Page 1 of 5

meaning of Belief in salvation

Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 2:38 pm
by Jac3510
Gabrielman wrote:Jac and Jlay, it is obvious to me that you are not getting what I am saying. If you just believe God exists you are not saved. There are people out there who believe God exists, and they hate Him. Just because you know or believe that God exists does not mean you will be saved. I believe the moon exists, that does not mean I will be on the moon. Jac, you said it yourself in John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes IN Him, shall not perish, but shall have ever lasting life." There is a difference in believe that God is real, and believing in Him.
I understand you totally, Gabe. I didn't say you had a right or wrong view on salvation. I said that I appreciated J's point on salvation being by faith alone. I was NOT commenting on whether or not you were saying for or against that position. I expect you hold to it.

And for the record, the "Him" in John 3:16 doesn't refer to God. It refers to Jesus. Believing "in God" doesn't save. Believing in Jesus Christ does, which I'm sure you recognize.

I do, though, want to address this:
So, explain to me then how if someone who hates God and does not want to be with Him for all time will be forced to be with Him, just because he knows that God is real.
I'll let J comment on this on his own part, but where did I ever say that believing God was real saves you? I didn't. What I DID say was that loving God was not a condition for salvation. John 3:16 says believing in Jesus is the condition for salvation. I don't see anything there about loving or obeying God.

As far as how someone can hate God and spend eternity with Him, it's rather simple: they believe in Jesus and receive everlasting life, and then come to the place where they hate God, and finally die. I can think of lots of reasons someone might hate God. Hate is, after all, an emotion . . . it isn't logical. Perhaps a loved one dies and they blame it on Him. In any case, the Bible doesn't say that it be saved, you have to believe in Jesus and love Him and God until you die. It says to believe in Jesus. Full stop. Add to that and you add to the Gospel.

Re: Atheist argument that is causing my friend to doubt...

Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 3:12 pm
by Furstentum Liechtenstein
Jac3510 wrote: In any case, the Bible doesn't say that it be saved, you have to believe in Jesus and love Him and God until you die. It says to believe in Jesus. Full stop. Add to that and you add to the Gospel.
Excellent.

FL

Re: Atheist argument that is causing my friend to doubt...

Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 3:34 pm
by BavarianWheels
Fürstentum Liechtenstein wrote:
Jac3510 wrote: In any case, the Bible doesn't say that it be saved, you have to believe in Jesus and love Him and God until you die. It says to believe in Jesus. Full stop. Add to that and you add to the Gospel.
Excellent.

FL
For clarification.

Are you (FL and/or Jac) saying there is NOTHING more a person does/"needs" to do? Does this fit ALL scenarios of belief/salvation?

--A child at 10ish believes and lives a long life until 80ish?

--A man/woman believes for the first time at age 40...and lives another 40 years?

--A man/woman believes on their deathbed moments from physical death?

Each one of these people ONLY confesses belief once in their life and THAT'S IT. No other evidence of belief necessary?
.
.

Re: Atheist argument that is causing my friend to doubt...

Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 3:46 pm
by cslewislover
Well, if someone accepts Jesus while having the notion that God is some other deity, then they wouldn't be accepting Jesus in any realistic way (they would be very uninformed about what they were accepting or believing in). Jesus is God (which John understood); as far as the general concept of "God" by nonbelievers, well, that would need to be dealt with on an individual basis. But if one comes to believe in Jesus, they believe in God also, since Jesus is God.

Re: Atheist argument that is causing my friend to doubt...

Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 4:05 pm
by smiley
Jac, let me make this clear: I am not an atheist, so I don't know why you're getting so angry (and it seems to me accusing me of dishonesty and laziness).

So, I'm merely entertaining this argument now because it has been, among other things, causing me doubts lately. So I thought a conversation with you might be a good chance to eliminate them. No need to get so emotional.
Jac3510 wrote: Anyone who sits down and thinks about the essence of being is perfectly capable of seeing the self-existence of God.
You're just not thinking very widely about this.

How about cavemen who lived thousands of years ago? How are they supposed to think deeply about "the essence of being"? It's easy for you, who has read the likes of Aquinas and Plato to talk.

I can think of numerous other circumstances where people just aren't in a position to think about the existence of God, or do not have sufficient information to make a rational conclusion. For example, in the first half of the 20th century (until Plantinga's Free Will defense), the problem of evil was a major obstacle to belief in a loving God to a great deal of people, causing what is arguably a rational non-belief. So, I think you're really oversimplifying it.
Further, atheism is only in fashion in the developed world. Ironically enough, you are viewed as totally unreasonable and downright foolish in those "uneducated" parts of the world. Focusing, then, on the developed world, where you think you have the luxury of an education that has made is reasonable to doubt God's existence, sadly for you, this same developed world offers you all the education you desire to see that God's existence is, in fact, self-evident. You only have yourself to blame.
Firstly, I'm not talking about myself here.

Secondly, let us say that reasonable non-belief in God in the modern world doesn't exist (not necessarily true, however).

But the greater problem today is religious pluralism. It's not enough to believe in God, you have to believe in Jesus Christ. Now I know you will say that historical evidence for the resurrection makes non-belief unreasonable (which I don't think is necessarily true), let me make two points: 1) Not everyone has the evidence available to them. 2) Some other religions like Hindusim have evidence for their own miracles like the Hindu milk miracle, something which can arguably cause reasonable non-belief.
I do realize that blaming God is much more emotionally satisfying, and it is human nature. Adam did it when confronted with his first sin. Far from doing anything new, you're just repeating the same mistake that people have been making, and believers have recognized and pointed out, since time began. There really is nothing new under the sun.
Again, I'm not talking about myself and furthermore, you can not rationally deny that there are periods in history where disbelief in God or Jesus would not be unreasonable.
I'm sure you do. And yes, I am honestly going to say that there are no honest, truth-seeking professional atheist philosophers/scientists/historians out there. I've read too many of those types. You have idiotic statements coming from them like "I don't believe in God and I hate Him."
Now really, is that true? How many professional atheists have you met?

Firstly, I know many educated atheists who have left the faith for purely intellectual reasons (I can link you to their sites if you think I'm twisting things).

Secondly, many outspoken Christian theists admit that traditional arguments for God's existence are not so coercive they can leave no reasonable doubt. For example, William Lane Craig admits this openly, but he still thinks disbelief is irrational because of rejection of the Holy Spirit (in other words, denying the validity of religious experiences). Alvin Plantinga, similarly, says that he doesn't find the traditional arguments to be "very powerful", so he too, believes on the basis of personal experience.

Thirdly, did you know that only about 15% contemporary philosophers are theists? Do you think that all the rest are simply living in denial?
So I'm sorry if it is at all offensive to you. It isn't intended to be. But no, there are NO honest, educated atheists out there. There are plenty of honest atheists. They are just ignorant of the facts. There are plenty of atheists who are not ignorant of the facts. They are dishonest. The former are lazy and their disbelief is their own fault. The latter are wicked, and their disbelief is also their own fault.
With all due respect, I think you're just greatly overexaggerating the supposed dishonesty of atheists.

Re: Atheist argument that is causing my friend to doubt...

Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:52 pm
by Furstentum Liechtenstein
BavarianWheels wrote:
For clarification.

Are you (FL and/or Jac) saying there is NOTHING more a person does/"needs" to do? Does this fit ALL scenarios of belief/salvation?

--A child at 10ish believes and lives a long life until 80ish?

--A man/woman believes for the first time at age 40...and lives another 40 years?

--A man/woman believes on their deathbed moments from physical death?

Each one of these people ONLY confesses belief once in their life and THAT'S IT. No other evidence of belief necessary?
.
.
See John 3:3 and John 3:18-21. The regeneration of one's spirit by the Holy Spirit is all that is necessary. That regeneration comes as a result of confessing Jesus as Lord and nothing else. Nothing else. (What ''evidence of belief'' would God require anyway? He can see right into you, don't forget.)

FL

Re: Atheist argument that is causing my friend to doubt...

Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 6:09 pm
by truthman
Jac3510
I totally agree that salvation is through faith alone. The confusion comes in with the definition of believe. For the sake of clarity I usually add the word trust to go along with believe: not to correct it but to better explain it. Faith is believing/trusting. Salvation is by believing/trusting in Jesus Christ the Son of God as personal Saviour from your sins alone: plus nothing.
I preach and teach against the error of adding anything to it such as prayer, baptism, etc.
Maybe this should be a different thread.

Re: Atheist argument that is causing my friend to doubt...

Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 6:58 pm
by Jac3510
smiley wrote:Jac, let me make this clear: I am not an atheist, so I don't know why you're getting so angry (and it seems to me accusing me of dishonesty and laziness).
That's fine. I won't pretend to know what you do or don't believe. We haven't exactly had much of a discussion on your personal thoughts. Whether an atheist or not, you are certainly critical--by that, I mean you ask critical questions--of the Christian faith. Beyond that, I assure you that I'm not now, nor ever have been, angry. Life's too short to get mad at anybody for an internet discussion. I don't blame you for thinking I may have been. My answers to you have certainly been short, but understand they are short for pragmatic reasons. I've been doing this for over a decade. I've learned that long, drawn out discussions filled with fluff and pleasantries don't do much for anyone. At the end of the day (or month, or however long these conversations go), these are the conclusions we end up reaching, anyway. I'm just trying to save us both time so we can both be very clear about where we stand on the issues, including what we think the issues are.[/quote]
So, I'm merely entertaining this argument now because it has been, among other things, causing me doubts lately. So I thought a conversation with you might be a good chance to eliminate them. No need to get so emotional.
Again, I'm hardly emotional. You can take that for what it is worth. If you think I might be in possession of some facts and resources you've not had the liberty of considering, and you think those facts and resources will help you come to a more informed belief system, then I'm all up for talking as much as you want. I'm certainly not under the illusion I'm going to change your mind. As I've said a million times before on these forums: no one has ever changed anyone's mind. We change our own. And as I've told you previously, if I thought you weren't sincere in your questions, I wouldn't bother with you, because, again, life is short, and I have better things to do with my time then offer my thoughts on issues with someone who doesn't care about them. I'm sure you feel the same way.
smiley wrote:
Jac3510 wrote:Anyone who sits down and thinks about the essence of being is perfectly capable of seeing the self-existence of God.
You're just not thinking very widely about this.

How about cavemen who lived thousands of years ago? How are they supposed to think deeply about "the essence of being"? It's easy for you, who has read the likes of Aquinas and Plato to talk.

I can think of numerous other circumstances where people just aren't in a position to think about the existence of God, or do not have sufficient information to make a rational conclusion. For example, in the first half of the 20th century (until Plantinga's Free Will defense), the problem of evil was a major obstacle to belief in a loving God to a great deal of people, causing what is arguably a rational non-belief. So, I think you're really oversimplifying it.
On the contrary, I've thought as widely about this as the examples you've suggested here, and them still wider. How about the cavemen who lived thousands of years ago? It appears that they were all theists, doesn't it? As does EVERY ancient culture we find. That is a curious fact about anthropology . . . we've never found a primitive atheist culture. Of course, Darwinians have long argued that is for evolutionary reasons - that any culture's first attempt to understand the world around them progresses from fetishism to animism to polytheism to monotheism and, finally, the science and ultimately atheism. In any case, since all of these cultures already believe in God, it's hardly necessary for them to think deeply about the essence of being.

I find it an interesting . . . coincidence . . . that when men discovered philosophy and tried to use it to disprove God, then the philosophical evidence for God was there, and as soon as they tried to use science to disprove God, that, amazingly, the scientific evidence presented itself . . .

Further, do you really think that the problem of evil has only just been responded to by Plantinga? Have you not read the book of Job? Christians have been answering the question for two thousand years. In any case, the PoE is not, and has never been, rational. It's emotional. Schellenberg's argument, though, looks at rational disbelief. "Bad things happened to me, so God must not exist!" isn't a rational argument. If that's all you want, I can give you LOTS of emotional arguments . . .

"I'm not rich, so . . ."
"I'm not happy, so . . ."
"I don't like Hell, so . . ."
"I want to have sex with whoever I want, so . . ."

Is Schellenberg really going to suggest that a loving God would never allow emotional reactions against God's existence? If that's his argument, then I think we can both laugh at it and move on.
smiley wrote:
Jac3510 wrote:Further, atheism is only in fashion in the developed world. Ironically enough, you are viewed as totally unreasonable and downright foolish in those "uneducated" parts of the world. Focusing, then, on the developed world, where you think you have the luxury of an education that has made is reasonable to doubt God's existence, sadly for you, this same developed world offers you all the education you desire to see that God's existence is, in fact, self-evident. You only have yourself to blame.
Firstly, I'm not talking about myself here.

Secondly, let us say that reasonable non-belief in God in the modern world doesn't exist (not necessarily true, however).

But the greater problem today is religious pluralism. It's not enough to believe in God, you have to believe in Jesus Christ. Now I know you will say that historical evidence for the resurrection makes non-belief unreasonable (which I don't think is necessarily true), let me make two points: 1) Not everyone has the evidence available to them. 2) Some other religions like Hindusim have evidence for their own miracles like the Hindu milk miracle, something which can arguably cause reasonable non-belief.
In the first place, every other religion is self-contradictory. It just is. Eastern religions deny the law of non-contradiction. Ergo, to hold that they are "true" is not to have a REASONABLE doubt. Islam has an incoherent concept of God (how can Allah be both merciful and just?). In the second place, Schellenberg's argument is against theism, not Christianity specifically. His second premise is not that a loving God wouldn't allow people to not be Christian (by rejecting Jesus). It's that a loving God wouldn't allow rational non-belief in His existence.

Now, if his thinking behind that premise is that a loving God wouldn't allow people to be reasonable and still go to Hell, well now he has the problem that Gabe already pointed out: belief in God isn't sufficient to save, anyway, so he needs to restate his entire argument. But try to phrase it so that God wouldn't allow people to not believe in Jesus, and I'm sure you can start seeing the slippery slope.
smiley wrote:
Jac3510 wrote:I do realize that blaming God is much more emotionally satisfying, and it is human nature. Adam did it when confronted with his first sin. Far from doing anything new, you're just repeating the same mistake that people have been making, and believers have recognized and pointed out, since time began. There really is nothing new under the sun.
Again, I'm not talking about myself and furthermore, you can not rationally deny that there are periods in history where disbelief in God or Jesus would not be unreasonable.
You are right. I am capable of not denying that there are periods in history where disbelief in God or Jesus wasn't unreasonable . . . ;)
Seriously, though, yes, I do deny it. It has NEVER been reasonable to deny the existence of God. EVER. That's what makes this entire argument, to me, absolutely ridiculous. Atheists are just using it to justify their non-belief. We give them tons of reasons to believe, they ignore them, and then say, "Well, I at least have reason to disbelieve, and that proves God doesn't exist. Na-na-na-na-na-na."

God's existence is obvious. It is now. It always has been. To everyone. I completely understand why atheists want to say that their arguments are reasonable. The sad truth for them is that they aren't.
smiley wrote:
Jac3510 wrote:I'm sure you do. And yes, I am honestly going to say that there are no honest, truth-seeking professional atheist philosophers/scientists/historians out there. I've read too many of those types. You have idiotic statements coming from them like "I don't believe in God and I hate Him."
Now really, is that true? How many professional atheists have you met?
Since I am in academia, quite a few. Probably more than most people I know.
Firstly, I know many educated atheists who have left the faith for purely intellectual reasons (I can link you to their sites if you think I'm twisting things).
There is a difference in intellectual and reasonable, and it doesn't do you any good to say that they've left for reasonable reasons, because now you are just begging the question.
Secondly, many outspoken Christian theists admit that traditional arguments for God's existence are not so coercive they can leave no reasonable doubt. For example, William Lane Craig admits this openly, but he still thinks disbelief is irrational because of rejection of the Holy Spirit (in other words, denying the validity of religious experiences). Alvin Plantinga, similarly, says that he doesn't find the traditional arguments to be "very powerful", so he too, believes on the basis of personal experience.
And I'm one of the people who consistently say that Craig is wrong. If I were an atheist arguing against Craig, I would attack his notion of God as incoherent. Craig rejects the doctrine of divine simplicity, which, I--and pretty much all of classical theism--thinks is utterly incoherent. In short, Craig (and Plantinga) and I come from two very different schools of thought. I am a Thomist. I embrace classical theism. Craig rejects it. Most apologists do these days. Without going off on a tangent, I happen to think its because they are more interested in the Kalaam cosmological argument, which doesn't work in a standard Thomistic framework.

Anyway, so I have no doubt that you can find me some very famous Christians who are fine with the idea that disbelief can be reasonable. I am not one of them, and just because famous Christians think it doesn't make it so. To appeal to them is either an appeal to authority or ad populum, neither of which is very rational.
Thirdly, did you know that only about 15% contemporary philosophers are theists? Do you think that all the rest are simply living in denial?
Frankly, I'm surprised it is that high. The vast majority of contemporary philosophers don't understand philosophy. Before you go and write me off as an arrogant jerk who clearly thinks he is better than everyone else, let me explain:

Philosophy, fundamentally, is concerned with the question, "What is reality?" Everything else is a subset of that. Epistemology wants to know how we know reality. Linguistics wants to know how we communicate it. The myriads of "philosophies of" . . . the philosophy of science, the philosophy of art, the philosophy of music, etc. . . . are concerned with those narrow aspects of reality. But ask yourself: what is the subject of Philosophy with a capital P? What is the one thing that all of reality--both real and possible--have in common? It is 'being.' Philosophy, properly speaking, is the study of being, which is also called metaphysics. It is what Aristotle called the First Philosophy.

The VAST majority of philosophers today, however, adhere to a school of thought called Analytic Philosophy as opposed to Classical Philosophy. I'd recommend to you the book Two Logics by Henry Veatch for more on that. Suffice it to say here that the philosophy practiced today is NOT philosophy, because it does not study being. In fact, every since Hume, metaphysics has been considered dead. In other words, "philosophers" stopped doing philosophy in the 1700s.What they are doing today is a bad combination of linguistics, mathematics, and logic. I'd further point you to a book called The Unity of Philosophical Experience by Etienne Gilson. He proves, historically, that every time we've confused any discipline with metaphysics, whether it is mathematics (as in Descarte), physics (as in Kant), sociology (as in Comte), etc., we end up with a complete and total loss of philosophy and also end up in skepticism and moralism--which, might I add, is exactly what we are experiencing today. Compte saw this coming. He tried to warn John Stuart Mill about it, but Mill wouldn't listen . . . so now we live in a world deeply fragmented by super specialists in their field, in which no one is capable of presenting a unified worldview.

They can't and never will, because they have denied their First Philosophy. And since it is First Philosophy that absolutely proves that God exists, I am hardly surprised that most philosophers are not theists. They aren't philosophers at all anymore than Descarte was (he was a mathematician).

So, again, there are NO informed, honest atheists. It's hardly a surprising statement . . . perhaps to atheists, but only because they are indignant about it. But being indignant doesn't change facts.
smiley wrote:
Jac3510 wrote:So I'm sorry if it is at all offensive to you. It isn't intended to be. But no, there are NO honest, educated atheists out there. There are plenty of honest atheists. They are just ignorant of the facts. There are plenty of atheists who are not ignorant of the facts. They are dishonest. The former are lazy and their disbelief is their own fault. The latter are wicked, and their disbelief is also their own fault.
With all due respect, I think you're just greatly overexaggerating the supposed dishonesty of atheists.
And with all due respect, I don't think you've properly studied the issues. Nor have the vast majority of atheists. The ones who have, though, as few and far between as they are, are dishonest.

On a final note, even if a person--philosopher or not--has never come across a proper philosophical argument for God's existence, there are still a great many reasons to believe in God. The moment you come across ONE of them, and then you reject it, you have become unreasonable. A typical problem in modern culture is that we've stopped making sure that our worldviews are coherent. We have no problem accepting self-contradictions in our thinking. So we have an argument or two that give us great reason to believe in God (Craig's Kalaam Argument is one example), and we can't refute it, but we shelve it, because we don't want to believe. The evidence is there. We just refuse to follow it to its conclusion. That is dishonest.

I hope, then, that these discussions will give you the perspectives and information you need to do the actual research that you overcome your ignorance of the facts and are then faced with the same choice as everyone else: will you submit to the evidence or not? Will you be reasonable or not?

Re: Atheist argument that is causing my friend to doubt...

Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 7:08 pm
by Jac3510
truthman wrote:Jac3510
I totally agree that salvation is through faith alone. The confusion comes in with the definition of believe. For the sake of clarity I usually add the word trust to go along with believe: not to correct it but to better explain it. Faith is believing/trusting. Salvation is by believing/trusting in Jesus Christ the Son of God as personal Saviour from your sins alone: plus nothing.
I preach and teach against the error of adding anything to it such as prayer, baptism, etc.
Maybe this should be a different thread.
I actually am in COMPLETE agreement with you here, tm. I typically use "trust" rather than believe . . . I actually think it is a closer rendition of the Greek and Hebrew than "believe." The only problem with "trust" is that it doesn't have the concept of certainty inherent in the Greek and Hebrew, but then again, for most people, "believe" doesn't connotate much in terms of certainty, either. :p

And Bav, in each of your cases, if a person believes (trusts) in Jesus Christ for their eternal salvation, then yes, ALL OF THEM ARE SAVED. No other evidence is necessary. The evidence is in the fact that they did the one thing the Bible told them to do. If you want to tell Jesus He was wrong in John 3:16 and other such verses, be my guest. We've had this discussion before. Anything other than the faith alone Gospel is another gospel, which Paul expressly condemns in Gal 18-9.

Jesus says that EVERYONE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM is saved. If a person believes but doesn't repent or isn't baptized or doesn't live a good life or whatever the heck else, then Jesus says they are saved. To say that anything else is required is to say to Jesus, "No not EVERYONE who believes, because there are some who believe but don't do these other things. So Jesus, You need to change your conditions here, because as You have it, You've made some mistakes. So sit here, Jesus, and let me teach You what a person REALLY has to do to be saved." So if you want to be like the Muslims and Hindus and Mormons and tell Jesus that His way is wrong, that you have the right way, then, again, be my guest. I'm standing on John 3:16.

Re: Atheist argument that is causing my friend to doubt...

Posted: Wed Jul 14, 2010 7:35 am
by narnia4
smiley wrote: Thirdly, did you know that only about 15% contemporary philosophers are theists? Do you think that all the rest are simply living in denial?
Actually, I think this could back up Jac's point somewhat. Taking all the evidence into account, there is simply no way that 85% of philosophers honestly and reasonably came to the conclusion that God does not exist given the information available. I don't have a degree in philosophy, but I can approach these questions open-mindedly and with a good grasp on the state pf philosophy and all the different concepts. The evidence is simply far, far too strong in support of theism for there to be such a discrepancy in those percentages.

On divisive issues in American politics, voter opinion is usually divided, in presidential elections it can get within a few percentiles of each other. Even on issues where what's right is obvious to me, like abortion, Americans have a million different opinions on it. Yet almost all philosophers agree there is no God?

I hadn't heard those numbers before, but it gives me even less respect for contemporary philosophers. Again, the evidence for God IS compelling for any rational person, it's just too good and there's too much of it. I've heard the debates and read the articles, 85% disbelieving in God is damning evidence that they are dishonest and/or unreasonable. Maybe even every last one of them.

Re: Atheist argument that is causing my friend to doubt...

Posted: Wed Jul 14, 2010 8:06 am
by BavarianWheels
Fürstentum Liechtenstein wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:
For clarification.

Are you (FL and/or Jac) saying there is NOTHING more a person does/"needs" to do? Does this fit ALL scenarios of belief/salvation?

--A child at 10ish believes and lives a long life until 80ish?

--A man/woman believes for the first time at age 40...and lives another 40 years?

--A man/woman believes on their deathbed moments from physical death?

Each one of these people ONLY confesses belief once in their life and THAT'S IT. No other evidence of belief necessary?
See John 3:3 and John 3:18-21. The regeneration of one's spirit by the Holy Spirit is all that is necessary. That regeneration comes as a result of confessing Jesus as Lord and nothing else. Nothing else. (What ''evidence of belief'' would God require anyway? He can see right into you, don't forget.)

FL
I don't want to sidetrack this thread so i'll PM you. :) Thx.
.
.

Re: Atheist argument that is causing my friend to doubt...

Posted: Thu Jul 15, 2010 1:08 pm
by Gabrielman
Jac3510 wrote: I understand you totally, Gabe. I didn't say you had a right or wrong view on salvation. I said that I appreciated J's point on salvation being by faith alone. I was NOT commenting on whether or not you were saying for or against that position. I expect you hold to it.
Actually most of my point was directed at Jlay, I mentioned you because you share similar views with him and we obviously have slightly different views.
Jac3510 wrote: And for the record, the "Him" in John 3:16 doesn't refer to God. It refers to Jesus. Believing "in God" doesn't save. Believing in Jesus Christ does, which I'm sure you recognize.
From other threads on this board that reference the Bible I am sure we can see that Jesus is God, so when I say believing in God, that is what I mean. Jesus is the God I believe in, Because Jesus is God. Immanuel means "God with us". Then again I may have misunderstood what you meant, so could you please clarify?
Jac3510 wrote:
As far as how someone can hate God and spend eternity with Him, it's rather simple: they believe in Jesus and receive everlasting life, and then come to the place where they hate God, and finally die. I can think of lots of reasons someone might hate God. Hate is, after all, an emotion . . . it isn't logical. Perhaps a loved one dies and they blame it on Him. In any case, the Bible doesn't say that it be saved, you have to believe in Jesus and love Him and God until you die. It says to believe in Jesus. Full stop. Add to that and you add to the Gospel.
Let me say this then, if you hated God (As stated above Jesus is God) then how could you ever believe IN Him? Sure you could know he exists, the pharisees knew that Jesus existed, but they did not believe in Him. I would like to also reference the Word of God on this subject. In Matthew 22:36,37 we read:
"'Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?' He said to them, 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.'" God commands us to love Him and if you love Him then you will believe in Him. Luke 16:13 "No household slave can be the slave of two masters, since either he will hate one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot be slaves to both God and money." From that we can conclude a few things, and just hear me out on this. God is saying a few things here, one you cannot have love for Him and love for worldly things, but why is that? Well He states why next, because you will only truly love one and the other you will hate, and the one you love you will dedicate yourself too, and the one you hate you will despise. So if we look at this we can see that if you love God, you will put Him first and be dedicated to Him, if you love money, you will be dedicated to it. So this brings me back to my first point here, how can someone hate God and still get into heaven? You cannot. If you do not love God, you will not believe in Him and will not trust in Him.

Also, I am not sure if you got what I was saying above. I was saying something along these lines. Someone knows God exists, they know that Jesus is God, and they do not love Him, trust Him, believe in Him, or what ever you want to say it is he needs to get into heaven. He doesn't want to be with God, so how, by knowing God exists, would this person who does not want to be with God, be forced to be with him?

Back to actually having to love God, 1Corinthians 2:9 "But as it is written: What no eye has seen and no ear has heard, and what has never come into a man's heart, is what God has prepared for those who love Him." God has prepared heaven for those who love Him.

Re: Atheist argument that is causing my friend to doubt...

Posted: Thu Jul 15, 2010 1:53 pm
by cslewislover
Back to actually having to love God, 1Corinthians 2:9 "But as it is written: What no eye has seen and no ear has heard, and what has never come into a man's heart, is what God has prepared for those who love Him." God has prepared heaven for those who love Him.
Great verse! It's amazing to think on, that we can't even imagine (referring to our heart's desire) what God has prepared for us.

Re: Atheist argument that is causing my friend to doubt...

Posted: Thu Jul 15, 2010 2:20 pm
by Jac3510
From other threads on this board that reference the Bible I am sure we can see that Jesus is God, so when I say believing in God, that is what I mean. Jesus is the God I believe in, Because Jesus is God. Immanuel means "God with us". Then again I may have misunderstood what you meant, so could you please clarify?
I mean that Jesus, strictly speaking, is the object of our faith. He is the one in whom we trust. The reason is simple enough - the Father reveals Himself only through the Son, so you cannot say that you believe in the Father apart from believing in the Son. Likewise, then, to believe in the Son is to believe in the Father. But, again, the Son, Jesus, is the direct, immediate object of our faith, whereas the Father is the indirect, mediate object.
Let me say this then, if you hated God (As stated above Jesus is God) then how could you ever believe IN Him? Sure you could know he exists, the pharisees knew that Jesus existed, but they did not believe in Him. I would like to also reference the Word of God on this subject. In Matthew 22:36,37 we read:
"'Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?' He said to them, 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.'" God commands us to love Him and if you love Him then you will believe in Him. Luke 16:13 "No household slave can be the slave of two masters, since either he will hate one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot be slaves to both God and money." From that we can conclude a few things, and just hear me out on this. God is saying a few things here, one you cannot have love for Him and love for worldly things, but why is that? Well He states why next, because you will only truly love one and the other you will hate, and the one you love you will dedicate yourself too, and the one you hate you will despise. So if we look at this we can see that if you love God, you will put Him first and be dedicated to Him, if you love money, you will be dedicated to it. So this brings me back to my first point here, how can someone hate God and still get into heaven? You cannot. If you do not love God, you will not believe in Him and will not trust in Him.
What makes you think that to believe in God is the same as to love Him? They are completely different issues. The very verse you quoted is enough to disprove it . . . to love God is a gradable quality. I can love Him with a little of my being or with my whole being. I truly hope you are not making my love for God the condition for salvation, because if so, I promise you, neither I nor you can say that we have "believed" in God, for who can say that they love God with ALL their heart, soul, and mind?

Second, why do you quote Luke 16:13? You don't think that to believe in Jesus is to serve Him, do you? Again, serving Jesus and believing in Him for salvation are different issues. If you mean to make them the same, then you have condemned us all to Hell, for none of us can honestly say that we completely, totally, and only serve Jesus. There are times when you have served others - you do it every day. Does that mean you have not believed in Him? Of course not. To believe and to serve are different things.

Which brings me to your last point - the idea that in order to saved you must be dedicated to God is deeply terrifying because it amounts to an absolute denial of the Gospel. We are saved by faith, Gabe, not our works. No amount of dedication or love on our part can merit our salvation. Such a statement cheapens God's gift immeasurably. How can anyone think that if they only loved God enough and gave their entire lives to Him that they would in any way have paid the price for their salvation!? Imagine going to a real estate agent and offering $20 for a mansion. You would be laughed out of the office - and were the agent to take it, what would that say about the agent's view of the worth of the house?

My friend, I want you to pray very hard on what you are saying. To make our love for God and our dedication to Him a condition for our salvation is to preach another Gospel. There is only ONE condition, as clearly expressed in John 3:16 - to believe in Jesus. You can tell Him he is wrong, of course, that NOT everyone who believes is saved, that instead, only those who commit their ways unto Him are . . . but may I suggest that telling Jesus He is wrong is never a good idea. Jesus, not you and not me, defines the way to Heaven, and in John 3:16, He told us the one and only way: faith in Him. To add anything else, even as pious as a love for Him, is to call Him a liar.
Also, I am not sure if you got what I was saying above. I was saying something along these lines. Someone knows God exists, they know that Jesus is God, and they do not love Him, trust Him, believe in Him, or what ever you want to say it is he needs to get into heaven. He doesn't want to be with God, so how, by knowing God exists, would this person who does not want to be with God, be forced to be with him?
Yes, I understood exactly what you were saying, but you have failed to get what I am saying. Suppose I trust in Jesus for my salvation, love Him, the whole nine yards, and suppose that such tragedy strikes me that I turn against Him. You can say that I lost my salvation (which makes salvation dependent on my works). You can say that I proved I was never really saved to begin with (which means that NONE OF US know we are saved, because none of us know the future). Or you can say that I am a child of God, saved by His grace and His grace alone, who is now in rebellion because I have given into the lusts of my flesh.

Now, I die and stand before Christ in my resurrected body. Tell me, Gabe - in my resurrected body, in which sin no longer reigns, what is my only desire? To serve Jesus! My resurrected body will have no sin nature! I will want ONLY to please my God. I will certainly be ashamed of having fallen into sin's trap and hating my Savior during life in that moment, but the shame will be there only and precisely because I have the deepest longing to be with Him. No one in heaven will be forced to be there, because everyone in Heaven will have received their resurrected bodies, their sin natures removed.

Again, your own view, though, either means that I must work for my salvation or that I cannot know I am saved. Both views contradict Scripture. This is EXACTLY why you cannot say "love Him, trust Him, believe in Him, or whatever you want to say." Gabe, do you not understand that words have meaning? If God wanted to say that loving Him was a condition of being saved, He would have said so. To love God is NOT the same as to trust or believe in Him, anymore than to love another human is the same as to trust or believe in them.
Back to actually having to love God, 1Corinthians 2:9 "But as it is written: What no eye has seen and no ear has heard, and what has never come into a man's heart, is what God has prepared for those who love Him." God has prepared heaven for those who love Him.
Is heaven all He has prepared, Gabe? In the first place, regarding heaven, there will be different rewards there. Those who love Him will certainly be rewarded more greatly than those who did not and who failed to persevere. In the second place, Paul tells us himself in that very passage what it was that God had prepared: the mind of Christ! (1 Cor 2:16) The context is very easy to follow. The rulers of this age, in man's wisdom, did not understand who Jesus was and what He wanted, so they killed Him. But we who believe have been given the Spirit freely so that we might discern such things - and if we walk in that Spirit, we are free, are judged by nothing, and judge all things. This freedom is the very mind of Christ, and all that comes with that, both here and in heaven.

Again, Gabe, you need to spend some serious time in prayer and study over this. You have taken a verse that nowhere mentions salvation and have used it to create a new condition for salvation that John 3:16 (and over 100 others) know nothing about. There is a place for loving God. It is a commandment for sure, and we will be rewarded or disciplined based on our submission to it. But surely you know that submission to the command of God does not save. Salvation is by faith, not submission. It's a free gift. FREE. FREE

Think about the implications of FREE, Gabe. It means you can't require anything in exchange for it - not even loving God. I realize most Christians hate that concept. They are trying to be pious and spiritual . . . but the Gospel is the Gospel. It is FREE or it is no gospel at all. The question is only this: do you believe Jesus, that everyone who believes has eternal life, or do you now call Him a liar, and assert that those who believe and do other things as well are the ones who are saved?

Re: Atheist argument that is causing my friend to doubt...

Posted: Thu Jul 15, 2010 2:47 pm
by cslewislover
Jac, Gabe is not taking the bible and verses out of context, but perhaps you are. He is not advocating a works type of salvation. By what you believe, I guess the "demons" that are against God are saved too (or would be, if they were human). Nothing that Gabe has written is out of context or out of line with the numerous pastors I've heard, or theologians I've read. And I'm not just saying this for Gabe, I'd say it for anyone that you were responding to.