Evidence for God from Science

Has anyone noticed a change in terms lately? The terms are Faith and Believe. There is the traditional meanings and now seems to be a new meaning, especially the word believe. Has anyone noticed a strange twist in meanings lately?

B.W. that is interesting. Can you define those terms, firstly according to the older traditional meaning, and then according to the new meaning?

I have noticed the way language is used differently by liberal theologians, and by changes brought about by postmodernism. For instance, the word "tolerance" is one that has been changed. These days to tolerate something means you have to accept it as valid in some way, and be in agreement with it, whereas previously it meant that you were aware of it and took it into account but did not have to agree with it. A Christian is said to be intolerant of other non-Christian beliefs simply because we do not believe them. Christians have now become "intolerant" people and that is considered in a very negative light.

Judah wrote:B.W. that is interesting. Can you define those terms, firstly according to the older traditional meaning, and then according to the new meaning?....

I'll try...

I am discovering this when speaking with non-Christians — they redefine faith and believe as basically meaning what one conjures up in ones imagination to be true. Thus, delusion is the new meaning regarding religious belief and faith. This comes from Richard Dawkins and Samuel Harris line of thinking.

If one has faith it is based on delusional believing. Thus, belief is equated with imagination or the means to conjure up in ones mind to be true is true for the individual and not necessarily founded on what is true.

Religious belief is reduced as being essentially superstitiously based on personal mythical imagination and not reality. Something is true simply because an individual believes it to be delusionally true and not because it is factually true. Therefore, what is true for one person is not true for another is justified as fact.

I found this even taking shape in Christian line of thought. It seems that Christian belief in God means that it is the human effort of believing that makes God exist and salvation possible. Therefore, believing in Christ, becoming born again, is slowly being redefined to mean that because of their believing they are saved.

While this statement holds some truth within the traditional definitions of faith and believing, its modern day meaning has twisted and distorted the original meaning of believing which used to state - because we were saved by God we believe.

It is a subtle change that has switched from Christ finished work on the Cross — to ones believing because they believe and not on the finished work of the Cross. It is a switch and redefining of personal belief in Christ to prove it delusional.

It would be like this: it is because I BELIEVE WHAT I BELIEVE about and in Christ is what saves me. No longer does it mean in the traditional sense -- I believe in Christ BECAUSE HE SAVE ME.

John 6:47 for example would twist to mean something other than what it is saying and thus be proved delusionally based which in turn could be used to disprove the bible by those so inclined and are taught that belief is personal - not fact based.

Does this make sense?

It seems that human effort of believing has a growing preeminence, especially among younger Christians. This is turn makes the atheist argument about believing: Something is true simply because an individual believes it to be true and not because it is. Therefore, what is true for one person is not true for another is justified and used against Christians to entrap them to admit delusion.

I am hearing from many Christians when asked how they were saved — many excitedly state — “it is because I believe in Christ.” When further asked what they mean — these say 'it is because they just believe and has nothing to do with the word of God or becoming convinced that Jesus is the truth and the way and the light. They believe and thus live however they so desire, no change, nothing — just belief until the next fad comes along winning their vote.

Almost serves as a means to redefine Jesus according to their own beliefs and not the word of God.

The traditional meanings Greek/Hebrew word and word studies combined for Believing and Faith state in a simple combined whole — Faith is the substance, or concrete assurance, that changes ones life, producing loyalty, fidelity, trust, reliance, a living bond built on relationship between two living persons that grows and develops over time.

In other words, we attain Faith by hearing God's word — thus it is because of the work of the cross and redemption we believe in Christ and not belief in our believing that saves us. Belief in belief is delusional based and if this definition goes unchecked and unmet and becomes successful — one can trick people many different ways to forsake true Christian Faith. Exchange the truth for a lie and worship the creature rather than creator??

Make sense? That is why I am asking if anyone has noticed a strange subtle shift in the meanings of faith and believing used in Christian and non-Christian worlds. It is too hard for me to really explain it very well as I am seeking to put it into easy to understand terms.

This is not Easy Believism verse Repentance as we are used to debating here on this forum but goes beyond that.
-
-
-

Yes, you are making sense, B.W, and I need to do more thinking on this.

In a way it is similar to something that I have been thinking about more these days - the process of sanctification. It is the Holy Spirit who works in us, transforming us more and more to His image - what He does, not what we do. But what is our part in this? Do we have any part at all in this? Do we allow Him, or obstruct Him, and so by our own work cause Him to achieve or fail with us? If I "allow" Him, then am I not playing a part in my own sanctification and so it is over to me who carries that responsibility, or some measure of it - or is it entirely the work of God regardless of anything I do or don't do?

Is it my action of believing that allows Him to save me?
Is it my action of obedience that allows Him to sanctify me?

To turn it around...
It is He who has saved me and so I believe the truth that He has done so.
It is He who sanctifies me and so I choose obedience to Him.

I do find this difficult to figure sometimes, but underlying it all is clearly the matter of a relationship. The process of sanctification cannot be divorced from that, and neither can salvation.

Yes, I do see how the notion of belief and faith these days have been redefined to bring in the a delusional element through being based on relative truth. I think these are really important things to pick up on because we are using words which mean different things to different people and thus our message may be quite misunderstood.

Judah wrote:In a way it is similar to something that I have been thinking about more these days - the process of sanctification. It is the Holy Spirit who works in us, transforming us more and more to His image - what He does, not what we do. But what is our part in this? Do we have any part at all in this? Do we allow Him, or obstruct Him, and so by our own work cause Him to achieve or fail with us? If I "allow" Him, then am I not playing a part in my own sanctification and so it is over to me who carries that responsibility, or some measure of it - or is it entirely the work of God regardless of anything I do or don't do?

Is it my action of believing that allows Him to save me? Is it my action of obedience that allows Him to sanctify me? -- To turn it around...It is He who has saved me and so I believe the truth that He has done so. It is He who sanctifies me and so I choose obedience to Him.

I do find this difficult to figure sometimes, but underlying it all is clearly the matter of a relationship. The process of sanctification cannot be divorced from that, and neither can salvation.

Yes, I do see how the notion of belief and faith these days have been redefined to bring in the delusional element through being based on relative truth. I think these are really important things to pick up on because we are using words which mean different things to different people and thus our message may be quite misunderstood.

Good questions and I will try to answer as best I can in a broad brush fashion by addressing the concerns raised about belief and faith being redefined to bring in the delusional element based on relative truth. From there I'll touch on the questions of sanctification you asked.

Static Faith Evolving Today

As I began this thread line asking if anyone has noticed a subtle change taking shape in the definitions of believe and faith. I'll categorize this change as static faith and call the traditional concept of faith — active faith.

You might say this subtle change makes one's faith static as opposed to active. By static, I would mean belief in ones belief to believe, or to borrow from this phrase — Have Faith in your Faith. This is static faith and believing. Its focus is solely on what one can get for oneself from God by adding a touch of good deeds to it to justify usage of a static faith.

For example, just believe to do mighty miracles and deeds for God in order to justify a need to show - off. This makes a state of a person's believing focus on applauds from the crowds and acclaim they garner by demonstrating how great their faith is. Thus to believe in Christ is translated as the means to get something from God. They honor God with their words but their heart is far from him. They acknowledge believing in Christ as the means to attain things.

Also, when referring to salvation, this static faith is in line with the Pasqualian Wager philosophy. It is static and seen as a safe bet to get in heaven just in case all other religions are wrong. There is no character change needed and the bible is simply reduced to justifying whatever one believes Christ to be like based on how one believes.

Active Faith - What Once Was

To the contrary, Christian Faith is actually active. The traditional meanings of the Greek/Hebrew words for Believing and Faith state in a simple combined definition of the many forms and usages of these words means — Faith the substance, or concrete assurance, that changes ones life, producing loyalty, fidelity, trust, reliance, a living bond built on relationship between two living persons that grows and develops over time. The idea of faith/believing in a classical philosophic sense was used to denote the introduction or instruction of knowledge in which transitions into action to live by what is known as true.

Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him as righteousness. The testimony of Abraham is one of active learning faith between two persons — God and himself. Abraham made many mistakes. Through these he learned living active faith that lead up to the episode with Isaac on the mount which points out that God will provide the perfect sacrifice that atones. Abraham learned about God by playing an active role.

Someone with static faith, if they were Abraham, would have heard God speak, “Get up and move hither to the promise Land,” would not have moved or if so move to the other side of town and when Isaac came along he would try making a deal with God — “I give up this to get that, Good Then — Deal?”

They would rationalize that there was no benefit to moving into the unknown as great works could be done in UR. After all he was God's favored one and God can bless him in his hometown just as well from a million miles away. No living relationship would develop between him and the Lord. He would believe more on the bases of Pasqual's Wager as seen as safest bet from among many.

Pasqualian Wager the Faith of Today?

It seems that a form of 'Pasqual's Wager' mixed in with the 'delusional belief' concept is becoming a new belief system for today. It is based on self alone attaining the safest and best deal that doesn't involve much at all. The only risk is applauds from men and abundant blessings that puff the self up to new religiously inclined justified heights. Faith becomes static and delusionally based on individual preferences.

In closing, to actively believe in Christ means to follow him after coming into awareness that Jesus is who he says he is or as Christians state it — introduced to him by the gospel message. Thus a person believes and is taught by the Holy Spirit who introduces one to Christ and leads one to know God through stages of relationship building i.e. growth. John 16:13-15, John 17:20-26

Does this mean we are passive and that God does it all for us and we can do nothing? This is where great confusion resides. The answer is found in your bible. The Holy Spirit will lead you into all truth on this matter in due time.

The answer is that the Lord leads and we are required to follow. He does not push — He leads. From His leading we learn about who we are following and learn to be transformed into the image of God's Dear Son reflecting God's Glory — His true nature and character to whomever wherever we have been assigned in this mortal life.

Colossians 1:10, “That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God…” KJV

Galatians 5:22-25, “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit…” KJV

Colossians 2:6-8, “As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him 7 Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving. 8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” KJV
-
-
-