and personal attacks and to me it is a sign of weakness and not strength when discussing things.
As far as Lordship Salvation I think a lot of the things it promotes are things a Christian would pretty much already choose to do if they are saved and being led by the Holy Spirit but they are not requirements when it comes to salvation. I believe that if a person is a Christian their fruit will show their faith but the difference is they are doing it because they are a Christian,not to remain saved,etc by doing them things and I think this is what the book of James was saying.

I pretty much agree with what you are saying here...

Even though I did use the word 'required' in my post it was not meant to be understood as any requirement for salvation. Neither my position nor the position of LS is that works are required to be saved.
The more precisely worded question is this:
Are good works a 'normative result' of being born again or are good works a 'necessary result' of being born again?

My father and I disagree on that specific question
My father believes that good works are a 'normative result' of being born again.
I believe that good works are a 'necessary result' of being born again.

In Christ

And that's what makes works necessary for salvation in LS. If works are a necessary result of being born again/salvation, then all who are saved, produce good works. Which also means all who don't produce good works, aren't saved.

It's not rocket surgery.

SoCalExile wrote: The problem is LS does teach these things as salvific requirements for maintaining or evidencing faith, which is contrary to the Bible. Salvation is a free gift. It's like giving someone a car, saying it's a gift, then requiring them to pay in order to keep it (in the case of Arminian LS) or as evidence (in Calvinist LS) that they have a car! In either case, it's not really a gift.

Just to clarify...
LS does not teach that works are a salvific requirement for maintaining faith or keeping faith. That is a misrepresentation of LS.

LS teaches that Salvation is a free gift. End of story.
LS also teaches that when a person receives the free gift of salvation, he is 'born again', he becomes a 'new creation', and he receives the indwelling Holy Spirit.
LS doesn't teach that a person performs good works to keep or earn his salvation.
LS teaches that salvation enables a person to perform good works.

In fairness, I do have some problems with with some aspects of LS, and I have discussed some of the areas where I disagree with LS in this thread. (For instance, how is an unregenerate person even capable of total submission to the lordship of Christ?)
However, my disagreements with LS are with positions that LS actually hold and not misrepresentations and straw men that are contrary to core beliefs of LS.

In Christ

RickD wrote:

DBowling wrote: Neither my position nor the position of LS is that works are required to be saved.
The more precisely worded question is this:
Are good works a 'normative result' of being born again or are good works a 'necessary result' of being born again?

My father and I disagree on that specific question
My father believes that good works are a 'normative result' of being born again.
I believe that good works are a 'necessary result' of being born again.

In Christ

And that's what makes works necessary for salvation in LS. If works are a necessary result of being born again/salvation, then all who are saved, produce good works. Which also means all who don't produce good works, aren't saved.

We've been here before... but I'll try again...
Making works necessary for salvation
is not the same thing as
works being a necessary result of salvation.

The cause/effect relationship between works and salvation in those two statements is totally opposite.
Asserting that those two statements are equivalent is one of the straw man misrepresentations about LS that has repeatedly appeared in this thread.

My father and I discussed this particular issue at length, and as a free grace proponent my father agreed with me that
Making works necessary for salvation
is very different from
works being a necessary result of salvation
And that is why as a free grace proponent my father does not accuse LS of being works salvation.

In Christ

Jac touched on this issue in his post here.