click here to tweet this post
click here to share with your friends
subscribe to this feed
"You Ask Me How I Know He Lives . . . He Lives Within My Heart". . . And Other Stupid Statements
by C Michael PattonMay 28th, 2009
89 Comments
The longer I am in ministry, the longer I teach theology, the more I see that some things are not quite as clear as they used to be. At one time, I had pretty much everything figured out. Ministry was just about transferring this information effectively. That is the peril of theology. If you want to have it all figured out, don’t get into this business!
At the same time, there are many things that I have believed and about which I continue to grow in conviction. One of these, ironically, is the simplicity of the Christian life. The center point is really not too difficult. God wants us to believe him. Trust, belief, conviction, assurance. These are all words we use to describe this act of the will – faith.
The American Heritage Dictionary defines faith this way:
- Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
- Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
- Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one’s supporters.
- The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God’s will.
- The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
- A set of principles or beliefs.
Each one of these, in the right context, could describe some aspect of the Christian faith. But we need to go one step further in understanding this term “faith” in a particularly Christian way.
The Reformers sought to distinguish true faith from false faith. The battle cry of sola fide (justification by faith alone) demanded that they define faith in a precise manner.
As started by Luther and developed further by Melancthon and others, the understanding of faith was expressed in three separate yet vitally connected aspects: notitia, assensus, and fiducia.
1. Notitia: This is the basic informational foundation of our faith. It is best expressed by the word “content.” Faith, according to the Reformers, must have content or substance. You cannot have faith in nothing. There must be some referential, propositional truth to which the faith points. The proposition “Christ rose from the grave” or “God loves you” for example, provide a necessary information base or notitia that Christians must have.
2. Assensus: This is the assent, confidence, or assurance that we have that the notitia is correct. Here we assent to the information, affirming it to be true. This involves evidence which leads to the conviction of the truthfulness of the proposition. According to the Reformers, to have knowledge of the proposition is not enough. We must, to some degree, be convinced that it is really true. This involves intellectual assent and persuasion based upon some degree of critical thought. While notitia claims “Christ rose from the grave,” assensus takes the next step and says, “I am persuaded to believe that Christ rose from the grave.”
But these two alone are not enough, according to the Reformers. As one person has said, these two only qualify you to be a demon, for the demons both have the right information (Jesus rose from the grave) and are convicted of its truthfulness. One aspect still remains.
3. Fiducia: This is the “resting” in the information based upon a conviction of its truthfulness. Fiducia is best expressed by the English word “trust.” We have the information, we are persuaded of its truthfulness, and now we have to trust in it. Christ died for our sins (notitia). I believe that Christ died for my sins (notitia + assensus). I place my trust in Christ to save me (fiducia). Fiducia is the personal, subjective act of the will to take the final step. It is important to note that while fiducia goes beyond or transcends the intellect, it is built upon its foundation.
The Church today seems to lack #2. Nominal Christianity lacks #3. Postmodernism lacks #1 and #2.
The change occurred during the Enlightenment. Rene Descartes introduced the criteria of absolute certainty (absolute assensus) about all things. Hume responded with radical skepticism (non-assensus) about all things. Kant provided a mediating position which provided the basic framework for our current epistemology. Kant proposed that while we cannot be certain about all things, there is no reason to be skeptical about everything, either.
He relegated all knowledge into two categories: 1.) The real world, which can be known and understood through observation (the phenomenal), and 2.) that which cannot be known because it is unknowable (the noumenal). Religion and all matters concerning the knowledge of God and metaphysics were placed in the noumenal category. Kant was basically saying, you can believe in God, but you cannot believe in Him like you believe in your friends, car, or your popcorn machine. However, when you believe in God, you must understand that your belief is not based in knowledge and intellectual conviction, but in faith.
Hence came the now popular dichotomy between faith and reason. Hence rose anti-intellectualism in the church; hence came the unbiblical banishing of assensus from the Christian faith. Unfortunately, the church has bought into this Kantian philosophy and has been plagued with it for the last 200 years.
We have a song to commemorate this. You know the one? It goes like this, “You ask me how I know he lives, he lives within my heart.” In other words, I don’t have any true assensus, therefore I appeal to emotional conviction and say it is from the Holy Spirit. Indeed, it could be from the Holy Spirit, but it could just as well be self-produced or from a demon. How do you know the difference? Many in the evangelical church today have the right information (notitia) but they blindly trust in that information without considering it in a critical manner. Notitia and fiducia without assensus is blind faith.
Please do not get me wrong. I am not saying that this kind of faith cannot be real, but I am saying that it is dangerous. The more I read about those who have “walked away from the faith,” the more I see that their faith was void of this important element that solidifies the truth in their heart.
This can be illustrated by the different seeds in the Parable of the Soils. Two of the three seeds that take root (believe) fall away after a “short time” (it is interesting that we don’t know how short the “short time” is – another blog). Why do they fall away? One reason is probably because they are not really persuaded of the truth. In the end, other truths prove more convincing. Like the character “Pliable” in Pilgrim’s Progress who is never convinced of any particular truth, there are those who wander from “truth” to “truth” based upon the expediency of the day. In the end, I fear, there are many out there who, like Pliable, are really not convinced of who Christ is and what He did.
Am I saying that assensus is the most important aspect of faith? Not at all. All three are equally important. What I am saying is that it is the most neglected. When assensus is neglected, Christianity has no more legitimacy than any other worldview. This is unfortunate. While I believe every other worldview must necessarily exclude assensus to survive, Christianity is the only worldview that does not.
Similar Posts:
- “Belief is No Good Without Practice” . . . and Other Stupid Statements (Part Deux)
- Inviting Jesus into your Heart (Dan Wallace)
- "I Don't Want to Know About God, I Just Want to Know Him" . . . And Other Stupid Statements
- "I Was Going to Preach this, but the Holy Spirit Led Me to This" . . . And other Stupid Statements
- "Everyone Who Disagrees with Me is a Liar" . . . And Other Stupid Statements
89 Comments
Like or Dislike:
0
Okay dude, you are moving to the top of my blog bookmark list.
or CMP, you make me heart theology, (gush).
The last three paragraphs defined what my problem was. Thanks.
Like or Dislike:
0
I don’t mean to be deragatory, but when I read the post I was reminded of my extended family, which professes “belief” in Jesus … notitia, that is! Many are deceived in this area. They think just because they know the truth that Jesus died and rose again, they think that is faith enough. I agree that unless they come to fiducia via assensus, they are mis-guided, even deceived.
Like or Dislike:
0
I wonder if the “assensus” aspect of faith is a one time thing. I find that the assensus aspect of faith is the hardest one for me. Every so often different life experiences or just the over analytical nature of my brain cause me to more or less doubt my faith. It seems I often have to go back, examine the evidence and “re-assent”. Is faith big enough to occasionally encompass doubt?
Like or Dislike:
0
@Michael
I definitely believe that the assensus can and should fluctuate based on the information available at the time. People first believed that the world was flat because all the evidence they had at the time pointed to that conclusion. As more evidence was gathered, they came to the conclusion that the world was not flat, but round. This should be the same in our Christian lives as well. We should not be so firmly rooted to some beliefs that we defend them without question, without consideration of any new evidence. God’s truth will always prevail – but it is the quest for that truth that brings us closer to understanding.
I think this fits in perfectly with yesterdays post on the Creation/Evolution debate:
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/05/six-views-on-the-creationevolution-debate/
Like or Dislike:
0
Um, if one is a Calvinist the real and foundational reason that people “don’t have any true assensus” or “why do they fall away” is that they are not elect. If they are not elect then they are not subject to the irresistable grace of God. God either puts all three aspects of faith into one’s heart or He does not. If God does not irresistably draw someone and put all three aspects of faith into that person’s heart, then there is nothing that person can do about it, or would want to do about it (being lost in total depravity, they would not desire saving faith/ seek after God). Consequently, I fail to see how “neglect” of “assensus” is relevant, useful, or even true. Once one preaches the gospel of Jesus Christ it is up to God to draw someone irresistably to Himself. We can talk until the cows come home about assensus, but unless God gives it our hearers are never going to get it.
Regards,
#John
Like or Dislike:
1
#John,
I’m not sure how you are concluding that assensus contradicts that fact that the Holy Spirit must draw a person to the gospel. Michael said ‘this involves evidence which leads to the conviction of the truthfulness of the proposition.’. I would say the conviction is the role of the Spirit, no?
Like or Dislike:
1
Lisa R.,
? Perhaps there is some miscommunication. I’m not concluding that there is a contradiction. I’m concluding that there is irrelevancy. Assuming the truth of TULIP Calvinism, faith is entirely the work of the Spirit. There is nothing that we can do in regard to producing saving faith. Teaching, or focussing on, assensus will have no effect. If someone leaves the faith because of faulty or lacking assensus (per CMP’s illustration), it is because the Spirit did not produce in them the requisite assensus, and the Spirit did not do so because that person was not elect.
I also disagree with Michael’s mocking of the song, but I’ll leave that for another post.
Regards
#John
Like or Dislike:
0
#John, I think the Spirit of God regenarates a person, thus enabling her/him to exercise saving faith, where assensus also plays a part.
And I believe CMP was only using the song to get the point across, and was not mocking the song itself!
Like or Dislike:
0
#John,
How you arrive at faith is not the same thing as the aspects of faith once you’ve got it. The initial rush to faith (notitia) was certainly prompted by God, and in His believers, He places a thirst to know more. However, that aspect (assensus) comes from effort on our part (reading Scripture, etc), it doesn’t just arrive. This is the “renewing of our minds” part. And, as Michael writes, it is a part that is missing from a lot of churches, leading to a shallow faith that often turns out not to have been a real faith at all, or is very susceptible to corruption by false teaching. Calvin never writes that we are puppets, with God doing all the work. We are called to work out our faith, since our initial step into faith is only the first step of a long road toward sanctification, a process in which are very active participants.
Like or Dislike:
0
Note that it is CMP who ties assensus to “walking away from the faith”. That kind of faith is saving faith. It is a fundamental tenet of TULIP Calvinism that we have no work that contributes to our salvation, and that we do not even contribute our faith (as that would be a work) but that our faith is entirely from God (as a gift of his mercy and grace).
Regards,
#John
Like or Dislike:
0
A fine post, C. Michael Patton! Dallas Willard’s latest would be a good explication upon the introductory material you present here on the nature of faith. See his Knowing Christ Today.
Also, consider my lecture, given in Budapest, 2005, Faith and Reason: Friends or Foes?.
Like or Dislike:
0
I don’t know if it’s because I haven’t had my coffee yet or if I’m suffering from the curse of being a Lutheran, but I read this post and saw it riddled with works.
#John,
The same goes for Lutherans. Faith is a work of the Holy Spirit, it is not a work I can do.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael, I really enjoyed this blog. I have never heard faith explained and broken down like this. It gives me much more clarity now. Thank You!
I can see for myself how I began in my Christian walk in notitia. I really had nothing to base my belief on other than what someone had told me about Christ and His salvation. I had not experienced anything yet that would allow me to move into Assensus. A true revelation and conviction of sin living in me came many years later. With this brought the persuasion I lacked to really know that I needed Christ as my Savior. Yet again it would be years before I totally trusted (fiducia). (I have heard the word surrendered to explain this part of faith too.) I believe this came through study and prayer and it too was a revelation and a conviction from God, that I was not totally trusting Him. I came to a point where I had to cross the line into fiducia. As I submitted to God I found myself placed upon a solid foundation I could rest on. Now, I believe God had orchastrated and prepared all of the ways that lead me up to the revelations and convictions I needed to secure in me the foundation of total fiducia. I also believe that those who have stepped into notitia have a responsibilitly to make thier calling and election sure as they seek God and prove His perfect will. There are too many people that are at the point of notitia who do not take what they have believed intellectually and allow it to penetrate their hearts. God says you will seek Me and find Me, when you seek me with all your heart. I believe our faith grows from a mustard seed and as God reveals Himself to us and we surrender to His will we will come to the point fudica.
Like or Dislike:
0
John the “Calvinist” follower…
Can we receive notitia, assensus and fiducia when we believe and yet not have a full revelation and knowledge of the substance of that faith that eventually leads us to truly trust ?
Like or Dislike:
0
I see the same confusion here as # John does regarding what has been said here about faith and the very much stressed point in Calvinism that it is God that gives us that faith as a gift of mercy and it has nothing to do with us. Maybe we are both missing something here, but that has come across loudly and clearly in discussions on Calvinism.
Like or Dislike:
0
Is it works when we are told to make every effort supplement our faith with virtue, knowledge, self control,steadfastness, godliness,botherly affections, and with love? If these are ours and are increasing they keep us from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Like or Dislike:
0
Sherry,
I have never thought it was (# 16). However, it seems to me that things I don’t consider works are considered so by Calvinists. That is my whole point.
Like or Dislike:
0
Dude! You’re dissin’ my song! Whassup with that? I have a great bluesy arrangement in 12/8 – think Stevie Ray – I play it every Easter, and every Easter the old folks go away shaking their heads. It’s awesome. And now you got me questioning the theology. Dude!!!
You can’t judge a song by the hook. Pay attention to the verses and I think you’ll see it covers all three of your essentials. In verse 1 we find “I see his hand of mercy, I hear his voice of cheer” Those are statements of evidence (maybe a little subjective, but still..)and therefore assensus. In verse 2 we have “In all the world around me I see his loving care” (more evidence/assensus) and “though my heart grows weary, I never will despair (fiducia), “I know that he is with me through all the stormy blast” (notitia).
If you’re gonna pick at the theology in a much-loved song, choose one that deserves it, like “In the Garden.” Or maybe something by U2.
Like or Dislike:
0
I do agree that our faith and our salvation are gifts from God we do not come to a revelation of them in any way on our own, but it seems we have a certain responsibility to participate in the working it out part through the help of the Holy Spirit…Work out your salvation with fear and trembling.
Like or Dislike:
0
I applaud Sherry N’s growth in the faith, and have experienced the same sort of things.
I suggest, though, that Sherry N. has related her experience to the threefold faith framework of notitia, assensus and fiducia in a manner that compartmentalizes them more than necessary and does not adequately relate the various aspects of faith to her own faith as it grew. If Sherry had enough initial faith to go to church and praise God, then that indicates not only knowledge, but also assent that it is true, and enough reliance on it that she would trust it enough to worship in public. Perhaps only a little assensus and fiducia, but sufficient for her to act on her notitia.
What I have found happens is that God continually exposes more areas of our life and being where we don’t act in dependence on and trust in him. These exposures can result in small jumps or big leaps in our faith growth. Sometimes so large that it seems by comparison that we did not have any faith before.
Regards,
#John
Like or Dislike:
0
I do believe that our testimony is a very valid point in witnessing. Our faith is part of that. Our testimony should be based on the scriptures we are using to witness. A shrewd skeptic may not consider your testimony but most people will not dispute you when you talk about how Christ changed your life and that it is based on faith but God does reveal Himself to you and you can reassure others that He will make Himself known to them.
Like or Dislike:
0
John
Yes, maybe I did over compartmentalize explaining my experience it was not my intention. It is just very hard to put words to my experience. Thank you for bringing that out.
I do want to say that I am not sure at that point if it was faith that pressed me to church and to praise God or that it was more of “it was what I was suppose to do as a new Christian”. Maybe there was some faith involved as you said… but very little. It seems to me I just followed what everyone was doing or told me I should do without any real connection to the reason why. My knowledge was based on others knowledge not my own.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael,
Very good insights about the different soils which the seed falls on. The parable of the sower and soils has befuddled me since I first read it in 1983. And I have seen it happen in each of those soils many times, although you can only tell which soil it was in hindsight. Wow, great post!
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP,
Great post. What a terrific overview.
Like or Dislike:
0
Do we see here any signs that Michael may someday relax some of his strict TULIP positions?
Like or Dislike:
0
I had written a longer comment with quotations of the verse but I accidentally closed my browser, so this summary will have to do. Look at Jesus’ preaching, look at what the gospels say Jesus sent the apostles to preach during his earthly ministry, and you will see most of the emphasis is on repentance. Look at what God says in the cloud on the mount of transfiguration “This is my beloved son: HEAR him.” Look especially at the sermon Peter preaches in Cornelius’ house in Acts 10 and that Paul preaches in Acts 17, and at the parables of Christ in which Christ is depicted as Judge. The message of both Peter and Paul is that Jesus’ resurrection was done to prove him to be Judge and to indicate that you need to repent. In Acts 24 Paul reasoned with Felix of “of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come,” undoubtedly because Christ is Judge. In John 5:29 Jesus says those who have done good will be raised to eternal life, those who have done bad to eternal damnation. He says the Father has committed all the judging to the Son, and yet he also says that for those who reject his words (John 12:47) he will not judge personally but the words he has spoken will be the true judges.
In Romans 14:10 Paul says “for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ and in 2 Cor 5:10 “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.”
What’s the point? This is what is missing in faith today. Everyone seems to believe in all or nothing salvation. The Judgment seat of Christ for Christians is gone, they think. The need to repent for Christians is gone, they think. Yet Jesus tells a parable in Luke 12:42-49 in which three servants are pictured. One is cut in pieces and given his portion with the unbelievers. (This shows that ‘servants’ in the parable means ‘believers.’) The next is beaten with MANY stripes. The next is beaten with few stripes. But everyone today says its either 100% scott-free frolicking in heaven or 100% broiling in hell. They fail to realize that even the saved can be beaten with many stripes. But what’s worse, they fail to see that even a believer can be given his portion with the unbelievers if he refuses to live as a true Christian, for “if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?”
Faith in Christ, faith in his death, burial and resurrection, is also faith in what that means: God raised him from the dead to show that he will be the Judge! The voice of God from the bright cloud says “This is my beloved Son: HEAR him.” Hear him, for he is the Judge. OBEY his doctrine, for his words will Judge you in the end. And He is “the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;” (Hebrews 5:9)
Like or Dislike:
0
“I fail to see how ‘neglect’ of ‘assensus’ is relevant, useful, or even true. Once one preaches the gospel of Jesus Christ it is up to God to draw someone irresistably to Himself.”
I just love how Cavinism blames God for men’s failures. (sarcasm) Maybe this post is proof that it isn’t God’s fault that men fail, because men have free-will. A novel concept I know, but less blasphemous nonetheless.
Like or Dislike:
0
While I was in the bible this morning, I came across this verse Ephesians 3:17
“so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith”
This is a pretty simple statement… even a child could understand.
Where does Jesus live you ask? Faith says… He lives within in my heart! How do I know He lives in my heart? …The bible tells me so!
Like or Dislike:
0
Sherry, the issue is not that Christ does not dwell in our hearts but how is it that He comes to dwell in our hearts. And that is the point I think Michael is trying to make. Is it enough to say He lives there because the Bible tells me so? Or does He dwell in our hearts because of what we have accepted as truth and placed trust in based on the facts presented? Consider what Eph 3:17 is saying in context of the whole chapter and I actually, I would say the whole book. We Gentiles, who were once excluded from the promises of God, can be strenghtened in the inner man because of what God has granted to us through Christ. So when Paul commends Christ dwelling in our hearts it is based on everything he previously said and our acceptance of its truthfulness.
Like or Dislike:
0
““You Ask Me How I Know He Lives . . . He Lives Within My Heart” And Other Stupid Statements” (Title)
I think the meaning of this statement (which you call stupid) is that I haven’t seen him nor “touched him” nor “handled him” like the apostle John (1st John 1:1) nor have I “seen in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails” as Thomas did, nor have I had a vision on the road to Damascus like Paul professes, but that I believe nonetheless, as Jesus Himself says to Thomas “Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed” (John 20:29) and that I know he is alive, not so much by the wrangling arguments of historians as by the reality of the effect he has on my life, how “he has changed me completely, a new life he gave…” to quote another such song.
Like or Dislike:
0
To the wrangling arguments of historians can be added “the fear-mongering of theologians.” Most who truly believe do so for a perceived impact Jesus has had on their lives not because of historical data or threats of hell. Fact is those who say they know he lives because he’s in their heart are probably stronger in true faith than anyone here.
Like or Dislike:
0
Folks:
A confluence of “evidences” should be considered re: the nature of faith. Personal experiences or the “reality of the effect[s]” are one among many reasons to believe that something is true. To quote a dead guy (B. B. Warfield to be exact) we should allow “the avalanche of the evidence” to have its way with us. “Historians’ wranglings,” philosophers’ musings, as well as personal experience can all converge to form a belief. No matter how much I believe something is true, without sufficient empirical and/or philosophical evidence to support that belief, then it borders on mere superstition. Put differently, reality is indifferent to how strongly I hold a belief. We must insist on thinking matters out to their logical conclusions, not shying away from what my be around the next logical corner (philosophy) and take into account the best testimonies of witnesses (history). When the “reality of the effect” on my life comports with these other lines of evidences, then I can have relative certainty my belief is true. This is not to say that one line of evidence has priority over the other, but that all three are sufficient to form a true belief.
Like or Dislike:
0
Hey Rey,
Go get a dictionary, look up “blasphemous” and use it correctly.
And, I completely agree with your interpretation of the song.
Like or Dislike:
0
Paul, it almost sounds like you are redefining “faith” as “sight” when you speak of “avalanche of evidence.” the only time (unless I am mistaken) that the Bible speaks of “evidence” with respect to “faith” is when Hebrews (11:1) says that “faith…is the evidence of things unseen” not that it is based on evidence but that it itself is the evidence. Certainly that statement defies logic on some level, and yet the reality must be faced that you cannot PROVE Jesus’ resurrection by whipping out the evidence of a video which God has not seen fit to provide, or hundreds of signed affidavits. Sure Paul says 500 brethren saw him, but he provides no names, no letters of sworn testimony. The gospel writers also do not themselves write like eyewitnesses (in first person) but only as men who have heard from eyewitnesses. After all, how could anyone be a witness of the virginity of Mary prior to Jesus’ birth but Joseph her husband? In the end if your view is that true faith must be proven then you will never have true faith in the sense of Hebrews 11. Believing in Jesus resurrection because of the moral effect Jesus has on your life is just as logical as believing because of the evidence that we do have, or rather it IS the strongest evidence we do have. After all personal evidence is always more convincing than second and third hand.
DavidZ I do know what “blasphemouse” means and blaming God for mens failures certainly fits the definition. Perhaps you need to look up the word “glory” because blaming God for mens failures certainly does not bring him any “glory.”
Typed on iPod, so please forgive typos.
Like or Dislike:
0
The New Dictionary of Theology says “Blasphemy connotes a word or deed that directs insolence to the character of God, Christian truth or sacred things.” So, that would include being irreverant or impious or having a mocking spirit. I don’t see those things in those who post here.
Of course, “blasphemouse” means being irreverant towards Mickey and Minnie.
(No offence intended, I didn’t even know it’s possible to post from an ipod. But it was great typo, I just couldn’t resist.)
Like or Dislike:
0
To the wrangling arguments of historians can be added “the fear-mongering of theologians.” Most who truly believe do so for a perceived impact Jesus has had on their lives not because of historical data or threats of hell. Fact is those who say they know he lives because he’s in their heart are probably stronger in true faith than anyone here.
What fear-mongering of theologians??? What threats of hell??? I wonder where all these anti-intellectualism characters are rising up from.
Yes, we are saved by faith. Yes, you and I have never seen or handled Jesus. BUT that does not mean that our faith is reduced to a warm feeling in the heart or a Mormon-esque burning in the bosom. The Bible, which is a written record, is given to us that we might believe and that by believing, we might have faith in Christ’s name. Pray tell, how can the heart believe what the mind rejects as false?
No. Rather, faith is a multi-faceted “action” for lack of a better word. It involves the brain, the heart, the emotions, the will, etc. Reducing it to “it feels right” is nothing more than Bible-esque wishful thinking.
Like or Dislike:
0
Rey Jacobs:
Appreciate your thoughtful reply. Exactly how does Heb. 11:1 “defy” logic? The text does not say that “faith” is the evidence but that “faith is being sure” of what we hope for. Faith in Hebrews addresses degrees of certainty.
Moreover, it seems to me that the degree of authority placed upon a particular “evidence” (personal experience, historical findings, philosophical arguments) can vary depending upon the person. You place more authority on personal experience because of the moral effects of Jesus upon your life, whereas another may place more authority upon a sound philosophical argument in God’s existence (which grounds miracles like the resurrection), or still another may find the most authority in the historical reliability of the New Testament documents (which then grounds the details about which they speak in reality, e.g., the resurrection). It does seem odd, however, (if not triumphalist) to insist upon one “evidence” as the “strongest” simply because that how it works for you. And, of course it’s not illogical for you to do so. That point was never contested.
Selah.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael has given an excellent essay on faith. However, it doesn’t address the issue raised by the hymn. It is not a ‘stupid thing’ to say that the Spirit of Jesus lives within us. How else can His Spirit bear witness with our spirit (Romans 8:16)?
Like or Dislike:
0
“Pray tell, how can the heart believe what the mind rejects as false?” (Douglas K. Adu-Boahen)
I never said it could. I am merely responding to “You Ask Me How I Know He Lives . . . He Lives Within My Heart” being called stupid. Its not always as stupid as it may sound.
Like or Dislike:
0
“Appreciate your thoughtful reply. Exactly how does Heb. 11:1 “defy” logic? The text does not say that “faith” is the evidence but that “faith is being sure” of what we hope for. Faith in Hebrews addresses degrees of certainty.” (Paul)
The text certainly does say that faith is “evidence itself”, or so in the translations I am most familiar with, the KJV and NKJV. It is in the latter part of the verse. “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Not only the NKJV, and KJV, but also Geneva and Bishops’ Bible use the word “evidence.” I didn’t realize until your response that many modern translations do not use the word “evidence” here.
“You place more authority on personal experience because of the moral effects of Jesus upon your life, whereas another may place more authority upon a sound philosophical argument in God’s existence” — Not so, but rather I recognize that philosophical arguments proving God’s existence don’t prove anything about Jesus’ life, death, or resurrection, but only of God’s existence. For the details of Jesus’ life, we need the gospels, and indeed for Jesus’ moral impact on our life, we also need the gospels, for without them that impact would not become real. Certainly, the “authority in the historical reliability of the New Testament documents” (particularly the gospels) is of utmost importance. However, if you simply read the gospels and saw that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, (or as some might suppose, persons other than these individuals claiming to be these individuals), wrote that Jesus was resurrected, it would be utterly unconvincing unless you were first convicted of the wonderfulness of the morality that Jesus taught. I don’t believe anyone is ever first convinced that Jesus rose and then that his teaching was divine. I think it always works the other way around. There is a certain effect, an impact, that his teachings have on a person that makes them believe in the resurrection also. People don’t analyze history and say “Aha! Its proven that Jesus arose! Now I will become a Christian” unless his teachings have apprehended them. The divinity of his morality makes you want to believe that he arose. You aren’t convinced by an empty tomb that you’ve never seen, and that is identified by tradition in at least two different spots. You are convinced by the power in his words, for “No man ever spoke like this Man!” (John 7:46) Perhaps, again, I only speak for myself, but I just can’t see anyone being convinced on purely historical grounds, nor can I see anyone believing the gospels to be “historically reliable” unless they are first convinced by the power of Jesus’ words. Without first being convinced by the power of Jesus’ words, people would not consider the gospels “historically reliable” but rather would just laugh at the gospels as superstitious tales of miracles, as in fact many today do for this very reason.
Like or Dislike:
0
Rey,
Here is a problem with that morality is a sign of Christ’s power – MILLIONS of people kick their drinking habit by joining AA, yet Jesus is not the center of AA. Here in the UK, thousands of people have quit smoking thanks to government initiatives, yet Jesus is not integral to those initiatives.
To say that Jesus is alive because He changed my life is nonetheless true, but will not stand up when tested by someone who is either inquiring about the faith or is out to destroy it. There must be some concrete foundation upon which that faith is based.
Like or Dislike:
0
I’m with Sherry (post #28)! Great verse. Great point.
Regards,
#John
Like or Dislike:
0
Question for you Michael (you’d be ‘Mick’ if you lived in Australia!).
Does Romans 8:16 belong to notitia, assensus or fiducia?
Like or Dislike:
0
“Here is a problem with that morality is a sign of Christ’s power – MILLIONS of people kick their drinking habit by joining AA, yet Jesus is not the center of AA…To say that Jesus is alive because He changed my life is nonetheless true, but will not stand up when tested by someone who is either inquiring about the faith or is out to destroy it.” (Douglas K. Adu-Boahen)
Is this discussion about apologetics or about why people really believe? The impact of Christ on your life may be a weak argument in trying to convert someone but that doesn’t make it a weak reason for personal belief. If you are arguing that it is a weak reason for personal belief, then you may yourself be “out to destroy” people’s faith.
So, let me know this, Doug, if you sat down with an “avalanche of evidence” and determined that its all proven and you’re forced to believe in Jesus’ resurrection by the evidence, what was this great mass of evidence? The eyewitness accounts that are written in 3rd rather than first person and thus are clearly not eyewitness accounts at all? The references to Christ by Roman officials who are clearly only citing what is popularly believed by Christians and not reading from “official records of Rome”? The empty tomb that tradition cannot even place in one and only one spot? A personal appearance of the risen Christ to you on the road to Atlanta? The supposed infallibility of the pope? Your reason for faith, in the end, like everyone elses’ must boil down to the same subjective argument that you are arguing is weak, i.e. the impact of Christ on your life.
Like or Dislike:
0
I can point to my life as a proof, but not the final proof.
As a person gifted with logic and reason, just as yourself, I will take the evidence – the Gospels (which I believe to be the Word of God and thus 100% reliable), the fact that non-Christians such as Josephus, Tacitus, etc. all speak of one Jesus who they said actually existed, the fact of fulfilled prophecies and the mountain of remaining evidence which exists – work through that evidence and trust the Spirit of God to use that information to His glory.
My testimony is pretty simple – grew up in Christian family, saw changed lives week after week, even played in the band at church, but it didn’t move me. It took a Sunday school teacher to preach the Gospel to me before I got “it”. That was age 14. Soon, I began to realise that not everyone shared my evangelical faith and everyone just happened to have some evidence which said Christ was fake. I began to look into the evidence and it strengthened my faith, as well as helped me to contend for the faith with those who were clearly opposed to it.
Not everyone will accept the idea that, because someone’s life changed, they should be saved. Paul didn’t seem to think so – in Acts 17, he reasoned with the Greeks at Mars Hill from their own worldview and from within their intellectual understanding. Further, Paul, in speaking to Titus, uses Greek poetry to convey the truth that the Cretans to which Paul was sending Titus were far from nice people.
To say that changed lives are the final and greatest argument is a self-defeated, fideistic position. All that said, it is not the evidence that saves, nor the proof of a changed life – it is the sovereignty of God in salvation that saves a person.
P.S. I am not out to destroy peoples’ faith – I am simply out, like CMP, to get people to know what they believe and why they believe it, so they can defend it. Great for personal belief – not so great when you’re dealing with a hardcore atheist on the streets of London. If that is destroying people’s faith, you need to get out more (oh, and the Gospels were written by people who saw the events – unless of course, Peter and John lied through their teeth (2 Peter 1:16-17 and 1 John 1:1-3 respectively…)
Like or Dislike:
0
I personally think that saving faith is to be placed in Christ and not in doctrine or proposition about Him. This does not invalidate theology and the study of God’s revelation, I think all of these serve as the backdrop for the real jewel. Many people (including myself at one time) leave the faith and it is easy because it is leaving a proposition – “I no longer believe that”. But the faith that we must have, if rejected, involves “I no longer believe Him”. I have yet to hear a deconversion story about someone who felt personally betrayed by Christ and wanted nothing to do with Him.
Like or Dislike:
0
But Ruben,
If you know nothing about Him and nothing about who He is or what He has done, (which is doctrine), how can you believe in Him?
I believe that theology can be “over done” and get so detailed and intense that it becomes impractical and maybe self defeating. However, we do have to know something about Him to believe in Him. Paul did tell Timothy to watch his life and his doctrine in order to save both himself and his hearers. I Timothy 4:16
Like or Dislike:
0
“the Gospels (which I believe to be the Word of God and thus 100% reliable)” (Douglas K. Adu-Boahen)
In other words, your belief that the gospels are the word of God comes first and your belief that they are historically accurate comes second. This is my point exactly! Something about the gospels first convinces you that they are divine and then and only then do you trust their historicity. You do not first trust their historicity. Who would, after all, with all those miracles they claim happened?
Now what makes you believe the gospels to be the word of God might not be the morality there inculcated but rather a perception of fulfilled prophecy. Whatever it is, it is THAT which is your true reason for belief, not historical reliability.
Like or Dislike:
0
In other words, your belief that the gospels are the word of God comes first and your belief that they are historically accurate comes second. This is my point exactly!
Nice try – but I didn’t say that in any way, shape or form. Actually I wouldn’t put my reasons in a top-down list and I didn’t in my last comment (just listed them from memory), since all of them are pretty important. The fact that Scripture works from the pre-supposition that it is inspired would be on there. The historical reliability would be another. Yet another reason would relate to the internal consistency between the synoptic Gospels.
That said, historical reliability is a pretty strong reason. You can have everything imaginable – but if it isn’t historically reliable, why waste time? It would be nothing more than an esoteric fable than something worth living and dying for…
The fact that the Gospels contain a great moral code is neither here nor there. Several world religious texts contain those – but none are as time-tested as the Word of God.
Like or Dislike:
0
hi cheryl I do agree however what I don’t understand is how little I hear about Jesus,his life and teaching. How can we believe in him if we do not know him? We know about the logistics, the blueprints of salvation but focus so little on the one who is our salvation. In my experience, I had to unlearn a lot of theology and focus only on his life reading the gospel narratives because I realized how little I knew of him and I craved the response he gave to the people he interacted with. I wanted to know him for myself.
Like or Dislike:
0
Isaiah 7:9
“If you are not firm in faith, you will not be firm at all.”
Like or Dislike:
0
This appears to be a two edged sword so to speak; the blog is saying you must have and intelligent faith based on knowledge (I agree- this is what I read in the bible), but at the same time there has to be a point where just “faith” enters in for the uneducated, those about to die with no history in religion, the small child who believes, etc.. So is it safe to say that if faith is a gift of God, enabling one to believe, He will provide the knowledge and the proofs of who He is at the proper time; including the ability to pursue those truths with knowledge?
Like or Dislike:
0
Another comment; the bible states that we are to come to Him as little children (not clouding our faith with a lot of so called knowledge), but as someone who has walked away from God and still struggling with the leftovers of a life the I followed for years, I have come to the conclusion that I need evidence as to what it is that faith will do for me, that I cannot do for myself (besides not going to hell).
Like or Dislike:
0
A good reference on this topic from a Reformed viewpoint would be B.B. Warfield’s “On Faith in its Psychological Aspects”. In the last paragraph Warfiled emphasizes the importance of assensus.
“The central movement in all faith is no doubt the element of assent; it is that which constitutes the mental movement so called a movement of conviction. But the movement of assent must depend, as it always does depend, on a movement, not specifically of the will, but of the intellect; the assensus issues from the notitia. The movement of the sensibilities which we call “trust,” is on the contrary the product of the assent. And it is in this movement of the sensibilities that faith fulfills itself, and it is by it that, as specifically “faith,” it is “formed.”"
http://www.lgmarshall.org/Warfield/warfield_faithpsych.html
Like or Dislike:
0
Jim, what a great quote. Thanks so much for posting that. I have never seen it.
Like or Dislike:
0
So, to sum up this blog post: What B.B. Warfield said. Oh, and for those of you who don’t know B.B., shame, shame.
Like or Dislike:
0
B.B. RULES!
Like or Dislike:
0
“B.B. RULES!”
Except on macro-evolution.
Like or Dislike:
0
Jesus rules. Jesus is Lord, not B.B. Warfield. Besides that, just look at what Warfield’s view of faith actually means!
“The central movement in all faith is no doubt the element of assent…[which] must depend, as it always does depend, on a movement, not specifically of the will, but of the intellect…”
If faith depends on the intellect rather than the conscience, then all that salvation by faith could ever be is an IQ test. But if faith depends not on assent to complicated metaphysical dogmas and dubious historical claims (i.e. the ‘intellect’) but on assent to a correct moral code, then and only then can salvation be something other than an IQ test, a test of the will. And then and only then can God be just rather than a respecter of persons (i.e. theological nerds and metaphysical geeks).
Like or Dislike:
0
Rey Jacobs:
How can faith be devoid of assent?
Indeed, your very claims are ones that you assent to and believe in, are they not? If you do not give assent to your claims of faith, then in what exactly are you believing in?
Selah! (which is a hebraic way of saying “give it a rest”)
Like or Dislike:
0
“How can faith be devoid of assent?”
It can’t, but what assent does God really want? Intellectual or moral? The assent of the IQ or the conscience?
Like or Dislike:
0
“Intellectual or moral” assent?
Well, now, that would be a false dichotomy, now wouldn’t it?
Answer: Both. After all, I cannot be morally bound to what I’m am ignorant of, now can I?
UNCLE!
Like or Dislike:
0
“Both. After all, I cannot be morally bound to what I’m am ignorant of, now can I?”
Assent to morality is not driven by the intellect but the conscience. “Thou shalt not kill” shouldn’t take any intellectual work on your part to assent to. If it does, you fail the test. But “such and such historical event took place” has nothing to do with the conscience but only with either the credulity or the intellect, depending on how believable it is or is not.
Like or Dislike:
0
Rey,
Either you believe in some kind of dualism between the mind and the heart (Scripture knows no such distinction) or you are just rustling feathers on purpose.
But if faith depends not on assent to complicated metaphysical dogmas and dubious historical claims (i.e. the ‘intellect’) but on assent to a correct moral code, then and only then can salvation be something other than an IQ test, a test of the will
So God doesn’t really care for your brain? He just made you with a brain, but it serves no purpose in glorifying Him? I think not…
It can’t, but what assent does God really want? Intellectual or moral? The assent of the IQ or the conscience?
He wants both. He made you with a conscience – and he made you with a brain. BOTH are his creation. Like Paul said above in the last, it’s a false dichotomy…
Like or Dislike:
0
“He just made you with a brain, but it serves no purpose in glorifying Him?”
He didn’t equip that brain with a time-machine so we could verify dubious historical claims like that the New Testament we have now is what the apostles wrote and the Catholics didn’t add any books or interpolate them away from the original message. How do we know that Marcion’s version of Paul’s letters weren’t the original version. There’s enough evidence on both sides to make it totally doubtful, a 50/50 toss up between two competing claims. In as much as salvation depends on the IQ, salvation must only rest on only logical and not historical propositions, because we have no capacity to solve these historical inquiries with any real accuracy. Otherwise, it is nothing but a game in which we all lose in the end.
Like or Dislike:
0
Hi Chris, regarding your question about what faith can do for you other than what you can do for yourself, I came from a position of leaving the faith and being called back. To be honest it probably will give you more burdens and conflicts, but one does not come to faith with benefit or personal gain in mind. I think the best way to describe it is the way Jesus said about the man finding a pearl of great price that he sold everything he had to buy it. In Christ we find an answer to our deepest longings, at least for me it is. I was looking to satisfy something deep in me that I always wanted and pursued, I cannot describe it well enough but I associate it with the imagination and wonder I felt when I was a child as well as some experiences where I felt that life had more to it than the mundane. It is best described by C.S. Lewis as “joy”, transcendent moments that point to something greater. It has been this pursuit that drives me onwards, sometimes I sacrifice for it, sometimes I gain from it. But to ignore it would be to deny myself too much.
Like or Dislike:
0
Rey,
So in other words, Christianity could be a lie but hey, I get a warm feeling in the heart with no historical reality to it. I am bowing out of this conversation, since clearly you believe in a faith which cannot be proven – never mind the mountain of evidence to the contrary. I’m out. I will say this, though – take your theory to some of London’s most hardened atheists and see if they do not rip you to shreds…
Like or Dislike:
0
“So in other words, Christianity could be a lie but hey, I get a warm feeling in the heart with no historical reality to it.”
No. The morality is correct with or without historical accuracy.
“take your theory to some of London’s most hardened atheists and see if they do not rip you to shreds”
How exactly will those boy-lovers tear morality to shreds? It is a constant that cannot be overcome by any theory’s establishment or destruction.
Like or Dislike:
0
Morality is a constant – but you don’t need God to be moral.
So you are contented to believe in a potential lie for the sole reason that it engenders morality? Why not become a Buddhist then – they have a strict moral code and no need for historical accuracy, since they have no holy book. Atheists can point out Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, etc – all of whom have religions just like Christianity and are moral people.
It worries that you are so smugly content to believe what you concede to possibly be a lie – bear in mind, by your reasoning, Christ may well have never died or been buried or worse still, never resurrected and the Apostles, untrained fishermen with the exception of Paul, were the greatest bunch of hucksters to walk the face of creation.
How can you defend a faith you think is all possible smoke and mirrors? What really stands between you and the Buddhist? From what I read, nothing – you’re just some moralist who uses the name of Jesus. Big deal. Yawn. Whatever.
Like or Dislike:
0
I think the issue at heart is that you don’t know Jesus because you bought the lies of Paul the false apostle. In the story of the rich young ruler Jesus tells the man all he needs to be saved is to keep the moral commandments. Then the man states that he has already kept them and asks what Jesus is leaving out, what more must he do to be saved “What lack I yet?” Then Jesus, as if insulted that the man insinuates there is anything more, that he is leaving stuff out, says “If you want to be perfect” (catching the man’s true desire, not eternal life, but perfection) “go sell everything you have…” This is in Matthew’s gospel. In Luke and Mark the Paulinist have suppressed that fact that Jesus taught salvation by morality in favor of their heresy, and you have fallen prey to it along with the rest of the foolish antimoral faith onlyists who think belief in a historical dogma will save them even though they are out carousing with their neighbor’s wife (or perhaps with the man himself).
Like or Dislike:
0
And the wolf shows its true colours. Paul was a false apostle, eh? CMP, I think you might wanna watch this one. No wonder you made all those comments about the NT being a fraud…makes sense now. Dude, answer me this: If salvation is by morality, why did Christ die on the Cross for the sins of many (Matt 26:28)?
If morality saves, are Muslims in heaven now? Jews? Buddhists? Why Jesus – what makes him so special if all he taught was morality? People have been practicing morality without Jesus for a long time.
MORALITY SAVES NO-ONE – THE PERFECT WORK OF CHRIST SAVES…EVERYTIME TO EVERYONE WHO BELIEVES.
Rey, you are a WOLF. I thought you were merely deceived, but you are in fact a deceiver!
P.S. Name one true Christian who believes that because they are saved by grace, they can go and have an extramarital affair – hetero- or homosexually? You are being ridiculous…
Like or Dislike:
0
I John 3:10 ‘This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.’
So, morality is evidence that someone is a child of God, but it is only evidence—it doesn’t make one a child of God.
I John 3:24 ‘Those who obey his commands live in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us.’
So, it is by the Spirit that we know He lives in us, not by intellectual conviction.
Like or Dislike:
0
“And the wolf shows its true colours. Paul was a false apostle, eh?”
Paul was prophecies of in the Old Testament as a wolf in sheep’s clothing in the very same chapter that Jesus was prophesied of as Shiloh, the Prince of Peace. In the same chapter where it is written “The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be” we also find, “Benjamin shall ravin as a wolf: in the morning he shall devour the prey, and at night he shall divide the spoil.” (Genesis 49:27)
Now, when a wolf ravins in the morning, it kills sheep. When it divides the spoil (the carcasses of the sheep) at night, it doesn’t divide that spoil with sheep but with other wolves. Paul didn’t slay sheep early in the morning to feed them to their fellow sheep at night (as Tertullian ludicrously tries to spin it in Contra Marcion) but rather he slew sheep in the morning to divide their carcasses with his fellow wolves at night.
Paul’s convenient vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus was nothing more than a way for the wolf to become a wolf in sheep’s clothing. He was a persecutor who had an epiphany, realized he couldn’t destroy the church from outside by violence, and decided to destroy it from within by false doctrine. This is why he gets off so easily in Acts 23 when he is on trial before the Sanhedrin and cries out “I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee.” Luke puts a positive spin on this as if Paul is confessing belief in the resurrection. But clearly that’s just what Paul told Luke he was doing, and Luke not knowing the Hebrew language (that Paul spoke to the Sanhedrin in) bought the lie. What Paul was really doing was reminding them that he was only a Christian in name while still a Pharisee in reality, that he was a stealth operative of their own! That he was their man in the church to destroy it from within! They understood, and they let him go. But, being also a Herodian (“Salute Herodion my kinsman.” Rom 16:11) he held enough power with the Romans to have them mock incarcerate him to make him a pseudo-martyr and gain popularity with the church.
Paul clearly is either lying when he says to the Pharisees “I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee” if in truth he was a Christian who had counted his Pharisee status as loss and dung that he might win Christ (Phil 3:8) or he is lying to the Philippians for he is still boasting in his Pharisee status! Or, he is what the prophecy said he would be.
There is also the fact that all Asia rejected him before his death (2 Tim 1:15), which is a clear sign that he did not have the universal approval of the church that we impute to him. And it is after the Galatians begin to doubt his apostleship in preference for the pillar apostles, Peter, James, and John, and after he writes his epist
Like or Dislike:
0
wow rey
That’s a new angle or at least one I’ve never heard and I’ve heard a few.
Like or Dislike:
0
Cadis, it’s the new new perspective.
Like or Dislike:
0
Where to begin with this dude’s twisting of the Scriptures…well I guess the beginning works great.
Paul was prophecies of in the Old Testament as a wolf in sheep’s clothing in the very same chapter that Jesus was prophesied of as Shiloh, the Prince of Peace. In the same chapter where it is written “The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be” we also find, “Benjamin shall ravin as a wolf: in the morning he shall devour the prey, and at night he shall divide the spoil.” (Genesis 49:27)
Genesis 49:27 is not prophesying Paul – it is a prophecy regarding the military ability of Benjamin, this being affirmed in Judges 20:16, 1 Chron 8:40, 12:2, 2 Chr 14:8, 17:17. Nice try – but doesn’t wash…
This is why he gets off so easily in Acts 23 when he is on trial before the Sanhedrin and cries out “I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee.” Luke puts a positive spin on this as if Paul is confessing belief in the resurrection. But clearly that’s just what Paul told Luke he was doing, and Luke not knowing the Hebrew language (that Paul spoke to the Sanhedrin in) bought the lie.
I hate conspiracy theories, so I wil forego making my blood boil by responding to this tripe. BTW how do you know Luke couldn’t speak Hebrew? He was a Gentile doctor, yes – but does that mean he didn’t know any Hebrew? It’s a guess you are making, not fact.
By the way, I thought Luke was an eyewitness? Ah yes, Luke probably never existed according to your gospel of morality only…
What Paul was really doing was reminding them that he was only a Christian in name while still a Pharisee in reality, that he was a stealth operative of their own! That he was their man in the church to destroy it from within! They understood, and they let him go.
Nah, that’s why they persecuted Paul from city to city and eventually brought about his house arrest (Acts 28:16-28). Next…
But, being also a Herodian (“Salute Herodion my kinsman.” Rom 16:11) he held enough power with the Romans to have them mock incarcerate him to make him a pseudo-martyr and gain popularity with the church.
Nope, Paul was not a HerodIAN. He greets HerodION – a proper name, not a title. Is reading a little difficult for you or is this what clutching at straws actually looks like on a blog post? His use of my kinsman could mean Herodion was Jewish and hence he is greeting a fellow Jew or that Herodion was a relative of his.
Paul clearly is either lying when he says to the Pharisees “I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee” if in truth he was a Christian who had counted his Pharisee status as loss and dung that he might win Christ (Phil 3:8) or he is lying to the Philippians for he is still boasting in his Pharisee status! Or, he is what the prophecy said he would be.
(cont.)
Like or Dislike:
0
When I was on a debate team, I learnt something every important: Whoever frames the subject of debate controls where the discussion goes. By posting your three possible answers:
1. Paul was a liar
2. Paul was a liar
3. Paul was a liar
(which is what it all boils down to…), you are attempting to frame the discussion in terms of negatives, but let’s consider something for a second. What if Paul, in Acts 23, was merely confessing belief in the resurrection to exploit the Sanhedrin factions and get out of a tricky situation. I hate to say it but I’ve done that before – use the fact that I studied with all manners of cults to appeal to them on an intellectual level…
There is also the fact that all Asia rejected him before his death (2 Tim 1:15), which is a clear sign that he did not have the universal approval of the church that we impute to him.
Let’s look at 2 Tim 1:15. What is the historical context into which Paul is writing? The persecuted church. When he says that they turned away from him, they hadn’t rejected Paul as a person, but the faith under persecution. Sorry – nice try, but doesn’t work.
And it is after the Galatians begin to doubt his apostleship in preference for the pillar apostles, Peter, James, and John, and after he writes his epist…
I guess 3,000 characters caught up pretty quick.
Nowhere does it say that the Galatians doubted his apostleship. We know that the Corinthians did, hence 2 Corinthians was written, but it doesn’t say that he was at loggerheads with the original 12 apostles. In fact, it clearly says that they perceived the grace given to him and gave him their blessing! Bear in mind at this point in Galatians is writing biographically here, not asserting some macho claim to apostleship.
Rey, clearly you have deceived by someone into adopting what can only be described as a theology of smoke and mirrors, but I pray that you discover the Cross, its sufficiency to save and the reality that good works do not save anyone, but only demonstrates one’s salvation.
Like or Dislike:
0
“Let’s look at 2 Tim 1:15. What is the historical context into which Paul is writing? The persecuted church. When he says that they turned away from him, they hadn’t rejected Paul as a person, but the faith under persecution.”
There is nothing in the context to support this. And he says ALL ASIA has turned away from him. Yet clearly, all Asia did not depart from Christ, for we find Ephesus and six other churches still faithful in the Apocalypse. The book of Revelation is written after Paul writes that all Asia turned away “from me” and then we find John praising Ephesus in Rev 2:2 (at Jesus’ orders) for exposing false apostles as liars.
“Nope, Paul was not a HerodIAN. He greets HerodION – …a relative of his.” No self respecting Jew would have named his son HERODion after Herod unless he was a HerodIAN. Thus, Paul’s kinsman HerodION is a HerodIAN, which leads to the conclusion that Paul probably also is a HerodIAN which explains how he was BORN a Roman citizen and how he was so cozy with Roman officials.
“Genesis 49:27 is not prophesying Paul”. Tertullian as early as 208 (Against Marcion, Book 5) says it is, and this became part of orthodox Paulology. Your argument here is not with me but with church history.
“By the way, I thought Luke was an eyewitness?” An eye-witness who doesn’t speak Hebrew can see what’s going on in the Sanhedrin, but not hear it. He would have to believe Paul’s later account of what had been said. Also, he clearly is not an eyewitness of Paul’s vision on the road to Damascus, even if he had been one of Paul’s thugs, for the story plainly says the thugs didn’t see what Paul saw. Again, therefore, he must rely on Paul’s word and nothing more.
“Nowhere does it say that the Galatians doubted his apostleship.” He begins this epistle different from all others “Paul an apostle — not from men or though man –” and there is clearly a reason, i.e. that they were saying he was an apostle of men, i.e. that his gospel was made up by men and didn’t come from Jesus Christ. This is why he must say “nor did I receive my gospel from men” and all that type of thing, for this is what they clearly had begun to believe about him. And in spite of his Galatian letter (if not because of it) they eventually were so persuaded of this that they and ALL ASIA rejected him altogether and John the apostle praised them for exposing false apostles.
Like or Dislike:
0
1. Asia was a region in Asia Minor, not all of it. hence why there are still churches in Revelation in Asia MINOR. If they are, then how can all Asia turn from him…yet Timothy was stil in Ephesus. If John considered him a false apostle, why does Paul commend him as a pillar and a true one, saying that they (Cephas, James and JOHN) gave him the right hand of fellowship? Contradiction!!!
2. Errm so a name of another person is enough to implicate another one? Firstly, the term “kinsman” is translated countryman in other translations – i.e. Herodion was a Jew. That’s like saying, because my cousin’s middle name is Constantine (true story – not that I ever call him that LOL), I’m somehow linked to Rome.
Also, if you are born in a Roman region, do you not qualify for Roman citizenship? I’m originally from Ghana by descent, but since I was born in the UK, I have all the rights and privileges of a British citizen. Same thing here with Paul – born in Tarsus in Cilicia which was a Roman region. Next…
3. I hate it when people push the church fathers like they are infallible. Clement wrote about mythical creatures like the phoenix!!! Should I really believe that such a bird exists? Please. They were great men, but not infallible. By the way, wasn’t Tertullian the one who joined the cult of Montanism?
4. How do you know he couldn’t speak Hebrew? Chapter and verse, please. Luke was a doctor, hence an educated man – it’s not a stretch to say he could speak Hebrew. Nowhere in either the Gospels or Acts does it say that. It’s a foolish guess. Next…
5. Clearly you ain’t read 2 Corinthians, where he does the same thing, affirming his apostleship. Why? Because there were false apostles going around, teaching heresy and saying Paul was a heretic (much like you are doing), hence he defends his apostleship there as well.
Galatians is the same thing. The Judaizers were teaching, contrary to Acts 15, that the Gentiles needed circumcision to be saved, and in the process where slandering Paul, who did not teach that.
One more thing – if Paul was a false apostle, why does Peter call his writings SCRIPTURE, saying grace had been given to him (2 Peter 3:15-16)? Seems weird that a man who is a false teacher would be recommended by a pillar of the Church?
Dude, give up. You know full well that Paul taught salvation by grace alone through faith alone (which means you aren’t a Catholic), but because it doesn’t jive your love of good works, you just reject Paul out of hand. Left to me, I’d ban you from this blog so you cannot spread your blasphemy…
Like or Dislike:
0
1. You have it exactly backwards. Asia Minor is a region in Asia, hence the name minor for it is only a small part of the whole. And in the NT “Asia” is always Asia Minor. And Paul does NOT commend John as a pillar but says that the top three only “seem to be pillars” and “whatever they really are makes no difference to me.” He is demeaning them in a vain attempt to make himself an apostle in their place. His rhetoric that they accept him is nothing but subterfuge and irony, as if to say “even these who I condemn as false apostles accept my apostleship.”
2. Yes, and Herodion is his kinsman not merely countryman. Otherwise the addition of the descriptive would be superfluous.
3. It was in a time when Paul was not popular. Had Tertullian not found an OT prophecy he could spin as a positive prophecy of Paul then Paul would have never gotten off the ground and we would not be having this conversation. How unfortunate for us all, however, that the ancients were so uncritical as to accept the Benjamite wolf prophecy as confirming Paul’s apostleship (!) seeing it does the opposite.
4. Because he could not.
5. Paul speaks of false apostles only to throw you off his own trail so you will not suspect him. “Why would a false apostles warn of false apostles?” And as to 2nd Peter 3:15-16, it is inauthentic. In Tertullian’s Book 5 Against Marcion, why does he refer to the Benjamite wolf prophecy and the book of Acts to establish Paul’s apostleship and not to Peter’s epistle if it said that at that time? Peter never wrote such words. They were put in his pen at a later date.
Like or Dislike:
0
I guess it all then boils down to this: If we cannot trust anything in the new Testament, then why should I believe that Jesus told the truth? His disciples could have embellished His story above and beyond the bounds of reason. Sorry, but your message destroys faith in Christ, not builds it up.
Unless you have some contradictory belief system, you have to explain to me why I should trust ANYTHING Jesus said if the NT is such a fraud. Good luck…
Like or Dislike:
0
rey,
Isa 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
Isa 53:12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
When will Christ divide the spoil and with whom?
Could it be Christ will divide the spoil in the evening? Seeing when you are victorous that is the time to celebrate and look at what the battle won. I happen to think Paul will be included in this celebration of dividing the spoil . Paul will be celebrating in the evening ,dividing the spoil with Christ.
It is dangerous to fabricate so much from one verse such as Gen 49:27
Like or Dislike:
0
It seems that Paul’s writings are consistent with Christ’s work and message, and pretty much consistent with other NT writers. What damage did Paul do to the church? Was it just a squabble over the word ‘apostle?’
Paul didn’t hijack the church, but he had an effect on it by ignoring Peter as the chief apostolic successor. Other apostles also ignored that, and Peter himself never insisted on leadership as far as we know.
Like or Dislike:
0
I loved the articles except
I just noticed the title of this article.
The phrase from the famous hymn is not stupid. See Romans 8:16
The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.
(and yes, I know you were dealing about faith on an emotional level when you cited that song).
Like or Dislike:
0
With respect, the title to this post is upsetting and untrue.
It seems to encourage the condescending divide between the mushy-headed and sentimental lay Christian and a more theologically robust scholar.
I told my wife just last night (in the context of discussing our Bible College friends) that, shockingly, there is almost no correlation between intellectual biblical scholarship and the apprehension of Christian truth. In fact, if I may say so, I think they may be, in some (perhaps many) cases, inversely porportional.
What is going on here? It is almost as though a sense of superiority and self-relient intellectualism were not the keys to the Kingdom!
The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God. Or John 14:15
15″If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— 17the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be[c] in you.
These aren’t isolated exceptions. They’re exemplary of a whole theme of scripture. The personal, experiential knowledge of God is not a sentimental or charsimatic alternative to scriptural Christianity and solid theology it is scriptural Christianity. It’s God’s endorsed and biblical plan. We don’t just have a baseball card knowledge of God (stat’s, history, etc.) we may know Him intimately because He indwells us by the Holy Spirit.
Arguments of uncommon intellect like great ships in port. They draw us aboard beguiled and over-awed by their imposing manufacture then quietly depart without announcing where they are taking us.
Where are we headed? The writing is excellent. The power of the intellect impressive… why then would such basic truths be called into derision? How can so much training result in such a complex statement underpinning such basic error?
Like or Dislike:
0
One more verse.
Acts 4:13 (New International Version)
13When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus.
Like or Dislike:
0
<>
Why would living within my heart not be a true assensus? If we EXPERIENCE God living within our heart, it is as true of an experience as the fact that I am experiencing my own typing of these words on a computer right now, or experiencing my friendship with the people in my community.
I don’t “believe” God lives within my heart any more than I “believe” that I have a girlfriend or “believe” that I am a human being.
Like or Dislike:
0
I would first like to respond, to the point as to why should we concern ourselves with the evidence, if the ones we are speaking to cannot respond, unless the Holy Spirit draws them to faith. God told Ezekiel to speak to the dry bones. Certainly these bones could not respond to the spoken words of Ezekiel unless God brought them to life. Now surely God could have brought these bones to life without the words of Ezekiel, but he chose to use his words to raise the dead. In other words God uses means to accomplish his works, in this case the spoken words of Ezekiel. In the same way when we are speaking to unbelievers, we are speaking to DEAD MEN. However we have been commanded to speak, and to be ready to give a DEFENSE for the hope that is in us. The next point I would like to address, is pointing to my changed life as evidence. While I would love for this to be true, I’m affraid it is not. Sure there are many times I do Godly things, however there are also times when I fail miserably, the things I want to do I do not, the things I do not want to do those things I do. So then although I could point unbelievers to things in my life as evidence, they could surely point to things in my life that contradict. We need to also think of all of the biblical characters, men like Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Joseph, and King David, all of these men are considered men of great faith, but they were also men of great sin. In others words God saves us not because of us, but rather in spite of us. My point here is the christian faith is true despite my inablity to live it perfectly. Is’nt this the Good News, God saves us inspite of ourselves. I wonder how the world would respond to such a thing.
Like or Dislike:
0
Oh I see. The Stupid statements are your own rather than the truth in quotations, in the title of the article. It’s almost like wasting the ability for deep thought trying to prove you are “holyer than thou” and find fault in the purest form of faith itself to degrade it somehow. Or I suppose you would think that God has no control over that which is wrong, dangerous or stupid and lacks the ability to make it right, safe and smart whenever he so choses.
More Comments: