Evidence for God from Science

Here is a topic — Faith.

When discussing the subject of faith to an unbeliever who's concept of faith is skewed by atheism, or philosophy, humanism, and all other religions — how would you try to define faith?

Is faith a feeling? Belief system? Simple or Complex Believism? Things hoped for out of the evidence of the unseen? Etc…

How would you discuss Faith to these individuals devoid of faith but have faith in his or her own reasoning?

+++++++++

Next question, what is faith in your opinion?

-Faith needs an object to become faith. Faith in things cannot support you when things look bleak and become black.

-Faith in God can give you that support as long as it is based on an assurance from God Himself to see you through the bleak dark times as well as the good. Do you think Hebrews Chapter 11 is in reference to this statement?

What is your take on the subject?
-
-
-

Good questions, imo . . .

I define faith simply as trust. It is the choice to consider something reliable. A good example would be an airplane. Statistically, I'm persuaded that a flight from Atlanta to LA will make it no problem. The chances are way better than not that if I ride the plane then I will arrive at my destination safely. I am absolutely persuaded of that. Of course, I could be incorrect as my facts could be wrong, but in the end, as of today, I believe that a plane is most likely to make the trip.

However, do I trust the plane to take me there? Personally, the answer is no! If I have to, I can. Faith, in the biblical sense, is not believing the plane will get you there. It's getting on the plane and assuming it will get you there. When I say I have faith in the plane, it means I am considering it reliable and able to do what it promises.

When you take that idea of faith and explain it to an atheist, what you are showing them is that there is a difference in persuasion and trust. There can be lots of things I don't understand about God. In fact, I may have certain doubts here and there. But, I can still choose to trust Him. I can say, "I don't understand everything, and these things don't make sense. However, I have enough information that I can trust Him on this, so I will." You should be able to see how the plane analogy fits.

Of course, this all runs exactly within the parameters of Free Grace theology. That's why assurance is of the essense of saving faith, and it is why if you don't have assurance you don't have faith. That's what the author of Hebrews was saying in the referenced passage.

What is biblical faith? It is the conscious choice to consider God reliable enough to do what He claims He will do. It is not belief without evidence. It is trust based on sufficient evidence. How much is sufficient? That depends on each person.

So, there's my view.

hey, i agree with Jac3510 on " faith define as simply as trust"..Why? cos the bible wan us to abide faith, hope and love
- faith = to wait for Jesus Christ 2nd coming
- hope = to hope for eternal happiness in Christ
- love = to love one and other...

First this is my Definition of Faith
Heb 11:1 Now faith is assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of things not seen.

However good answer Jac

Along those same lines: What relationship does "having faith" have to "being faithful".
I realize this can be a very touchy subject, I just recently started thinking about this and I am not sure what to think.

Definitely, "Being faithful" would mean to honor your commitments.
For instance, being faithful in a marriage would be a perfect example.
And I guess to be faithful in a marriage, you would "have faith" that your spouse would be faithful to you, thus your reason for being faithful to your spouse.

This maybe the reason of so many divorces today. They go into it with the thought that if it does not work they can just get a divorce. Therefore there is no faith in their spouse, therefore no commitment.

This concept may not transfer over to God as well though.

Any thoughts?

YLTYLT wrote:Along those same lines: What relationship does "having faith" have to "being faithful".
I realize this can be a very touchy subject, I just recently started thinking about this and I am not sure what to think.

Definitely, "Being faithful" would mean to honor your commitments.
For instance, being faithful in a marriage would be a perfect example.
And I guess to be faithful in a marriage, you would "have faith" that your spouse would be faithful to you, thus your reason for being faithful to your spouse.

This maybe the reason of so many divorces today. They go into it with the thought that if it does not work they can just get a divorce. Therefore there is no faith in their spouse, therefore no commitment.

This concept may not transfer over to God as well though.

Any thoughts?

Interesting thought - we are called the bride of Christ

The Greek noun for Faith does denote Fidelity, and Loyalty in its definition. IMHO - this is what I would term the conditions for true saving faith in Christ.

Back to the Parable of the Sower - there are those that hear but do not understand the commitment involved as opposed to those that hear and understand this other aspect of Faith: Loyalty, Fidelity, etc, towards the Lord.

Any comments?
-
-
-

I think this level of complete faith will be are final state in out glorified bodies. But I do not think this is required for salvation. If married people were as faithful to there spouse as Christians were to God, I think even more people would be getting divorced. All Christians sin every day, are disobedient and unfaithful. Yet there is still a seed of faith in the belief that Christ is Faithful. I believe that its not our faith that saves of but the faithfulness of Christ. But as it states in Romans it is ONLY for those that believe (have that seed of faith). And I think it must be referring to believing in the Gospel as stated in 1 Cor 15:1-4.

2 Timothy 2:13
If we are faithless, He remains faithful; He cannot deny Himself.

Romans 3:22
Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

1 Cor 15:1-4
Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

side note:
Many of the newer version take the verses that say "Faith of Christ" and change it to be "Faith in Christ". This may be a very significant difference.
"Faith of Christ" seems to make more sense.

If it should be translated "Faith in Christ", it just would not make sense. Because if faith means the belief in things hoped for evidence of thing not seen, then the above verse would say:

Even the righteousness of God which is by the belief in things hoped for evidence of thing not seen in Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

??The righteousness of God is by the belief in Christ for all them that believe?? Kind of redundant. Don't you think?

But as it states in Romans it is ONLY for those that believe (have that seed of faith). And I think it must be referring to believing in the Gospel as stated in 1 Cor 15:1-4.

Yes! So it would seem that not only grace but the faith with which we receive the gift of grace is a gift in a sense. Does that make sense?

What a weird sentence.

FFC wrote: Yes! So it would seem that not only grace but the faith with which we receive the gift of grace is a gift in a sense. Does that make sense?

No. I don't see what you mean? I thought the reason we received grace is because we believed in the Gospel. Can you explain?

Grace/salvation is a gift offered to all. Acceptance of that gift is the believing of the Gospel. Right?

But I can see the confusion. Do we have to first receive the gift of faith before we can then believe in the Gospel to receive the gift of faith? No that not possible. Is it?

(Holy Cow it seems like every discussion leads to the whole predestination issue, which I am not sure I really want to go into now.)

FFC wrote:

Yes! So it would seem that not only grace but the faith with which we receive the gift of grace is a gift in a sense. Does that make sense?



No. I don't see what you mean? I thought the reason we received grace is because we believed in the Gospel. Can you explain?

Grace/salvation is a gift offered to all. Acceptance of that gift is the believing of the Gospel. Right?

But I can see the confusion. Do we have to first receive the gift of faith before we can then believe in the Gospel to receive the gift of faith? No that not possible. Is it?

(Holy Cow it seems like every discussion leads to the whole predestination issue, which I am not sure I really want to go into now.)

I sgree with all you are saying. The Calninist version of predestination, which I don't believe, does not even come into it. Maybe faith as a gift is a wrong choice of words.

John says Jesus Christ is the light that lights every mans life. Obviously everyone does not get saved, so I guess what I am trying to say is without that illuminating light we couldn't make the choice to believe and therefore receive the gift of Grace.

Yes I agree with that as well.

I have been thinking about that verse: Romans 10:17

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

It is my understanding that the word "WORD" here is referring to the spoken word. So unsaved people can only receive faith if the Gospel is presented to them audibly. Don't you think?


On the predestination side of things:
I see where this could get confusing in thinking that this reference to "the word of GOD" could be referring to Christ Himself as John did in John 1:1.
Without this understanding, one might be lead to believe that the REASON we hear and choose Christ is because of God. But the greek word here is not logos, as used in John 1 it is rhematos: meaning "sayings" or "spoken word". Or can spoken word refer to Christ as well?
----
I have also just noticed that for this verse the word GOD is that some Greek texts has the word Xristous here and some use the word Theos.
Probably not be significant but its interesting. Could it make a difference in the meaning?

Any thoughts on any of this, is my logic sound, or have I totally missed the idea?

YLTYLT wrote:Yes I agree with that as well.

I have been thinking about that verse: Romans 10:17

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

It is my understanding that the word "WORD" here is referring to the spoken word. So unsaved people can only receive faith if the Gospel is presented to them audibly. Don't you think?

On the predestination side of things:
I see where this could get confusing in thinking that this reference to "the word of GOD" could be referring to Christ Himself as John did in John 1:1.
Without this understanding, one might be lead to believe that the REASON we hear and choose Christ is because of God. But the greek word here is not logos, as used in John 1 it is rhematos: meaning "sayings" or "spoken word". Or can spoken word refer to Christ as well?
----
I have also just noticed that for this verse the word GOD is that some Greek texts has the word Xristous here and some use the word Theos.
Probably not be significant but its interesting. Could it make a difference in the meaning?

Any thoughts on any of this, is my logic sound, or have I totally missed the idea?

Rom 10:17 -

The word translated WORD in Romans 10:17 is Rhema. Rhema means more than just speaking words. It also denotes a message or declaration of one's mind made in words that proclaim a conveyed truth. Rhema is related to the "Truth of a Message."

Next is the word translated Hearing is in reference to Romans 10:10-16 which clarifies the meaning on verse 17. Faith, saving Faith, comes by hearing, giving heed to what is heard, and hearing, harkening too, the message of God.

In other words, it involves an action on the part of the human listener to respond to the message of God and act upon the truth proclaimed. It denotes a choice, or an engagement of one's reason to accept, or reject, the message of God's Saving Truth however one's hears.

If you take this to mean only that only those that can physically hear can become saved then what about the deaf? Those that are deaf can be saved. It is the message that saves and it can come by various ways and means — brail, written, sign language, and yes — the written message that was recorded, transcribed, from the spoken message.

This shows us the importance of the message, Rhema, and the fact that people are converted by Rhema truth which they perceive by hearing, understanding it. This goes back to the Parable of the sower [Matthew 13:23] definition of hearing and understaning.

You can rightly say, those that hear the message of Rhema truth can accept it or reject it, freely, without divine coercion of any type. The Parable of the sower points this out also.

Does this mean a Sovereign God is enslaved to human choice, no, not at all. He placed and designed this ability of choice and reason within us in the first place. He knows all out comes of this choice before the decision was ever made. Therefore, He engages us by His message. We can accept it or reject it. This proves God is just and fair and not the author of sin. Can God unstop someone's ears to hear by a sovereign act? Yes, He can. Let us pray for the unsaved to unstop their ears to hear and find saving faith.
-
-
-

If you take this to mean only that only those that can physically hear can become saved then what about the deaf?

Good point. I had not considered that. Hearing means understanding.

I agree completely with what you said.
I am just trying to understand the Calvinist reasoning. I am thinking that if I can understand there reasoning, I might be able to see the flaw in the logic. But I have not seen anyone make scripturally logical statements in this regard.

I am also not completely against the idea of Calvinism IF that is what scripture teaches. But I do not see it in scripture.

It seems to me, so far, that for the the logic used to come to the Calvinist conclusion is based upon circular reasoning. The only way that one can come to the conclusion of any one of the 5 points of calvinism(TULIP) is by assuming at least one of the other 4 points first. That is why (even the five point calvinist agrees) that if you accept one of them one must accept them all. If one falls they all fall. That is further evidence that there may be some circular reasoning happening in this logic.

Now one of the point I do agree with is Total Depravity. But not in the way the calvinist would define it. We still have the ability to believe without that being a work.

As a matter of fact I could even consider an argument that says that we choose God when we hear the Gospel because of our sinful nature. (this is a stretch of course, and I am not sure that I can completely concur with this). But, if sinful man's only desire is for himself and he hears and believes that he will go to heaven if only he believes in the Gospel, then it would make sense for him to fulfill his own selfish desires if he wants to go to heaven. Only then will the Holy Spirit start to convict him and start a change in his life.

What do you think of this idea?

Also any other thoughts on the relationship between "Having Faith" and "Being Faithful".

I am thinking that you "have faith" in something that you perceive to "be faithful". I have faith in Christ because I know he is faithful. If I were married, I would trust (have faith in) my wife because I believe she will be faithful.

As a matter of fact I could even consider an argument that says that we choose God when we hear the Gospel because of our sinful nature. (this is a stretch of course, and I am not sure that I can completely concur with this). But, if sinful man's only desire is for himself and he hears and believes that he will go to heaven if only he believes in the Gospel, then it would make sense for him to fulfill his own selfish desires if he wants to go to heaven. Only then will the Holy Spirit start to convict him and start a change in his life.

What do you think of this idea?

I'm thinking that if we believe we have free will than most of us come to Christ with an alterior motive don't we? We either don't want to go to hell or we want to go to heaven...I would think that very few of us come to Christ out of a true longing to be His child and to glorify His name.

Thank God that His Holy Spirit begins His work in us right away.

FFC wrote:

As a matter of fact I could even consider an argument that says that we choose God when we hear the Gospel because of our sinful nature. (this is a stretch of course, and I am not sure that I can completely concur with this). But, if sinful man's only desire is for himself and he hears and believes that he will go to heaven if only he believes in the Gospel, then it would make sense for him to fulfill his own selfish desires if he wants to go to heaven. Only then will the Holy Spirit start to convict him and start a change in his life.

What do you think of this idea?

I'm thinking that if we believe we have free will than most of us come to Christ with an alterior motive don't we? We either don't want to go to hell or we want to go to heaven...I would think that very few of us come to Christ out of a true longing to be His child and to glorify His name.

Thank God that His Holy Spirit begins His work in us right away.

I would say our motive is to go to heaven to be with him and to glorify him. I don't see anything wrong with having a motive like that.