Why do we believe?

[superdave5221]

Most of us in this forum believe in a monotheistic God, who because of our sin, sent His Son Jesus Christ to earth to die on a cross, so that we could be reconciled to Him. This is necessary because of God's nature, which is at the same time love and holy. He loves us, and wants to redeem us, but at the same time, He is holy and requires judgement for our sins. His plan of redemption, which culminated in the death and resurrection of Christ is the basic theme of the entire bible. Of course, there are many subthemes and the above is a simplification for the sake of brevity.

Why do we believe this? For many, they have grown up in the church and believe it because their parents and friends do. In other words, they do not have a personal testimony. But for those who do have a personal testimony, why do they believe?

Many will say that they had a miraculous experience which proves God's (biblical) existence. Really? There are millions of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and others who will claim the same. Many will say that they experience God's providence in their lives. Do not most other religions claim the same? For me, I have experienced these things as well, but how do I know that it is the God of the bible that is working in my life?

For me, the bottom line is that I believe in Jesus Christ, and the God of the bible, because I have the testimony of credible eyewitnesses who knew Jesus Christ when He walked the earth, witnessed his crucifixion, and saw Him risen following His death. The evidence of the veracity of these witnesses is overwhelming. All of our experiences, whether they be miraculous, spiritual, or providential are filtered through the knowledge contained in the Gospels and other authoritative books of the bible. We would have no way of discerning the meaning of our spirtuality, or the will of God, were it not for the scriptures.

Now, I am not limiting God. I am not saying that He cannot appear in person (theophany) and instruct us, as was done in the O.T. I am not saying that we cannot have visions or even hear him audibly. I am not saying that Holy Spirit cannot instruct us personally. I am saying that in these last days, God has chosen to reveal Himself through His Holy Scriptures, (with the aid of Holy Spirit). I don't believe it is possible in these latter days to know God without the witness of His special revelation, found in the bible.

Hebrews 1: 1 In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.

2 Thessalonians 2: 14 It was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

What are the words of the Great Commission?

Matthew 28: 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Jesus didn't say that He was sending out the Holy Spirit to teach. He said He was sending out teachers, to teach the gospel. And through that gospel, and the workings of the Holy Spirit, God would call disciples to Jesus Christ. That is God's intentions, in these latter days. For what need is faith if we get a sure witness from Holy Spirit?

John 17: 20 "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message,

Whose message? The apostles and other biblical authors.

 

[Rob_Chapman]

I think there must be many ways to know God, which is why there are so many belief systems in the world. We all want to know God but we are not all capable of thinking and acting and believing in the same way. I believe in Jesus and in the teachings of the bible because I believe Jesus came to me and called on me to learn about Him and follow His teachings. I feel the presence of Jesus in my life as a very real and profound presence. Others I know feel differently, and so their beliefs are more in tune with how their minds work. I think at the end of our lives we will not be judged by how we perceive God, but how well we served Him, by whatever name or face we knew Him as. I do not believe those who have a different path to God are punished for it. I think as long as they believe and do the work that God has given them to do, we will see them in the afterlife. For those who deny God, they will have a different fate. I think Jesus just offers one path, to those who He calls upon. I don't think He calls everyone. I feel priveleged and blessed that He called me.

 

[dmdave17]

Guys,

In Jeremiah 32:27, God said "I am the Lord, the God of all mankind. Is anything too hard for me?" Therefore, I believe that He can, and probably does, talk to some people directly. However, I also believe that most of us are prompted to accept Christ as our Lord and Savior by outside forces; hearing the Word, witnessing Christianity in action, etc..

When that happens (I believe), we are infused with the Holy Spirit who begins to influence our lives for the better. However, when we are first saved, we are novice Christians, so to speak, and we must spend time getting to know Him intimately. That we do through prayer and studying Scripture. I guess you could say that I believe that faith is a journey, not an incident. We need to constantly strengthen our faith through fellowship with God.

God bless you both.

 

[resurrection33]

The Lord speaks to us, not with words, but with thoughts. He fixes our problems and takes care of us, when we allow him to.

These are a couple of reasons why I believe.

 

[Zossima]

Superdave, you are on the right track if you will but think through the implications of what you have said. If someone is of the faith of the apostles, the proof isn't in their having a Bible in their hands. No, the proof will be their being able to demonstrate the history of their faith from the apostles to the present time: "Apostle John taught Polycarp, who taught Irenaeus, etc., etc. who taught me" (just as an example).
The illogic of so many who claim to be apostolic it that their reasoning is circular: self, Bible, self. It always ends up back to their personal, private experiences. Your reasoning presented is not circular so long as it leads away from your personal experiences to others and backward through history to the generations which came before you (Deut. 32:7, Heb. 13:7).

the sinner, Zossima

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

Superdave,

I appreciate your emphasis on the role of Scripture. However, I think you are disparaging certain means of knowing God or believing in God that should not be disparaged..

Why do we believe this? For many, they have grown up in the church and believe it because their parents and friends do. In other words, they do not have a personal testimony.

First, I doubt that anyone holds to any belief *merely* because their parents or friends do. No one goes through a deliberative process and says "My parents (friends) believe x, so I will believe it too." So on the one hand this looks like a caricature.

But I think what you're getting at might be something like this: their parents (friends) told them that Jesus died for their sins and that God exists and the person simply believed it was true. I'm sure many people, especially children, become Christians in a manner similar to this. However, I've never really understood why it is that some people (mostly atheists, but some Christians) want to disparage this sort of belief. For one thing, it looks like a genetic fallacy. But why think that believing something because it strikes you as true is wrong? This is how we operate all the time. When someone first told us that a place called China existed, we didn't take a skeptical stance until it was proven to us with extensive evidence (or any evidence at all). Rather, the person who told us was sincere, credible, and it seemed true when we first heard it. So what's wrong with that? Nothing that I can see.

To say that a person believes something because they were brought up believing it doesn't logically entail that the person therefore doesn't have a personal testimony. A person can come to believe in God and Jesus because their parents told them about God and Jesus and also have a personal testimony.

After all, what is it about believing the gospel, because your parents told you the gospel, that is supposed to discredit the belief? Does this mean that believing the gospel because a pastor, evangelist, friend, husband, wife, told you about the gospel also means we don't have a personal testimony? Or does it mean that a person's belief is less virtuous because it was obtained in this way? I doubt anyone would want to say this, since the vast majority of our beliefs are acquired in the same manner.

My theory is that this whole "You just believe it because your parents told you so" critique is a line that atheists have tried to force upon theists, making them believe that they need some extraordinary evidence or proof in order to be Christian. It also goes back to a foundationalist epistemology where the with the naive view that "everything requires evidence." Unfortunately, many Christians have implicitly accepted the atheist's epistemology and so they disparage believing in God simply because, when they first heard about God, it seemed true to them.

But for those who do have a personal testimony, why do they believe? Many will say that they had a miraculous experience which proves God's (biblical) existence. Really? There are millions of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and others who will claim the same.

So what? That doesn't undercut my experience. If the Holy Spirit bears testimony to the truth of God and God's word to believers, how does a Muslim's false claim undercut the witness of the Holy Spirit's true claim? Contrary claims can be made regarding anything, but the simple fact that a claim to the contrary is made doesn't undercut the claim it is contradicting. (Otherwise, I can undermine all beliefs by simply asserting the contrary.)

Furthermore, the Christian worldview is robust enough that it can explain and even predict the occurrence of such non-Christian experiences (e.g. Satan appearing as an angel of light.) So the Christian doesn't even need to doubt that a Muslim or a Jew actually experiences something, even something miraculous or supernatural. I, for example, don't doubt that Muhammad had a supernatural experience in the cave. But I do doubt the nature and origins of that experience.

Supernatural experiences are part of the normal furniture in a Christian worldview, so I find it a bit odd when Christians have an a priori skepticism of supernatural claims from both Christians and non-Christians.

For me, I have experienced these things as well, but how do I know that it is the God of the bible that is working in my life?

If you know God and you know the Bible and you have the witness of the Holy Spirit, then the question looks irrelevant.

Look, I happen to know for a fact that your real mom was abducted by aliens when you were 10 and the lady you think was/is your mom after the age of 10 was/is actually an android created by the aliens to imitate your real mom.

Well, are you worried right now? Did I cause you to doubt the identity of your mom? I doubt it. But why not? Or imagine this:

Say you are walking down the street and some stranger comes up to you and shows you a picture of a house. You've never seen the house before, but the stranger tells you that this is your house that you are living in right now. You tell him that this isn't your house. But he says "How do you know? I've seen you living in this house in the picture for the last 5 years."

Maybe you can't think of any good arguments as to why that isn't your house in the picture or why your mom wasn't an alien for most of your childhood, but does this mean you don't know which house is yours or who your mom is? Of course not. Your experiences in these instances are so strong that they overwhelm any claim to the contrary. The types of claims made in these hypothetical scenarios are rightly dismissed as absurd, because your own experiences and perceptions provide you with a rational foundation for maintaining your beliefs and dismissing the contrary claims with no epistemic angst.

I think most Christians have the same sort of experience regarding God. They know God, they know the Bible, and they have the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit. This is perfectly legitimate and their experiences here provide such a strong foundation for their beliefs that they can't be undermined simply be pointing out that other people disagree.

None of this means that your beliefs are indubitable. Nor is this the final word on the matter, in the sense that the Christian and the Muslim must arrive at a stalemate because they both just have their experiences. But what it does mean is that Christians can believe in God and be perfectly rational in maintaining that belief simply because they've experienced his love or because they've recognized Scripture as his word. In other words, it's okay to be a Christian and not be an apologist at the same time. Sophie the Wash-woman's faith and knowledge of God is no less robust than that of Ravi Zacharias. Joe the Plumber, who came to Christ as a 7 year old child because his mom shared with him the gospel, can know God (and be rationally justified in that knowledge) just as much Anthony the Apologist and he (Joe) can achieve that without all the fancy arguments of Anthony Apologist.

 

[superdave5221]

Superdave,

I appreciate your emphasis on the role of Scripture. However, I think you are disparaging certain means of knowing God or believing in God that should not be disparaged..



First, I doubt that anyone holds to any belief *merely* because their parents or friends do. No one goes through a deliberative process and says "My parents (friends) believe x, so I will believe it too." So on the one hand this looks like a caricature.

But I think what you're getting at might be something like this: their parents (friends) told them that Jesus died for their sins and that God exists and the person simply believed it was true. I'm sure many people, especially children, become Christians in a manner similar to this. However, I've never really understood why it is that some people (mostly atheists, but some Christians) want to disparage this sort of belief. For one thing, it looks like a genetic fallacy. But why think that believing something because it strikes you as true is wrong? This is how we operate all the time. When someone first told us that a place called China existed, we didn't take a skeptical stance until it was proven to us with extensive evidence (or any evidence at all). Rather, the person who told us was sincere, credible, and it seemed true when we first heard it. So what's wrong with that? Nothing that I can see.

To say that a person believes something because they were brought up believing it doesn't logically entail that the person therefore doesn't have a personal testimony. A person can come to believe in God and Jesus because their parents told them about God and Jesus and also have a personal testimony.

After all, what is it about believing the gospel, because your parents told you the gospel, that is supposed to discredit the belief? Does this mean that believing the gospel because a pastor, evangelist, friend, husband, wife, told you about the gospel also means we don't have a personal testimony? Or does it mean that a person's belief is less virtuous because it was obtained in this way? I doubt anyone would want to say this, since the vast majority of our beliefs are acquired in the same manner.

My theory is that this whole "You just believe it because your parents told you so" critique is a line that atheists have tried to force upon theists, making them believe that they need some extraordinary evidence or proof in order to be Christian. It also goes back to a foundationalist epistemology where the with the naive view that "everything requires evidence." Unfortunately, many Christians have implicitly accepted the atheist's epistemology and so they disparage believing in God simply because, when they first heard about God, it seemed true to them.



So what? That doesn't undercut my experience. If the Holy Spirit bears testimony to the truth of God and God's word to believers, how does a Muslim's false claim undercut the witness of the Holy Spirit's true claim? Contrary claims can be made regarding anything, but the simple fact that a claim to the contrary is made doesn't undercut the claim it is contradicting. (Otherwise, I can undermine all beliefs by simply asserting the contrary.)

Furthermore, the Christian worldview is robust enough that it can explain and even predict the occurrence of such non-Christian experiences (e.g. Satan appearing as an angel of light.) So the Christian doesn't even need to doubt that a Muslim or a Jew actually experiences something, even something miraculous or supernatural. I, for example, don't doubt that Muhammad had a supernatural experience in the cave. But I do doubt the nature and origins of that experience.

Supernatural experiences are part of the normal furniture in a Christian worldview, so I find it a bit odd when Christians have an a priori skepticism of supernatural claims from both Christians and non-Christians.



If you know God and you know the Bible and you have the witness of the Holy Spirit, then the question looks irrelevant.

Look, I happen to know for a fact that your real mom was abducted by aliens when you were 10 and the lady you think was/is your mom after the age of 10 was/is actually an android created by the aliens to imitate your real mom.

Well, are you worried right now? Did I cause you to doubt the identity of your mom? I doubt it. But why not? Or imagine this:

Say you are walking down the street and some stranger comes up to you and shows you a picture of a house. You've never seen the house before, but the stranger tells you that this is your house that you are living in right now. You tell him that this isn't your house. But he says "How do you know? I've seen you living in this house in the picture for the last 5 years."

Maybe you can't think of any good arguments as to why that isn't your house in the picture or why your mom wasn't an alien for most of your childhood, but does this mean you don't know which house is yours or who your mom is? Of course not. Your experiences in these instances are so strong that they overwhelm any claim to the contrary. The types of claims made in these hypothetical scenarios are rightly dismissed as absurd, because your own experiences and perceptions provide you with a rational foundation for maintaining your beliefs and dismissing the contrary claims with no epistemic angst.

I think most Christians have the same sort of experience regarding God. They know God, they know the Bible, and they have the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit. This is perfectly legitimate and their experiences here provide such a strong foundation for their beliefs that they can't be undermined simply be pointing out that other people disagree.

None of this means that your beliefs are indubitable. Nor is this the final word on the matter, in the sense that the Christian and the Muslim must arrive at a stalemate because they both just have their experiences. But what it does mean is that Christians can believe in God and be perfectly rational in maintaining that belief simply because they've experienced his love or because they've recognized Scripture as his word. In other words, it's okay to be a Christian and not be an apologist at the same time. Sophie the Wash-woman's faith and knowledge of God is no less robust than that of Ravi Zacharias. Joe the Plumber, who came to Christ as a 7 year old child because his mom shared with him the gospel, can know God (and be rationally justified in that knowledge) just as much Anthony the Apologist and he (Joe) can achieve that without all the fancy arguments of Anthony Apologist.

Thank you for your comments. The purpose of this question was not to promote debate, but just to get input on people's beliefs.

Two comments however. As far as believing because of parents/friends, this may be OK as a ten year old. But when you get baptised and buried with Jesus Christ, you need to have your own testimony, and have a reason for doing what you are doing. The reason for so many lukewarm Christians, I believe, is that they don't have their own testimony. And like the house build on the sand, the first storm to arise, and they have fallen. What did God say about lukewarm worshipers? I would not want Jesus telling me on judgement day, I knew your father, but I didn't know you.

Second, when evangelizing, what do you tell an LDS person, or a Muslim who says, my God performs miracles too? Is it the same God? Why should they accept the real God when the basis you are giving them is not unique? We don't want to lose a single child of God because we are too lazy to learn and thus be able to teach the things that separate the real God, from the gods of this world. And what really separates them is found in the testimony of the Holy Scriptures.

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

As far as believing because of parents/friends, this may be OK as a ten year old. But when you get baptised and buried with Jesus Christ, you need to have your own testimony, and have a reason for doing what you are doing.

You assume that "because the gospel seemed true to me when my parents told me" isn't a good reason. But why not? If God opened your heart to believe the gospel, like he did for Lydia when Paul was preaching to her, why is that not a sufficient reason? Did Paul also have to give Lydia the cosmological argument or something like that first?

Why is it ok for a ten year old to believe something because it strikes him as true, but not ok for a twenty year old to believe something because it strikes him as true? In fact, this what we all do all the time... whether you are 10, 30, or 60. You hear a story on the news and you believe it without going through any rational or skeptical process. Why? Because it struck you as true. Does this mean you don't have your "own testimony" for why you believe these things?

What does that even mean: "your own testimony"? A person's testimony doesn't need to contain any rational arguments and rebuttals for why he believes what he does... A person's testimony only needs to be *that* he believes such and such: I believe that Jesus died for my sins and was raised to life so that I might have new life with him.

Are you suggesting that people need to be grilled on *why* they happen to have that belief? What if someone were to say "I believe that because of the cosmological argument: everything needs a cause, the universe needs a cause... etc. etc."? Would the inquisitor then grill the subject on how he misstated the cosmological argument? "Sorry, sir, but the premise "everything needs a cause" is faulty and so I'm afraid you don't have testimony that passes our test. Come back when you're a real Christian."

That's just absurd. But what else could you possibly be looking for besides a confession of faith? Why does it matter whether they believe it because it seemed true when they first heard it from their parents or their friends or whether they believe it because some guy on the street gave them a fancy argument?

The reason for so many lukewarm Christians, I believe, is that they don't have their own testimony.

I don't know. I'm not sure exactly what you have in mind by "their own testimony". If they believe the gospel, that's their testimony. What more do they need?

Second, when evangelizing, what do you tell an LDS person, or a Muslim who says, my God performs miracles too? Is it the same God? Why should they accept the real God when the basis you are giving them is not unique?

First of all, I wouldn't necessarily use miracles as a proof for God. I didn't say that anyone should use miracles to prove God's existence. I also didn't say that someone should use "the Holy Spirit told me so" in a debate. In fact, nothing I said was meant to be relevant to showing Christianity to be true. All that I said was relevant to knowing Christianity to be true. But these aren't the same thing. I can know something is true without being able to show that it is true. And my foundation for knowing something to be true doesn't have to be my foundation for showing something to be true.

In certain contexts and with certain miracles it may be okay to use them as an argument. For instance, take Moses and Pharaoh (since that narrative is on my mind right now). Moses performed a miracle in having his staff turn into a snake. But the Egyptians did the same thing. So were they at a stalemate? Not exactly, for Moses' snake/staff swallowed up the snake/staffs of the Egyptians. This was a demonstration that his power was greater than that of the Egyptians. Now we could go on here and try to draw out the contexts in which miracles could be properly used and what the proper conclusions would be to their use, but that's not immediately relevant to the point I was making, which was about knowing God.

 

[Jaynee]

Why do we believe this? For many, they have grown up in the church and believe it because their parents and friends do. In other words, they do not have a personal testimony.

Many will say that they had a miraculous experience which proves God's (biblical) existence. Really? There are millions of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and others who will claim the same. Many will say that they experience God's providence in their lives. Do not most other religions claim the same? For me, I have experienced these things as well, but how do I know that it is the God of the bible that is working in my life?


Now, I am not limiting God. I am not saying that He cannot appear in person (theophany) and instruct us, as was done in the O.T. I am not saying that we cannot have visions or even hear him audibly. I am not saying that Holy Spirit cannot instruct us personally. I am saying that in these last days, God has chosen to reveal Himself through His Holy Scriptures, (with the aid of Holy Spirit). I don't believe it is possible in these latter days to know God without the witness of His special revelation, found in the bible.

Hi SuperDave,

A well thought out post with numerous points that hit the nail right on the head. The above excerpts from your message were especially meaningful to me. I would only hope that other CC members, upon reading your words, will find food for reflection that resonates with them as well. Thank you and blessings - Jaynee

 

[superdave5221]

You assume that "because the gospel seemed true to me when my parents told me" isn't a good reason. But why not? If God opened your heart to believe the gospel, like he did for Lydia when Paul was preaching to her, why is that not a sufficient reason? Did Paul also have to give Lydia the cosmological argument or something like that first?

If God opened your heart, then you have a personal testimony. It is not based on someone else. Where is the argument?

Why is it ok for a ten year old to believe something because it strikes him as true, but not ok for a twenty year old to believe something because it strikes him as true? In fact, this what we all do all the time... whether you are 10, 30, or 60. You hear a story on the news and you believe it without going through any rational or skeptical process. Why? Because it struck you as true. Does this mean you don't have your "own testimony" for why you believe these things?

And this is how many are deceived. I used the number ten as an age when a child can decide on their own about such things. It could be older or younger depending on maturity. Many are deceived in our society because they make no effort to determine the truth for themselves. That is why you hear many "truths" that are clearly unbiblical. Satan knows this, and that is where he is winning the battle. It's about commitment. Do you want to go through the motions, or have a life changing relationship with Jesus Christ? You can tell me about Aunt Tilda till the cows come home, but until I have met her, and talked with her, I will never have a relationship with her.

What does that even mean: "your own testimony"? A person's testimony doesn't need to contain any rational arguments and rebuttals for why he believes what he does... A person's testimony only needs to be *that* he believes such and such: I believe that Jesus died for my sins and was raised to life so that I might have new life with him.

Are you suggesting that people need to be grilled on *why* they happen to have that belief? What if someone were to say "I believe that because of the cosmological argument: everything needs a cause, the universe needs a cause... etc. etc."? Would the inquisitor then grill the subject on how he misstated the cosmological argument? "Sorry, sir, but the premise "everything needs a cause" is faulty and so I'm afraid you don't have testimony that passes our test. Come back when you're a real Christian."

That's just absurd. But what else could you possibly be looking for besides a confession of faith? Why does it matter whether they believe it because it seemed true when they first heard it from their parents or their friends or whether they believe it because some guy on the street gave them a fancy argument?

Of course it's absurd. You are playing devil's advocate with a serious topic. My point is that if we are to wins souls for Christ, (throught the power of Holy Spirit of course), we must know what we believe and why we believe it. Pauls said as much, "always have a reason for the hope that you have". Non Christians are not going to believe because of how you "feel". They want to know why.

I don't know. I'm not sure exactly what you have in mind by "their own testimony". If they believe the gospel, that's their testimony. What more do they need?



First of all, I wouldn't necessarily use miracles as a proof for God. I didn't say that anyone should use miracles to prove God's existence. I also didn't say that someone should use "the Holy Spirit told me so" in a debate. In fact, nothing I said was meant to be relevant to showing Christianity to be true. All that I said was relevant to knowing Christianity to be true. But these aren't the same thing. I can know something is true without being able to show that it is true. And my foundation for knowing something to be true doesn't have to be my foundation for showing something to be true.

In certain contexts and with certain miracles it may be okay to use them as an argument. For instance, take Moses and Pharaoh (since that narrative is on my mind right now). Moses performed a miracle in having his staff turn into a snake. But the Egyptians did the same thing. So were they at a stalemate? Not exactly, for Moses' snake/staff swallowed up the snake/staffs of the Egyptians. This was a demonstration that his power was greater than that of the Egyptians. Now we could go on here and try to draw out the contexts in which miracles could be properly used and what the proper conclusions would be to their use, but that's not immediately relevant to the point I was making, which was about knowing God.

The above makes no sense at all. Muslims would agree with the above but it would do nothing to change their minds about Christ. We have to be able to show the historical accuracy of the gospel events. That God actually sent His Son, that He actually lived, that his sayings recorded in the gospels were actually spoken, and that He died on a cross, and was raised from the dead. As Paul said, if Christ is not risen, then we hope in vain. If you want to be lazy, and tell someone your testimony and hope that Holy Spirit will move them to believe and be saved, then God bless you. I hope that happens. But if it doesn't, what then. Do you just give up and that soul? God expects more of us. Much more.

 

[superdave5221]

Hi SuperDave,

A well thought out post with numerous points that hit the nail right on the head. The above excerpts from your message were especially meaningful to me. I would only hope that other CC members, upon reading your words, will find food for reflection that resonates with them as well. Thank you and blessings - Jaynee

Thank you Jaynee. I get really frustrated with people who think that their commitment to Jesus Christ consists of going to church on sunday. We are supposed to commit our lives to Him, and yet most people commit only what they can get away with and still be members of the country club church, many times for social reasons only. There are so many lost and lonely people out there and it is a terrible thing that any should remain lost. God bless you in your relationship with Christ!

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

If God opened your heart, then you have a personal testimony. It is not based on someone else. Where is the argument?

You are implying that someone coming to believing the gospel because their parents shared it with them means that their faith is "based on" someone else (other than God?). Where is *your* argument for that? My argument against your position was a reductio ad absurdum: Your position leads to the absurd conclusion that, for instance, anyone who comes to believe the gospel because of what the pastor says while they are sitting in church means they have no "personal testimony".

In order to get around that absurdity, you can just say that God opens the person's heart as they hear the preaching of the preacher. But conceding that a person can have a personal testimony if God opens the heart is to give up the point here, since I can now say that you don't know that God isn't using the parent's (or friend's) teaching as a means of opening up their heart.

This is all ignoring the fact that your idea about the proximate *origins* of a person's belief (because their parents told them) and the *basis* of a person's belief (because the truth of God was evident to them as they heard the testimony of the parents) looks confused.

And this is how many are deceived.

People are deceived in almost every conceivable manner. Lots of people are deceived even when they make an "effort to determine the truth for themselves," as you put it. So if you think the fact that people can be deceived by believing the testimony of others undermines their belief, then the fact that people can even be self-deceived in determining the truth for themselves undermines your own position. So if you think this weighs against my position it weighs equally against your own.

Many are deceived in our society because they make no effort to determine the truth for themselves.

And this is how many are self-deceived.

That is why you hear many "truths" that are clearly unbiblical.

Same with people who set out to determine the truth for themselves.

Satan knows this, and that is where he is winning the battle.

Satan is winning the battle of knowledge via testimony? How do you know that? It looks to me like Satan is doing just as good a job at deceiving people who set themselves up as arbiters of truths.

It's about commitment. Do you want to go through the motions, or have a life changing relationship with Jesus Christ? You can tell me about Aunt Tilda till the cows come home, but until I have met her, and talked with her, I will never have a relationship with her.

The problem is your assumption that if I believe something because someone told me so that this means I can't have commitment or a life changing relationship with Jesus... But where is your argument for that? As I pointed out in my first post, there is no logical entailment from "I believed the gospel unquestioningly when my parents first told me about it at the age of 5" to "therefore, you don't have a commitment or life changing relationship with Jesus Christ."

My point is that if we are to wins souls for Christ, (throught the power of Holy Spirit of course), we must know what we believe and why we believe it.

Since when has this been your point? The part of your post that I criticized was not about this. In your original post you made some comments that criticized people who believed the gospel because their parents told them about it when they were children. I was criticizing your criticism of *that*.

In other words, I was criticizing your remarks regarding how people *know* God, not your remarks about how people *show* God. I made that very clear already in the last post.

But anyway, all a person needs to know to "win souls for Christ" is the gospel. The gospel is the power of God to salvation... not rational arguments.

Pauls said as much, "always have a reason for the hope that you have".

The reason for the hope you have can be as simple as: by the death of Christ I was reconciled to God and so much more, now that I have been reconciled, shall I be saved by his life (Romans 5:10). The reason for our hope is ultimately the person of Jesus Christ.

Non Christians are not going to believe because of how you "feel". They want to know why.

Non-Christians aren't going to just believe when you tell them "why" with some rational argument either. What you're saying would make more sense if all the unbeliever was lacking is some intellectual information (or some intellectual capacity).

But Scripture is very clear that this is not the case. People don't disbelieve in God because they don't have enough *reason* to believe in God (and therefore we can make them believe by giving the *reasons* or telling them *why*); rather, people disbelieve in God because of a *moral* issue: they suppress the truth in unrighteousness. So what they need is a "why" pertaining to the gospel and not a "why" pertaining to a logical argument.

The above makes no sense at all. Muslims would agree with the above but it would do nothing to change their minds about Christ.

The fact that this incident of Moses and the Egyptians wouldn't convince Muslims about Christ doesn't demonstrate that "this makes no sense at all."

For one thing, I never said that this would persuade Muslims about Christ, so I have no idea why you're even making that the criterion. I was simply giving an example of how miracles can have evidential value, even in the face of opposing miracles. I think my illustration is successful, and I don't see where you've shown it lacking or nonsensical.

We have to be able to show the historical accuracy of the gospel events. That God actually sent His Son, that He actually lived, that his sayings recorded in the gospels were actually spoken, and that He died on a cross, and was raised from the dead. As Paul said, if Christ is not risen, then we hope in vain.

In what sense do we *have to* show the historical accuracy of the gospels?? Does this mean that I can't share the gospel with someone unless I first go through a very long (and it will be very long) argument for the historical reliability of the gospels? Again, this looks absurd to me. A lot of times when witnessing to a person the historical accuracy of the gospels never even comes up as an issue... so why should I have to bring it up? Suppose I go up to a person and say "Hey, Jesus paid the penalty for sins and you need to repent and believe." and the guy says "Ok, I'm ready to believe." Should I stop this person and say "Wait a minute, you can't be ready to believe until you've heard me give an argument for the historicity of the gospels..."

So in what sense do we have to do this?

If you want to be lazy, and tell someone your testimony and hope that Holy Spirit will move them to believe and be saved, then God bless you. I hope that happens. But if it doesn't, what then. Do you just give up and that soul? God expects more of us. Much more.

I've been called a lot of things, but I've never been called lazy when it comes to making a rational defense of Christian faith... Guess there's a first for everything.

The problem is you are now talking about *showing* Christianity to be true. But that's irrelevant to my point and I made it abundantly clear in my last post that I'm talking about *knowing* Christianity to be true.

I even made that clear in my first post. I said that "I think you are disparaging certain means of knowing God or believing in God that should not be disparaged." Notice that I did not saying anything about *showing* God to be real or the gospel to be true. All along, my contention has only been that you are making the knowing process more difficult than it has to be.

A child can know God and he can come to that knowledge through what his parents teach him. And if the child becomes a man and he never learns about the arguments for the historical reliability of the gospels or any other argument he can still have a robust knowledge of God that doesn't require any supplementation, and he can even be rationally warranted in his belief.

 

[superdave5221]

You are implying that someone coming to believing the gospel because their parents shared it with them means that their faith is "based on" someone else (other than God?). Where is *your* argument for that? My argument against your position was a reductio ad absurdum: Your position leads to the absurd conclusion that, for instance, anyone who comes to believe the gospel because of what the pastor says while they are sitting in church means they have no "personal testimony".

In order to get around that absurdity, you can just say that God opens the person's heart as they hear the preaching of the preacher. But conceding that a person can have a personal testimony if God opens the heart is to give up the point here, since I can now say that you don't know that God isn't using the parent's (or friend's) teaching as a means of opening up their heart.

This is all ignoring the fact that your idea about the proximate *origins* of a person's belief (because their parents told them) and the *basis* of a person's belief (because the truth of God was evident to them as they heard the testimony of the parents) looks confused.



People are deceived in almost every conceivable manner. Lots of people are deceived even when they make an "effort to determine the truth for themselves," as you put it. So if you think the fact that people can be deceived by believing the testimony of others undermines their belief, then the fact that people can even be self-deceived in determining the truth for themselves undermines your own position. So if you think this weighs against my position it weighs equally against your own.



And this is how many are self-deceived.



Same with people who set out to determine the truth for themselves.



Satan is winning the battle of knowledge via testimony? How do you know that? It looks to me like Satan is doing just as good a job at deceiving people who set themselves up as arbiters of truths.



The problem is your assumption that if I believe something because someone told me so that this means I can't have commitment or a life changing relationship with Jesus... But where is your argument for that? As I pointed out in my first post, there is no logical entailment from "I believed the gospel unquestioningly when my parents first told me about it at the age of 5" to "therefore, you don't have a commitment or life changing relationship with Jesus Christ."



Since when has this been your point? The part of your post that I criticized was not about this. In your original post you made some comments that criticized people who believed the gospel because their parents told them about it when they were children. I was criticizing your criticism of *that*.

In other words, I was criticizing your remarks regarding how people *know* God, not your remarks about how people *show* God. I made that very clear already in the last post.

But anyway, all a person needs to know to "win souls for Christ" is the gospel. The gospel is the power of God to salvation... not rational arguments.



The reason for the hope you have can be as simple as: by the death of Christ I was reconciled to God and so much more, now that I have been reconciled, shall I be saved by his life (Romans 5:10). The reason for our hope is ultimately the person of Jesus Christ.



Non-Christians aren't going to just believe when you tell them "why" with some rational argument either. What you're saying would make more sense if all the unbeliever was lacking is some intellectual information (or some intellectual capacity).

But Scripture is very clear that this is not the case. People don't disbelieve in God because they don't have enough *reason* to believe in God (and therefore we can make them believe by giving the *reasons* or telling them *why*); rather, people disbelieve in God because of a *moral* issue: they suppress the truth in unrighteousness. So what they need is a "why" pertaining to the gospel and not a "why" pertaining to a logical argument.



The fact that this incident of Moses and the Egyptians wouldn't convince Muslims about Christ doesn't demonstrate that "this makes no sense at all."

For one thing, I never said that this would persuade Muslims about Christ, so I have no idea why you're even making that the criterion. I was simply giving an example of how miracles can have evidential value, even in the face of opposing miracles. I think my illustration is successful, and I don't see where you've shown it lacking or nonsensical.



In what sense do we *have to* show the historical accuracy of the gospels?? Does this mean that I can't share the gospel with someone unless I first go through a very long (and it will be very long) argument for the historical reliability of the gospels? Again, this looks absurd to me. A lot of times when witnessing to a person the historical accuracy of the gospels never even comes up as an issue... so why should I have to bring it up? Suppose I go up to a person and say "Hey, Jesus paid the penalty for sins and you need to repent and believe." and the guy says "Ok, I'm ready to believe." Should I stop this person and say "Wait a minute, you can't be ready to believe until you've heard me give an argument for the historicity of the gospels..."

So in what sense do we have to do this?



I've been called a lot of things, but I've never been called lazy when it comes to making a rational defense of Christian faith... Guess there's a first for everything.

The problem is you are now talking about *showing* Christianity to be true. But that's irrelevant to my point and I made it abundantly clear in my last post that I'm talking about *knowing* Christianity to be true.

I even made that clear in my first post. I said that "I think you are disparaging certain means of knowing God or believing in God that should not be disparaged." Notice that I did not saying anything about *showing* God to be real or the gospel to be true. All along, my contention has only been that you are making the knowing process more difficult than it has to be.

A child can know God and he can come to that knowledge through what his parents teach him. And if the child becomes a man and he never learns about the arguments for the historical reliability of the gospels or any other argument he can still have a robust knowledge of God that doesn't require any supplementation, and he can even be rationally warranted in his belief.

You are reading much more into my statements than is necessary just for argument's sake. I tried to point out, but you are not seeing it, that it is not how you were introduced to God, but what you do with it. It is about commitment. For those who receive the word from their parents, that is great. It is as is should be. But you must take ownership of that relationship with Christ yourself, and commit yourself to Christ. I have seen children who continue to go to church, for social reasons, and to please their parents, and live a life that indicates a complete lack of commitment the rest of the week. Our churches are filled with such people. I am not disparaging those who truly commit themselves to Christ, and have a personal testimony. I don't know how much more plainly I can say it. It seems that you are just looking for an argument. Perhaps I should have left that part out of my comments. But you are getting yourself worked up needlessly.

 

[superdave5221]

A child can know God and he can come to that knowledge through what his parents teach him. And if the child becomes a man and he never learns about the arguments for the historical reliability of the gospels or any other argument he can still have a robust knowledge of God that doesn't require any supplementation, and he can even be rationally warranted in his belief.[/quote]

Let me put it another way. I had a friend growing up who is LDS. He is LDS because his parents are LDS. Are you happy that he is LDS because his parents taught him this way? I'm not. I would rather that he explore the bible and find out for himself that the book of Mormon is not from God. Can you see now how parent's influence can be bad, as well as good, and why you need to have your OWN testimony?

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

You are reading much more into my statements than is necessary just for argument's sake. I tried to point out, but you are not seeing it, that it is not how you were introduced to God, but what you do with it. It is about commitment. For those who receive the word from their parents, that is great. It is as is should be. But you must take ownership of that relationship with Christ yourself, and commit yourself to Christ. I have seen children who continue to go to church, for social reasons, and to please their parents, and live a life that indicates a complete lack of commitment the rest of the week. Our churches are filled with such people. I am not disparaging those who truly commit themselves to Christ, and have a personal testimony.

I agree with everything here.

Let me put it another way. I had a friend growing up who is LDS. He is LDS because his parents are LDS. Are you happy that he is LDS because his parents taught him this way? I'm not. I would rather that he explore the bible and find out for himself that the book of Mormon is not from God. Can you see now how parent's influence can be bad, as well as good, and why you need to have your OWN testimony?

But this is what I disagree with. The problem with the Mormon is not that he came to his beliefs because of what his parents taught him. As I've been saying all along, the problem is not the means by which he acquired his belief. And I don't think the fact that he came to his beliefs because of his upbringing means that he doesn't have his own testimony. Let me give an example:

Say a student goes through a rigorous science program all throughout his education. From grade school to university. And it just so happens that this student gets a group of science professors throughout his education who are Ptolemaic. When he gets to university he majors in astronomy and the professors teach him all about predicting the motions of planets using the geocentric model. They preform tests where the student will note the location of a planet and then predict its motion. Naturally, the student believes the Ptolemaic model and he even has some evidence for it: he can predict the motions of the planets (and can do so very well given some epicycles).

In this case, is the problem with the student the fact that he has gone through an education system? Should we attack schools as a means of acquiring knowledge? Do students need to supplement their schooling by, once graduating, going out into the world and rediscovering all truths for themselves (including things like what the alphabet really is, since they were most likely taught that in school (and by their parents!) too)? Would such a process of self-discovery really even be a surer basis for forming their beliefs?! Not necessarily. The newly graduated student likely wouldn't have the tools and other resources or expertise (not to mention time) to do such a thing well.

The problem is simply that the student has been taught false beliefs. The problem is not that the student has been taught, simpliciter.

Now with the Mormon example that you give, the situation becomes more complex because Scripture teaches that all men have adequate evidence to know and in fact do know the true God. This means that there will be some differences between my Ptolemaic student and your Mormon.

For one thing, most people would probably think that my Ptolemaic student holds to false beliefs at no fault of his own. He simply didn't have the means of acquiring a better system. But this wouldn't be the case for the Mormon. The Mormon should know implicitly that his belief system is deficient (e.g. that there is one God, that he cannot offer this one God anything of his own righteousness, etc.)

Furthermore, we could expand the example to talk about what these persons would be warranted in believing when confronted with counter-evidence. For instance, the Ptolemaic student may be warranted in believing his system, acquired through his education, given his information. But when presented with other information he can lose that warrant. Likewise, we might (hypothetically) say that the Mormon is warranted in his beliefs, acquired from his parents, given his situation. But when presented with other information he can lose that warrant. However, as I've already said, I think all persons are in a position to know something about the true God, enough that makes them guilty for believing in false gods.

All of this is to say that I don't think the problem with the Mormon is the means by which he acquired his belief (the testimony of his parents) and I don't think he needs to have his "OWN" testimony. He already has that. The problem is that his beliefs are false and he should know better by virtue of the knowledge and truths that are evident to all men.

 

[Slepsog4]

Jesus said, "I am the way.... no one comes to the Father except through me"

He is not merely one... he is the ONLY one.

 

[superdave5221]

I agree with everything here.



But this is what I disagree with. The problem with the Mormon is not that he came to his beliefs because of what his parents taught him. As I've been saying all along, the problem is not the means by which he acquired his belief. And I don't think the fact that he came to his beliefs because of his upbringing means that he doesn't have his own testimony. Let me give an example:

Say a student goes through a rigorous science program all throughout his education. From grade school to university. And it just so happens that this student gets a group of science professors throughout his education who are Ptolemaic. When he gets to university he majors in astronomy and the professors teach him all about predicting the motions of planets using the geocentric model. They preform tests where the student will note the location of a planet and then predict its motion. Naturally, the student believes the Ptolemaic model and he even has some evidence for it: he can predict the motions of the planets (and can do so very well given some epicycles).

In this case, is the problem with the student the fact that he has gone through an education system? Should we attack schools as a means of acquiring knowledge? Do students need to supplement their schooling by, once graduating, going out into the world and rediscovering all truths for themselves (including things like what the alphabet really is, since they were most likely taught that in school (and by their parents!) too)? Would such a process of self-discovery really even be a surer basis for forming their beliefs?! Not necessarily. The newly graduated student likely wouldn't have the tools and other resources or expertise (not to mention time) to do such a thing well.

The problem is simply that the student has been taught false beliefs. The problem is not that the student has been taught, simpliciter.

Now with the Mormon example that you give, the situation becomes more complex because Scripture teaches that all men have adequate evidence to know and in fact do know the true God. This means that there will be some differences between my Ptolemaic student and your Mormon.

For one thing, most people would probably think that my Ptolemaic student holds to false beliefs at no fault of his own. He simply didn't have the means of acquiring a better system. But this wouldn't be the case for the Mormon. The Mormon should know implicitly that his belief system is deficient (e.g. that there is one God, that he cannot offer this one God anything of his own righteousness, etc.)

Furthermore, we could expand the example to talk about what these persons would be warranted in believing when confronted with counter-evidence. For instance, the Ptolemaic student may be warranted in believing his system, acquired through his education, given his information. But when presented with other information he can lose that warrant. Likewise, we might (hypothetically) say that the Mormon is warranted in his beliefs, acquired from his parents, given his situation. But when presented with other information he can lose that warrant. However, as I've already said, I think all persons are in a position to know something about the true God, enough that makes them guilty for believing in false gods.

All of this is to say that I don't think the problem with the Mormon is the means by which he acquired his belief (the testimony of his parents) and I don't think he needs to have his "OWN" testimony. He already has that. The problem is that his beliefs are false and he should know better by virtue of the knowledge and truths that are evident to all men.

A student of science who is a Christian should know that the Word of God is true. Therefore, any supposedly scientific evidence that is contrary to that truth should be suspect. As a scientist, he must remain true to the scientific method, but in his mind and heart, know and search for evidence that will appear eventually, to vindicate God's Word.

As to the LDS, I know of another LDS who, at my urging, explored the bible, realized his mistake, and became a Christian. It is when he explored for himself, that he cast aside his father's testimony, and gained his own. Are you going to stand before Jesus Christ and say, "I only believed it because my father told me so". It kind of sounds like Adam, "the woman gave it to me".

What you are saying makes a lot of sense. But I am sorry to say, it speaks of our society today that we continue to blame others for our own lack of initiative. We all lead busy lives, but we must take time to immerse ourselves in the Word of God, and in prayer. I am not saying that we should all be apologists. That is an area that is particularly fascinating to me, but maybe not so much to others. That's OK. But we should know who and what we are. We should be able to expain our relationship to God, through Christ. We should be a light unto the world. People should know we are Christians, by the way we live and speak. How can we do this without a personal relationship with Christ?