Evidence for God from Science

I've been wondering this for a while now. What, exactly, is "belief" in Christ? Is there an event that we have to believe without questions? Is being a bit skeptical still classed as belief and will it get you saved?

Let's take an example, a questioning agnostic for example who is curious about the life and deeds of Christ. This agnostic believes that a man called Jesus Christ existed, he even believes he died for our sins. However, he is skeptical that he defeated death and was resurrected three days later. Of course, people don't just come back to life three days after dying! Will this agnostic be saved? He recognises that Christ died for our sins but cannot understand and accept he was resurrected.

What about people who believe in Christ as the son of God who died for our sins and was resurrected but sometimes think, "what if he didn't? What if it is all actually a fabrication?" I sometimes find myself in this camp. I don't like to think like this, but believing miraculous events from 2000 years ago sometimes seems a bit surreal. I pray for clarification on this subject.

Romans 10:10-13

• 10for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. 11For the Scripture says, “WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.” 12For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; 13for “WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.”

There is a difference between "believe" and "believe in" as I see matters.
Many might believe Christ existed and the like, but fewer would believe in Christ.
Some believe rational ascent is enough, others like myself see the heart is required as per v.10 above.
The difference is like merely believing Jesus exists, versus placing your faith in Him as Lord.

As for doubt, doubt shows a healthy skepticism.
Doubt left unchecked can be dangerous, but I think all Christians have doubts here or there.
Take a read of this: http://www.garyhabermas.com/books/deali ... _doubt.htm (note also ch.7)
I don't doubt that you will find it encouraging.

I hope Jac doesn't mind my sharing it, but he wrote a really good article on this subject:
What is Biblical Faith?

Jac gets a bit sloppy with words in his last paragraph.

Kurieuo wrote:Jac gets a bit sloppy with words in his last paragraph.

How so? Here's the last paragraph:

The Bible is clear that salvation is by faith alone. Fundamentally, to believe is to trust. To believe the Gospel is to trust that God is telling the truth (cf. Gen. 15:6 and 1 John 5:10). Don’t let anyone add conditions to the Gospel by loading up all their extra conditions into the word “believe.” Unfortunately, such attempts are just as much false gospels as any that says that we have to do good works before we can be saved. We either trust Jesus alone or we do not.

To believe in Christ is to believe ( like you believe that you are loved by someone the loves you for example) in ALL that Christ is and has done and will do.
In short, that He lived and preached and died on the cross, that He was resurrected, that He is alive and that He will come again.

If you do NOT believe ALL of that, then you are not believing in the Christ that is saviour of all those that believe in Him.
EX:
If you believe that He lived and died BUT did NOT resurrect, then the Christ you believe in is NOT our saviour.

RickD wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Jac gets a bit sloppy with words in his last paragraph.

How so? Here's the last paragraph:

The Bible is clear that salvation is by faith alone. Fundamentally, to believe is to trust. To believe the Gospel is to trust that God is telling the truth (cf. Gen. 15:6 and 1 John 5:10). Don’t let anyone add conditions to the Gospel by loading up all their extra conditions into the word “believe.” Unfortunately, such attempts are just as much false gospels as any that says that we have to do good works before we can be saved. We either trust Jesus alone or we do not.

PaulS is onto it.

Jac was reasoning at the start faith and belief is like putting one's faith in someone.
Then, it seems he relaxes his language in the conclusion to just say: "To believe the Gospel is to trust that God is telling the truth."
Well that's too loose for my liking. And if someone just reads the final paragraph summary, they could get into a bit of strife with their understanding. They might think, well I believe God exists and would speak truth, so now I'm saved. Such has no content.

I can believe God tells the truth but great, what then? Without the object of that truth it is quite meaningless.
It's to trust in Christ if we're going by Jac's logic up until then. Believing in Christ Himself that saves.

In relation to "belief" there seems to be two objects of belief identified in Romans 10:9,11

• 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes in Him will not be disappointed.”

The second can't really be had without the first. One can believe in Christ, but if Christ isn't raised then for what are they believing in Him? To be a wise guy like Ghandi? No. Often Christians try to say it is the first that matters, but Paul is clear that belief not only entails Christ rising from the dead but belief in their heart. A heart response. Thus, they believe in Christ. Christ is the primary object. Christ who is their Lord and they will follow and we can only follow someone who lives. Christ will lead us into battles throughout life, and in the end we will inherit eternal life because we trusted in Christ who has promised such. Although we have not seen, we believed in Christ. (John 20:29) His promise could be a lie, Christ might be self-deceived, perhaps like a captain leading his troops blindly into battle and ends up being slaughtered... but nonetheless I trust in my heart Christ is true, is right and has the power of death such that I will follow Him.

That is, for me, an elaborate summary of Romans 10:11 and what it means to believe in Christ with your heart, rather than simply believe a truth proposition. And, if this opens up a can 'o worms I blame you RickD!

I tend to think of myself as open to tightening up loose language, but I really am not following your critique here, K. I'm not going to exegete my own article, but if you go back to the beginning, I make a big point about the basic idea as found in aman is to basically say amen to something, to acknowledge that it is true or trustworthy or reliable. When Abraham said aman to God, He was believing that God was telling the truth.

For me, there can be no faith without a testimony to be believed. While this didn't make it into the article, I can assure you on rather good authority that John 3:33 was in the back of my mind as I was writing it. To believe God tells the truth requires we ask, "tell the truth about what"? And, of course, the answer is that "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in His name" (John 20:31).

Further, just to be pedantic, the article wasn't an attempt to set out and deliniate the gospel. It was on the definition of faith or belief. So to believe, to have faith, is to give assent to the truth of God's testimony. That is to believe God. So just believing that He exists is not believing God told the truth. Nor is believing that He would tell the truth the same thing as believing in God. You rightly point out that there has to be an object, and the object is God's testimony concerning His Son Jesus Christ. That is what it means to believe in or on Jesus. It is nothing less than to believe the Father's testimony regarding Christ. And that, by the way, is why belief in the resurrection is so essential (and so Paul's comments in Romans 10).

When you deal with the Greek, you write:

it fundamentally means to declare something reliable, trustworthy, or steadfast. By extension, it means to reply upon or trust something or someone. As such, pisteuo can bear the idea of “entrusting.” Because a person or thing is reliable, I can entrust something of value to them. John plays on this idea in John 2:23-25, “Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many people saw the miraculous signs he was doing and believed [pisteuo] in his name. But Jesus would not entrust [pisteuo] himself to them, for he knew all men. He did not need man’s testimony about man, for he knew what was in a man” (NIV).

You provide a pre-conclusion:

In short, “to believe,” in both Greek and Hebrew, simply means to place your trust in something or to rely upon it. There is no distinction between real and false faith. It does not include concepts such as repentance and baptism. When the Bible wishes to speak of repentance, it says so (Mark 1:15). When it wishes to speak of baptism, it says so (Acts 8:12).

I agree with everything above. The following text however in bold, I feel doesn't do your words up until then justice:

The Bible is clear that salvation is by faith alone. Fundamentally, to believe is to trust. To believe the Gospel is to trust that God is telling the truth.

___________________

Jac wrote:Further, just to be pedantic, the article wasn't an attempt to set out and deliniate the gospel. It was on the definition of faith or belief.

True. Let me say I obviously embrace your definitions of faith and belief, I just don't feel that part in bold re: the Gospel has Paul's fuller exposition in Romans 10. I simply feel the object of the Gospel is somewhat missed (or perhaps really abbreviated) in that last paragraph. But, I'm being pedantic -- that isn't your purpose to fully define the object of belief which would be an article or more in itself.

Certainly, if you were to elaborate upon such, it would be to believe more in merely that God speaks truth. More than simply that God is honest. For example, is it God saying he created that we must believe he is speaking the truth on? Or is it just that God is always honest and speaks truth that we must believe? OR, is to believe the Gospel to believe in the truth of Christ and as such in Christ.

Re: Gospel, to believe a proposition as Paul states carries with is the heart ("we believe with our hearts"). So is it possible to even believe Christ rose from the dead without some fuller belief in Christ? We might separate the two "belief in the resurrection" and "belief in Christ" -- they can be understood separate. I think however, belief in Christ necessarily entails belief in the resurrection and this really amounts to one's heart which is what we believe with. This is the correct direction to look at matters, rather than starting with the resurrection which is more the evidence in the object of our belief.

Don't know if that's making any sense. I hope so.

I really need to go to bed now!

RickD wrote:

I really need to go to bed now!

Yes, you just open the can and run. Got a grenade to throw in now?

Kurieuo wrote:

RickD wrote:

I really need to go to bed now!

Yes, you just open the can and run. Got a grenade to throw in now?

Nu uh! If you noticed, the open can is in Jac's post.

I still don't see an issue with what Jac said.

Consider this, and as I said, it's a pedantic point.

Do Muslims believe God tells them the truth?
Let me answer "Yes" for them.

What the object of that truth looks like doesn't matter.
They "trust that God is telling the truth."
Therefore, Muslims believe in the Gospel, according to Jac's words.

I know that isn't what Jac is saying.
And his post wasn't about describing what the object of truth is that is the Gospel (i.e., "belief in Christ" or "belief in Christ's resurrection").
Just after articulating so carefully everything else, there is a bit of relaxing his words.

Can I go dance with angels on the tip of some pins now?

Kurieuo wrote:Consider this, and as I said, it's a pedantic point.

Do Muslims believe God tells them the truth?
Let me answer "Yes" for them.

What the object of that truth looks like doesn't matter.
They "trust that God is telling the truth."
Therefore, Muslims believe in the Gospel, according to Jac's words.

I know that isn't what Jac is saying.
And his post wasn't about describing what the object of truth is that is the Gospel (i.e., "belief in Christ" or "belief in Christ's resurrection").

Just after articulating so carefully everything else, there is a bit of relaxing his words.
Can I go dance with angels on the tip of some pins now?

But Jac said:

To believe the Gospel is to trust that God is telling the truth.

The truth regarding the gospel.

RickD wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Consider this, and as I said, it's a pedantic point.

Do Muslims believe God tells them the truth?
Let me answer "Yes" for them.

What the object of that truth looks like doesn't matter.
They "trust that God is telling the truth."
Therefore, Muslims believe in the Gospel, according to Jac's words.

I know that isn't what Jac is saying.
And his post wasn't about describing what the object of truth is that is the Gospel (i.e., "belief in Christ" or "belief in Christ's resurrection").

Just after articulating so carefully everything else, there is a bit of relaxing his words.
Can I go dance with angels on the tip of some pins now?

But Jac said:

To believe the Gospel is to trust that God is telling the truth.

The truth regarding the gospel.

Adding "regarding the gospel" would be a way to be more specific, but a little tautologous.

There is an underlining insinuation I know Jac is making re: what the belief is.
Only because he's discussed this on numerous occasions.

To be clear, I know Jac doesn't necessarily like my identification of belief with the heart.
He'd prefer intellectual assent to a proposition like, "Do you believe Jesus rose from the dead?"
I understand Jac's concern, and I'm sure Jac can see my own points and concerns.

So I earlier tried to present an acceptable solution we both might be content with:

Re: Gospel, to believe a proposition as Paul states carries with it the heart ("we believe with our hearts"). So is it possible to even believe Christ rose from the dead without some fuller belief in Christ? We might separate the two "belief in the resurrection" and "belief in Christ" -- they can be understood separate. I think however, belief in Christ necessarily entails belief in the resurrection and this really amounts to one's heart which is what we believe with. This is the correct direction to look at matters, rather than starting with the resurrection which is more the evidence in the object of our belief.

Maybe I'm reading too much into -- anticipating Jac's thinking too much behind his words.
I'm sure he'll let us know here soon enough.