If you say Yes, please give me an example of something. If you say no, why not?
Food for thought. Rom 4:20 Heb 11:11,13 Acts 27:25
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
As Christians do we follow the cry of the reformers or do we follow the reformers & their followers? My goal is to discuss the Biblical basis (or lack of) for many commonly held beliefs of Christians.Topics may range from humor to heresy. Please keep comments on topic but I am open to requests.
Blue Cross Blue Shield Health Insurance
Incorporate now
Search This Blog
Other Links & Blogs of Interest
About Me
- Trent
- I am a Father to 3 girls I love, and husband to a wonderful wife who I love even more. We have a White King Shepard mix named Gypsy, that looks a bit like a wolf.
Welcome to my Blog
Disagreement and debating is encouraged (As is honest agreement). Please do your best to keep any disagreement with the discussion, and not the person. Name calling and cursing will not be tolerated, and will not convince anyone of your point of view anyway. Please enjoy and I hope this encourages you in your search for Truth.
26 comments:
Hi Trent. Nice to see you out and about. ;-)
I define choice as a value based determination given the evidence at hand. An obvious example of this is a court of law wherein the jury must choose to believe the defense or the prosecution. With regard to soteriology, we must choose to accept the testimony of God concerning His Son or reject His Word and blaspheme the Holy Spirit.
actually, in court, they have to choose to regard the evidence, however, they are supposed to be convinced of the truth of one or the other, not choose. Choose would allow for bias. :) I think if you choose to accept the testimony of God its because you are convinced he is trustworthy. :)
Thank you so much for visiting. I am going to try and be a bit more around again.
KC it makes me so happy that you still were watching. :) thanks again.
What would convince or persuade one if not her choice to regard the evidence of one or the other? ;-)
(Thanks brother. I'm happy to be here!)
Regarding the evidence may or may not persuade you. A desire to believe will make you more able to be persuaded however. Does that make sense? You can still have a hung Jury for example, though everyone is looking at the same evidence. Some are persuaded of a persons guilt, while others are not. For a biblical example, see Rom 4:20
We agree in the fact that the evidence may not persuade all in the jury to choose innocence or guilt. Many people have little regard for facts and/or reason and value their emotion above all else. Their choice may be based solely on intuition or, worse, an invalid feeling. A successful attorney will do his best to appeal to both reason and emotion in order to persuade a juror to choose in his favor. A good choice should satisfy both.
With respect to the scripture in Romans; Do you consider the quality of Abraham's faith as a minimum requirement for justification? Could it be that Abraham's faith is the standard of excellence and not a minimum requirement? Consider the words of the scribe in Mark 9:24. He said to Jesus, "Lord I believe"; and then begged Him, "Help thou mine unbelief". I find much more comfort in the promise of God (Acts 2:21ff) than in the quality or measure of my faith.
The issue of ability/inability is a big ole can O' worms! ;-)
example: Your child is accused of murder. you don't want to believe it is true, and it would take a lot to convince you it was true. Where as the mother of the person killed would probably take much less to convince. Does that make sense? If you are convinced something it true, then it is 100% otherwise you are not convinced, you are still considering and leaning in that direction. You can take action based on that, but you do not believe yet. Thats how I understand it.
Mark 9:24 I take a bit differently. For example, the disciples could believe somethings about Jesus but not others. The man may have believed Jesus was the Messiah, knew he had healed others, but was not convinced that Jesus could or would help him? This then fits with the believe being convinced that seems to be shown elswhere in scripture. Read Heb 11 and see how many times faith and promise is used. (faith is the noun for believe in greek)
I will hold my arguments for the moment to clarify your position based on your previous reply.
Given that belief is being 100% convinced, is it then your position that, once convinced, our faith cannot or need not grow? ;-)
I would also ask; if belief is the result of being persuaded then would you say that you have no choice in what you believe?
(Thanks for the chat) ;-)
:) interesting question. The answer has to be no the way you asked. As your faith increases, you are able to believe more and thus important to grow, but once you believe something, you cannot have more then 100% for a specific truth or dynamic. Does that make sense? As our faith grow, so does are ability to trust God for more.. for finances? children? things we can't control?
and to your second part, I would agree and disagree. do I sound like a politician? :) You cannot choose to believe something or disbelieve something rationally.. but we can control what we allow ourselves to make our decisions on, how much we consider something etc.
For example, I have a brother in law who I love. Really nice guy, but he is mormon. he is really smart, and is a CPA. I believe that if he studied the word and mormonism he would be come a believer. However he chooses not to consider any claims to the contrary. My not considering anythign else, he is choosing to believe what he currently does, but he believes what he does because he is convinced it is true. does that make sense? So in a way he is choosing not to change his belief. Now if Christ gave him a road to Damascus experience, he would have no choice but to change his belief. :)
For further clarification;
Do you hold that persons who claim to believe one thing but later believe something different never “truly” believed the first thing because they were never 100% convinced of the first thing? IOW do you hold that there is such a thing as a “false belief”?
Given that we have no choice in what we believe do you then hold to irresistible grace?
Yes, you can change your mind and be convinced you were wrong. Saul Paul is a great example but so is someone whose child was slain in a war. You can also have someone fall away from the faith. And no, how can you have false belief? it is a contradiction. Unless you mean the object you believed in was false or you were wrong to believe in something. :)
No, I don't hold to that, at least he way a calvinist would. I am not saying there is no volition, I am saying that at the moment of belief it is because you are convinced. Everything before that you have control over and of course after. :)
I am waiting to see where you are going with this and if you manage to find an inconsistency with this POV. :) good questions.
In Heb, nowhere does it say Partially convinced. Its convinced. If you are partially convinced, you are not convinced. Now after being convinced, you can doubt, but as soon as that takes place, you are not believing. In the new Testament its called remaining in the faith, or persevering or staying the course. :) If you lose your faith, you lose your assurance, but thankfully eternal life is based on Christ.
I think, based on your answers, that we are headed for agreement in all but semantics. ;-)
If I understand correctly, you would say that:
1. “I am persuaded that X is true”, “I am convinced that X is true” and “I believe that X is true” are equivalent statements.
2. People have real options from which they must choose what they will allow to persuade or convince them that X is true.
3. Once a person is persuaded that X is true they still allow for evidence that X is not true.
Is this correct?
1. which means that for that person, X is true (whether it is or is not the point)
2. Yes, and can be convinced against their will, usually when said evidence is not what was expected. (i.e. CS Lewis and Josh McDowell for more recent Christians then Saul/Paul)
3. Agreed, at least most of the time. Some people may be totally unopen at least at certain points in their lives. My Catholic Brother in law for example. But I think your point is, can someone convinced that something is true, later be convinced it is not, and of course. Otherwise they would never have had to be convinced, and they could be convinced again, which is why it is so important to disciple new believers.
I think semantics may be at fault here again but I need to ask;
1. Would you agree that if X is true for you then it is true and that if X is not true, yet you believe it is, it is still not true for you?
2. Would you agree that to be convinced or persuaded one must be willing to accept the evidence/argument as valid? IOW do they willing receive or reject the evidence/argument? If yes then would you also agree one must choose between what is and is not valid?
3. What distinction would do make between someone who is convinced and someone who is “totally unopen”?
1. I am not sure I understand. there have been false prophets that people have believed were true. They were decieved, yet they believed it was true.
2. Yes. though what needs to be accepted is different depending on how biased you are.. and how much you trust the person giving you information. If you do not accept something as valid, it will not convince you.. however now we are back to being convinced something is true :)
3. Hey Joe, I know you think the KIA is the most reliable car on the market, but did you see the report just out on the overall reliablity of Toyota in relation to the other asian brands? Joe replies "no way, don't need to, its a bunch of hogwash, I already know Kia is the best" :) Someone else might say, hmm, I bet its biased, let me see that report. His intent may even to be to poke holes in it, yet he is open to the information. comments?
1. Simply stated, do you believe the truth is relative? For example; Is it true that for some people hell does not exist?
2. Indeed. If we value (are “more” persuaded/ convinced of) the evidence/argument for the proposition than the opposing argument/evidence then we choose to accept (are persuaded/convinced of) the proposition.
3. So then a person can be convinced a thing is true and still be willing to consider evidence/arguments to the contrary?
1. No.
3. Yes. I believe in pretrib rapture and know why I believe it. However I still review arguments to the contrary which usually just reinforce my point. :) If I was convinced I was wrong, (tribulation begins and I am still present) I will write a book like chuck missler recommends called "rethinking the pretribulation position" :)
March 28, 2012 11:35 AM
Delete
3. Would you say you are 100% convinced of a pretrib rapture?
Had to think about that one. Yes. However I feel more strongly about eternal life by belief in Jesus Christ. One I would discuss more lightly, the other I would be more intense. Both I am convinced are true but one is more important and so now I have to think about is that because I understand how important it is, or is it because you can be 100% convinced and just have different levels of commitment to a truth. Such as two people could be convinced smoking causes cancer, and one stops smoking... Thanks KC those were some excellent questions!
KC I was thinking about my last answer. I think what I should have said is "yes, I am currently" :)
Good question, and the answer may be more complicated than we would like.
Yes. Hebrews defines faith as being convinced someone can do what they promised. As the conversation shows, there is choice involved in learning and listening, but ultimately you must be convinced which is not a choice. It is definitely not an easy issue.
I would have to ask a deeper question related to this: Please define choose. For example: I believe the sun is a radiant globe that emits energy in the form of heat and light and chemical rays. Do I choose to believe this, and what is choice in this context, or is it that the facts make me believe this?
Also, what is faith? Trust or conviction or?
Biblically speaking, based on Hebrews, it is being convinced something is true. If you want to believe something it is easier to be convinced and if you don't, its harder. Saul/Paul was hard. In Hebrews it is specific to being convinced that God can perform that which he promised. Thus, Jesus promises Eternal life to all who believe. I am convinced that is true, thus I believe and I have eternal life.
Post a Comment