Evidence for God from Science

Jlay,

Of course, but I would like to know what you specifically mean by "God has worked in us." My initial impression is that you are saying that salvation has already occurred. If this is not the case then please let me know.

I’m not saying salvation has already occurred. I’m saying we are called Romans 8:30. We are initially moved, if you want.

To clarify, based on my best understanding of the word, there is a repentance (mind shift) that occurs before and in keeping with belief. However, repentance must be understood in its context, and we need to be careful not to apply a meaning to the word which it doesn't carry in and of itself and in all usage. The word repent in certain context may mean something else. And I think that is why there is a lot of confusion over the usage of the word. When I say repentance occurs before salvation, I am not saying that there aren't areas where a believer will repent post salvation. I am certainly not saying a believer can come to God without God working. God has already worked. When the Son of Man is lifted up he will draw ALL men. The cross isn't merely an event in history, but a resonating reality of today that still draws men.

I just say repentance doesn’t necessarily occur before you believe in Christ. If you’re defining repent as a “mind shift”, then what is your mind shifting from?. I’m saying repent is “a change of mind”, and I don’t see myself “changing my mind” from anything except a non belief. But a non belief is not a belief and so I cannot have had a change of “mind.” I’m persuaded, but persuaded out of what? A passive and irrelevant non belief?

Look, I don’t even mind if repentance is a requirement for salvation; I’ve got nothing at stake here. I just don’t see it yet.

But we have several examples where repentance is preached by Jesus, JTB, and Peter, where in the context we would have to see that the audience receiving the message would understand, and I don't think it works in the way you are presenting. (Especially in Ephesians, since the word repent is not used by Paul.) Yours would seem to comply with 2 Tim 2:25. And thus may be a contextual issue we are dealing with here.

Mark 6:12, Luke 3:8, Acts 3:19, Matt. 21:32 These and others seem to support mine.

Hmm. I’m still working on my post, J, but I’ll be using Paul only.

Calvinism is thoroughly biblical in many areas. As is Armenianism and dispensationalism. That doesn't mean that each doesn't have flaws, some even perhaps critical.

In what areas would you say Calvinism is lacking biblically?

DannyM wrote:In what areas would you say Calvinism is lacking biblically?

Specifically, many of the determined views that formed Calvanism, in regards to faith, election, and predestination. I've addressed this in many recent threads.

DannyM wrote: If you’re defining repent as a “mind shift”, then what is your mind shifting from?.

Could be many things. For example, the thought that sin doesn't condemn you before a Holy God. Or, that God doesn't really care about the human sin condition. One would need to repent of that kind of thinking. Would you care to explain to me how someone like that could be saved unless they repented?

We could look at JTB preaching to Israel. "Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand." What's going on here? What is the message? Prepare to abandon an old way of thinking, to embrace a new. Hebrews is the Jewish apologetic and lays all this out. It attempts to persuade the Jew to recognize the inferiority of the 1st covenant, and to see the superiority of the new. And then to embrace it through faith.

I’m saying repent is “a change of mind”, and I don’t see myself “changing my mind” from anything except a non belief. But a non belief is not a belief and so I cannot have had a change of “mind.” I’m persuaded, but persuaded out of what? A passive and irrelevant non belief?

Danny, doubt is not non-belief. That is ignorance. Doubt is a either a conscious uncertainty, or wavering that something is true. Beyond doubt is rejection. I don't doubt that Islam is true. I reject it completely.

Another example. Let's say someone comes to know that there is a sin problem. But then to solve it, they become religious. They try to earn their way to heaven. That person needs to repent. They need to change their mind from thinking they can earn favor. I see this all the time in witnessing. I have seen people become fearful under the law. And then you ask them what they are going to do about it. They say, "I'm going to be a good person. I'm going to do better." They need to repent of the notion that they can make themselves fit for heaven.

Just go find a stranger and ask them, "Who goes to heaven?" I'll bet you at least 50% or more will say, "Good people." Wrong. And they need to be persuaded of the truth so they can repent.

jlay wrote:

DannyM wrote: If you’re defining repent as a “mind shift”, then what is your mind shifting from?.

Could be many things. For example, the thought that sin doesn't condemn you before a Holy God. Or, that God doesn't really care about the human sin condition. One would need to repent of that kind of thinking. Would you care to explain to me how someone like that could be saved unless they repented?

No because I don’t need to explain any such thing to you. You need to show me that all this necessarily comes prior to belief. I agree with repentance; heck, I repent all the bloody time. After I consciously believed on the Lord I repented of all my old ways. But I’m asking for evidence that repentance is a necessary precondition of belief in Christ.

I’m saying that repentance is a necessary concomitant of belief in Christ.

We could look at JTB preaching to Israel. "Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand." What's going on here? What is the message? Prepare to abandon an old way of thinking, to embrace a new. Hebrews is the Jewish apologetic and lays all this out. It attempts to persuade the Jew to recognize the inferiority of the 1st covenant, and to see the superiority of the new. And then to embrace it through faith.

Indeed, and this is a specific command/request to repent.

I’m saying repent is “a change of mind”, and I don’t see myself “changing my mind” from anything except a non belief. But a non belief is not a belief and so I cannot have had a change of “mind.” I’m persuaded, but persuaded out of what? A passive and irrelevant non belief?

Danny, doubt is not non-belief. That is ignorance. Doubt is a either a conscious uncertainty, or wavering that something is true. Beyond doubt is rejection. I don't doubt that Islam is true. I reject it completely.

But you’re assuming this “doubt,” J. I’m after some evidence that repentance is a necessary condition for salvation. I’m not just assuming that doubt preceded every believer’s belief. Non belief is not doubt. Non belief to belief cannot entail a mind change since the mind at non belief is passive and non-committing. Non belief in and of itself is completely irrelevant and not a ‘state of mind.’ So non belief to belief in Christ does not necessarily involve a “change” of “mind.”

I see that Murray edited the OP so it now focuses more on the "kill infidels" verses rather than Hell. Smart move. Now it looks significantly less hypocritical.

Noah1201 wrote:I see that Murray edited the OP so it now focuses more on the "kill infidels" verses rather than Hell. Smart move. Now it looks significantly less hypocritical.

Or I could be changing them to focus more on the topic of ismalamic hatred. Not really hypocritical.............

May I suggest going to a bible study so you can understand the bible better? You seem to have very faulty knowledge of the bible and its context read more neutral information on the bible not christophoib richard dawkins bigotry.

We have already discussed this almost exat same topic in the begining of this thread so i', not even going to bother fighting this fight again, find something new and valid ot complain about.

and you seem to forget when god in the OT does demand death (which I’m sure you look at from a ethnocentric 21st century view) he has strict reasons (which I amuse you could care less about) and he only demands death for a strict period of time (ex Jericho). God of Islam commands death for a fixed period of time too, in context that being death to all non-Muslims until everybody is Muslim.

I'm sure you can take the bible and find a story and say "oO loK god cMANds DeAtH" but fail to look at 1) why the Israelites needed to 2) what the indigenous people practiced 3) and that it was for a set period of time for them to kill and in was in no way meant to be used by further generations for killing.

The Koran says to kill constantly and all throughout time IN CONTEXT, that is what you seem to confuse. You take the bible insanely out of context to try to use it against us but it does not work as we are not stupid Christians who have never read the bible. You use arguments christophobics would use against people who call themselves Christians but yet understand none of the bible better yet in it's context. You still do not realize that we understand the bible, we know its context, and we know what it says. Really, none of this crap is going to work, you are constantly beating an already dead and defeated horse

No because I don’t need to explain any such thing to you. You need to show me that all this necessarily comes prior to belief.

You certainly aren't obligated, but that is hardly a response that I would call conducive for honest discussion. I asked, "Would you care to....." That is a request, not a demand.
I just gave you a scenario that I believe demonstrates exactly what you are saying I need to show you. That fact that you say you don't need to explain is not fair play. It just doesn't seem consistent to say that you don't need to explain anything, and then in the next breath say, "I need you to show me...."
Do you really think that is an even playing field? I sure don't. Danny, I always appreciate a spirited discussion and debate. But, this doesn't seem like we are going in that direction.
I did provide an in-depth study on repentance that supports my position. Several scenarios and case studies, and examples from scripture. So, to claim there is no evidence just isn't the case.

So non belief to belief in Christ does not necessarily involve a “change” of “mind.”

Danny, there is an old saying, and I think it has a lot of truth in it. You can't get someone saved until you get them lost. I think I understand what you are saying. A person ignorant of Christ is different than a person who has the knowledge, yet refuses to believe. Is this what you are driving at? FWIW, this isn't what I am presenting as repentance. I am not talking about going from ignorance to informed.

Danny, can I ask you what do you think will happen to members of those estamated 30 tribes in the amazon that have had 0 contact with the outside world?

Personally I believe in the reincarnation philosophy , that states they will be reincarnated and will have a life with an opprutunity to have exposure to christ, but I am very interested to see what you think would happen to them.

Personally I believe in the reincarnation philosophy

A person is welcome to believe whatever they want. However, it is in direct contradiction with what the bible teaches. Hebrews 9:27
Murray, just to put it blunt. You have shaped a God in your own mind that better suits your own ideas. One that does not comply with His word. A God that you are more comfortable with. This is the oldest sin in the book. The sin of idolatry.

What about those who have had zero contact? Ignorance is not a sin. Sin is sin. And I'm sure God, being a just judge, will judge them according to their deeds. I would be less concerned about the people who are ignorant, and be more concerned about the fact that you are rejecting with knowledge.

jlay wrote:

No because I don’t need to explain any such thing to you. You need to show me that all this necessarily comes prior to belief.

You certainly aren't obligated, but that is hardly a response that I would call conducive for honest discussion. I asked, "Would you care to....." That is a request, not a demand.
I just gave you a scenario that I believe demonstrates exactly what you are saying I need to show you. That fact that you say you don't need to explain is not fair play. It just doesn't seem consistent to say that you don't need to explain anything, and then in the next breath say, "I need you to show me...."
Do you really think that is an even playing field? I sure don't.

J, why the friction? We are not strangers. I’m responding how I see fit, and my respect for you never wavers.

I asked for an example of your “mind shift.”

For example, the thought that sin doesn't condemn you before a Holy God. Or, that God doesn't really care about the human sin condition. One would need to repent of that kind of thinking. Would you care to explain to me how someone like that could be saved unless they repented?

This is all dandy, and I concur with these sporadic examples of a repentance. But I’m dealing with salvation here. I’m not interested in these fine examples you give me. These examples are all genuine examples of repentance, but they do not deal with the issue at hand.

Danny, I always appreciate a spirited discussion and debate. But, this doesn't seem like we are going in that direction.
I did provide an in-depth study on repentance that supports my position. Several scenarios and case studies, and examples from scripture. So, to claim there is no evidence just isn't the case.

J, your position here, it seems to me, is incorrect. This study: was it the paper you provided on the other thread? If so then, while it was a great paper, its conclusion of an interchangeable salvation/repentance was for me a hasty leap and completely false. As I said, repentance is a necessary concomitant to faith, but not a necessary precondition to faith. Your link may support you, but your link is not Scripture.

So non belief to belief in Christ does not necessarily involve a “change” of “mind.”

Danny, there is an old saying, and I think it has a lot of truth in it. You can't get someone saved until you get them lost. I think I understand what you are saying. A person ignorant of Christ is different than a person who has the knowledge, yet refuses to believe. Is this what you are driving at? FWIW, this isn't what I am presenting as repentance. I am not talking about going from ignorance to informed.

Yes, I suppose this is what I’m getting at. I’m not talking about your average John on an epistemological bender; I’m talking about a point of non belief to a point of belief. Any permutations of a non belief are merely speculative on our part and cannot be taken seriously unless we yield to just speculation. I’m taking a) non belief and b) belief at face value and not projecting my ideas on to them. Do you see?

Murray wrote:Danny, can I ask you what do you think will happen to members of those estamated 30 tribes in the amazon that have had 0 contact with the outside world?

Personally I believe in the reincarnation philosophy , that states they will be reincarnated and will have a life with an opprutunity to have exposure to christ, but I am very interested to see what you think would happen to them.

Murray, I have to agree with Jlay

God is not unjust

DannyM wrote:

Murray wrote:Danny, can I ask you what do you think will happen to members of those estamated 30 tribes in the amazon that have had 0 contact with the outside world?

Personally I believe in the reincarnation philosophy , that states they will be reincarnated and will have a life with an opprutunity to have exposure to christ, but I am very interested to see what you think would happen to them.

Murray, I have to agree with Jlay

God is not unjust

and Im sure if I googled christian reincarnation I could find biblical support for it as well jlay.

honestly I do not care to much on the topic, but it is still what I believe. And jlay, do you think all catholics are idolators because they believe in purgatory without much biblical evidence for that either?

and Im sure if I googled christian reincarnation I could find biblical support for it as well jlay.

Murray, if you want to start a new topic on what you call christian reincarnation, and post what you think is biblical support, then I think you'd find more than enough people that would easily refute that.

and Im sure if I googled christian reincarnation I could find biblical support for it as well jlay.

Murray, consider this reply my challenge to do that very thing.

honestly I do not care to much on the topic, but it is still what I believe. And jlay, do you think all catholics are idolators because they believe in purgatory without much biblical evidence for that either?

And Muslims believe Christ wasn't crucified. Mormons believe that Jesus was brother of Lucifer. Murray, we may both be wrong, but we can't both be right. Regardless of denomination, one is guilty of idolatry when they shape a God in their own mind to suit their needs. Corporately or privately. You are saying that one trusting Christ in this life isn't essential for salvation, as they will get other chances. The bible says otherwise. Fundamentally, your view is not Christian. It is aberrant view if not heretical. And I don't say that lightly. I would be remiss not to warn you as such.

DannyM wrote:Your link may support you, but your link is not Scripture.

Again Danny, that is not fair play. I didn't claim it to be. It was thorough, and rooted in scripture as support. Not saying I agree with every jot and tittle, but the overall case seems more than sound.

J, why the friction? We are not strangers.

That's basically what I'm asking you. You don't see how your reply saying you don't owe me an answer, and then in the next breath requiring one of me, could be seen as friction? I think I was very level headed and non offensive in explaining to you why I was feeling the friction.

This is all dandy, and I concur with these sporadic examples of a repentance. But I’m dealing with salvation here. I’m not interested in these fine examples you give me. These examples are all genuine examples of repentance, but they do not deal with the issue at hand.

Danny, if you want to dismiss the examples, then what is point? Are they not valid? You said they are 'genuine.' Do they not confirm my position? Yes, they do. Please explain how a person with those positions could be saved without repenting of those thoughts. They can't.

These examples are all genuine examples of repentance, but they do not deal with the issue at hand.

The issue at hand is, is repentance essential for salvation, and when does it occur? So, you say, my examples are genuine, and they preceed being born again, yet you say they don't deal with the issue at hand? I'm confused at how you are rationalizing that. It seems to me that you are excluding the evidence because it proves the case. I'm sorry Danny, but unless I'm missing something, it just doesn't seem intellectually honest. Apologies if I'm off-base here.

I don't think reincarnation is compatible with Christianity either, but I honestly did not know that people still accuse people of "heresy" in the 21st Century in a serious manner. It smacks of an era when the church executed people for DARING to have a thought that conflicted with their authority.

I think all ideas should be allowed to be expressed whether they're wrong or otherwise. True ideas will survive in a world that allows free expression of ideas while false ones should be able to be proven wrong. This is why I really don't like when certain ideas are accused of heresy and in a sense pressured to adopt a certain belief without exploring the issue first.