Evidence for God from Science

Here on this board, we have a pretty unanimous view on soteriology: one must believe in Jesus, which means one ought to stop seeing one's own righteousness as something that paves the road to Heaven -- simply believe that Jesus has saved you, and then live up to it, or 'repent'. Jac would exclude the last part and might even say that saying 'turning from sin always happens in salvation' is a potentially damnable heresy.

Most of us would agree that Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox people have dangerous teachings, because they do not clearly distinguish between justification and sanctification, and teach that a person has to keep doing good works, while believing in the power of Jesus Christ (whether the emphasis be on the Crucifixion or the Resurrection) -- otherwise he will not be saved. (I think 'losing your salvation' is not the correct term because it isn't something imputed to you. My knowledge about RC/EO theology is badly lacking, so feel free to correct on any point.)

We would agree that we are blameless in God's eyes because Jesus, in dying, paid the debt of sin and offence against God. This is the basis for the claim that all of our good works are as dirty rags; living faith is all that matters.

But as you can see here, this view of the Atonement arose only in the 12th century and was modified in the 16th century.

There were three views of the Atonement in the early church:
- Recapitulation. Humanity's problem was that sin separated us from God, causing death due to lack of “participation” in God's immortality. Christ in becoming human and living a human life, combined the natures of God and human in himself, thereby spiritually reuniting man and God, and thus saving us from death.
- Christus Victor. Christ fought against all the different powers that hold humanity in hostage (Satan, death, sin, disease, poverty, etc.), and defeated them. He defeated sickness by healing people, he defeated poverty by helping the poor, he defeated the devil by casting out spirits, he defeated death by being resurrected, etc. In this way he waged war against these things, both defeating them himself and inspiring us to do the same and not fear them.
- Ransom from Satan. The souls of sinners are under Satan's power, so in order to rescue us, Christ offered himself to Satan in exchange for our souls. But since Christ himself had no sin, Satan was unable to hold Christ within his power and God resurrected him from death.

Apparently, none of those three views are about sola fide. So three options seem to remain:
1) I have gone wrong somewhere; sola fide was an accepted principle in the early church.
2) The vast majority of the church in the first fifteen centuries was unsaved.
3) Belief in sola fide is not required for salvation. Belief in God's mercy and Christ's power is.

Which is it?

Turgonian wrote:3) Belief in sola fide is not required for salvation. Belief in God's mercy and Christ's power is.

You won't find Sola Fide in the first centuries of Christianity. Not until perhaps the early medieval era.

What soteriological implications does that have, you think?

Turgonian wrote:What soteriological implications does that have, you think?

Well I for one wouldn't trust my salvation to a system which isn't found in the Bible.

What do you trust?

And how do you interpret the book of Hebrews, which talks about the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice?

Turgonian wrote:What do you trust?

I trust the Bible.

And how do you interpret the book of Hebrews, which talks about the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice?

What's to interpret? Christ's sacrifice is sufficient to turn us from our sins (note that there's nothing in Hebrews about Christ's sacrifice turning away the wrath of an angry God who hates us all).

Oh, I know that. The Bible doesn't say 'God hates us all', and neither do the sane Protestants I've read.
How was Christ's sacrifice needed just to turn us from our sins?

(BTW, I'd also like the opinions of well-informed Sola Fideists, to get a good discussion...)

Turgonian wrote:Oh, I know that. The Bible doesn't say 'God hates us all', and neither do the sane Protestants I've read.

I gather you exclude the Calvinists by that statement?

How was Christ's sacrifice needed just to turn us from our sins?

Because the blood of bulls and goats was ineffective to cleanse the conscience (Hebrews).

Fortigurn wrote:I gather you exclude the Calvinists by that statement?

No. And you just called me insane.
There is a lot of sanity in the writings of the old Calvinist Protestants... Right now, I'm reading J.C. Philpot's Meditations on the Sacred Humanity of our Blessed Redeemer. Very lucid and well-considered.

Fortigurn wrote:

Turgonian wrote:How was Christ's sacrifice needed just to turn us from our sins?

Because the blood of bulls and goats was ineffective to cleanse the conscience (Hebrews).

Just the conscience? God had His Son nailed to the Cross to solve our conscience problems? Wouldn't it weigh even heavier on the conscience to know that God had His Son brutally murdered just to make us feel better?

Turgonian wrote:

Fortigurn wrote:

Turgonian wrote:How was Christ's sacrifice needed just to turn us from our sins?

Because the blood of bulls and goats was ineffective to cleanse the conscience (Hebrews).

Just the conscience? God had His Son nailed to the Cross to solve our conscience problems? Wouldn't it weigh even heavier on the conscience to know that God had His Son brutally murdered just to make us feel better?

No, not 'to solve our conscience problems', or 'to make us feel better'. It was to prick our conscience, not to make it feel better. What I wrote was a direct quote from Hebrews:

Hebrews 9:
9 This was a symbol for the time then present, when gifts and sacrifices were offered that could not perfect the conscience of the worshiper.
10 They served only for matters of food and drink and various washings; they are external regulations imposed until the new order came.
11 But now Christ has come as the high priest of the good things to come. He passed through the greater and more perfect tent not made with hands, that is, not of this creation,
12 and he entered once for all into the most holy place not by the blood of goats and calves but by his own blood, and so he himself secured eternal redemption.
13 For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a young cow sprinkled on those who are defiled consecrated them and provided ritual purity,
14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our consciences from dead works to worship the living God.

How is 'pricking' the same as 'cleansing'?

Turgonian wrote:How is 'pricking' the same as 'cleansing'?

It isn't, and I didn't say it was. But it is the first step towards cleansing the conscience. Conviction (pricking), repentance, forgiveness:

Acts 2:
36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know beyond a doubt that God has made this Jesus whom you crucified both Lord and Christ.
37 Now when they heard this, they were acutely distressed [Greek, 'pricked in their hearts'] and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “What should we do, brothers?”
38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39 For the promise is for you and your children, and for all who are far away, as many as the Lord our God will call to himself.”
40 With many other words he testified and exhorted them saying, “Save yourselves from this perverse generation!”

Of course, if Peter said that today, he's be shot.

First of all, when he is asked 'What should we do?', he tells them what to do, instead of saying 'Nothing! Jesus did it all on the cross, you're already saved! There's nothing you can or should do!'.

Secondly, he told them to be baptized, and he didn't say it was optional.

Thirdly, he says that the Holy Spirit would come after baptism, not before.

Fourthly, he actually dares to say 'Save yourselves', which is clearly 'works righteousness'.

*shoots Peter*

. . . **** . . . Fortigurn, hold still!

Turgonian wrote:Here on this board, we have a pretty unanimous view on soteriology: one must believe in Jesus, which means one ought to stop seeing one's own righteousness as something that paves the road to Heaven -- simply believe that Jesus has saved you, and then live up to it, or 'repent'. Jac would exclude the last part and might even say that saying 'turning from sin always happens in salvation' is a potentially damnable heresy.

Most of us would agree that Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox people have dangerous teachings, because they do not clearly distinguish between justification and sanctification, and teach that a person has to keep doing good works, while believing in the power of Jesus Christ (whether the emphasis be on the Crucifixion or the Resurrection) -- otherwise he will not be saved. (I think 'losing your salvation' is not the correct term because it isn't something imputed to you. My knowledge about RC/EO theology is badly lacking, so feel free to correct on any point.)

We would agree that we are blameless in God's eyes because Jesus, in dying, paid the debt of sin and offence against God. This is the basis for the claim that all of our good works are as dirty rags; living faith is all that matters.

But as you can see here, this view of the Atonement arose only in the 12th century and was modified in the 16th century.

There were three views of the Atonement in the early church:
- Recapitulation. Humanity's problem was that sin separated us from God, causing death due to lack of “participation” in God's immortality. Christ in becoming human and living a human life, combined the natures of God and human in himself, thereby spiritually reuniting man and God, and thus saving us from death.
- Christus Victor. Christ fought against all the different powers that hold humanity in hostage (Satan, death, sin, disease, poverty, etc.), and defeated them. He defeated sickness by healing people, he defeated poverty by helping the poor, he defeated the devil by casting out spirits, he defeated death by being resurrected, etc. In this way he waged war against these things, both defeating them himself and inspiring us to do the same and not fear them.
- Ransom from Satan. The souls of sinners are under Satan's power, so in order to rescue us, Christ offered himself to Satan in exchange for our souls. But since Christ himself had no sin, Satan was unable to hold Christ within his power and God resurrected him from death.

Apparently, none of those three views are about sola fide. So three options seem to remain:
1) I have gone wrong somewhere; sola fide was an accepted principle in the early church.
2) The vast majority of the church in the first fifteen centuries was unsaved.
3) Belief in sola fide is not required for salvation. Belief in God's mercy and Christ's power is.

Which is it?

Which is it? - Hard to answer. I would say it is a blend of the two mixed with common sense. In the case of the Historical record — common sense was discarded.

We, as Human beings, have a propensity to err of the side of selectivity of picking and choosing what appeals to us. We are all guilty of this. This comes about from a sense to be right and better than others and can lead to self exultation and exclusivist notions which appeal to the carnal senses of the flesh. Until we can look at the whole, we'll continue to argue over the parts.

There is a blend of truth in the doctrines under discussion. Do you have faith in your employer? Yes - No? If No, why do you still go to work then? Is it the paycheck you cannot see until it is written, recorded, and doled out? Then you have faith in your employer to pay you. Now, how about your family? Have faith in your spouse and children? Does it take work to serve them and provide for them? Faith without works is dead.

Faith works by Love. Is love passive, on a long pleasant semimetal journey, doing nothing, or does it drive one to a new sense of duty and purpose? True agape style Love is active, seeking to please and serve the object it loves. Do you love God? Does God Love you? What did God do to prove His Love? Is he active or passive? How are you towards God?

Faith consists of loyalty, fidelity, reliability, devotion, commitment, trust, and dependability. Faith works, or as other commentators have pointed out energized, by love. If you love, the above become clearly defined and revealed by how one lives their life. If for God, it will show. If for self it will reveal one busy seeking self exultation and exclusivist notions which appeal to the carnal senses of the flesh. Seeing they cannot see.

There is a blend of truth. If one knows God, even a little, they'll understand how he places pieces of a puzzle in such a way that test what is in one's heart. What is in yours? Mine? What will and are we doing with the pieces?

No greater love than one has than to lay down his life for his friends. Jesus did so and God proved His love. Now, will we?

Save by Faith! Yes! Save By Grace! Yes! Question — do you live it? Now prove it. In doing so, one learns the truth of each truth which should lead to Christ Jesus and us being conformed into his image during our earthly sojourn. This the bible simply proclaims as a simple whole and no longer in separate simpleton parts.

If a person is not living the Christian life but goes to church are they saved? No —evidence from one's living testimony of life is the only thing that will stand in the heavenly court of law on judgment day. Where will you stand? Where will I? What side are you own? How can you tell unless it is demonstrated? How can you receive unless it is shown? How can you believe unless it is revealed?
-
-
++++

Now to Turgonian here is a personal note: I enjoyed the Link to the site and reading the thread lines. Thank You! I may join it if it is still going on but not sure how to post an Avatar that would work. The tread answers many of the things you asked here. Is there something specific you are looking for?

God Bless!

+++++

You can only have an avatar when you've made 25 posts.

The thread gives answers to the questions I asked, but I'd like to hear the take of traditional 'Sola Fideists' on whether those answers are the right ones, in their opinion.

B. W. wrote:We, as Human beings, have a propensity to err of the side of selectivity of picking and choosing what appeals to us. We are all guilty of this. This comes about from a sense to be right and better than others and can lead to self exultation and exclusivist notions which appeal to the carnal senses of the flesh. Until we can look at the whole, we'll continue to argue over the parts.

I'm not saying you're right and I'm not saying you're wrong, but I will state that this comes over as a little vague. It sounds a little like something I read by someone on TWeb who was so much into comparative mythology that she kept talking about the universal esoteric patterns one finds in all mythologies, with the big bad exoteric dogmatists as the narrow-minded guys who blinded themselves to the deeper truth. She stuck to that despite all historical/logical evidence to the contrary. So...maybe you're right, but if Scripture teaches something else that you would see as just a piece of the puzzle, I'll stick to that. But I must say I do like your balanced style of writing, and I agree with what you said -- trusting Christ, and then following, is what it ultimately comes down to, I think.