the most important topic

[Masta_K]

how does one discover who God is? say there's this guy, Bob, and he's convicted of God's existence, but he has no idea who God is. he has come to the groundbreaking conclusion that he can't logically deduce God's identity and then follow that God, b/c that would be building a faith on a corrupt mind's thoughts. so he knows he must depend on a non-corrupt mind to determine God's identity. so he's constantly exposing himself to things pertinent, but really he's waiting for God to convict him. he needs a spiritual knowledge, a surety, a conviction, a belief. so he can't endeavor into faithhood until God pulls him by the ear in some direction. so he waits, but he needs help. he's been sitting on his hindside for half a decade and God's done nothing. what should he do? why isn't God convicting him?  

[Josh]

Two words: The Bible.

[Vlad!]

Yes, at the risk of sounding blatantly free-willish (which I am), God abides by what Paul says in Romans 1, that His qualities are plainly visible throuigh creation. If Bob's mere existance and the world around him doesn't provide the nudge he's looking for, what will? And the Bible is here for us to read about the Creator. What more does he need?

[Masta_K]

okay...
re: past two messages/.
yes we have general revelation (creation) and special (the Bible). but creation only boasts (and loudly i might add) of A God. not a specific creator. that's where the Bible comes in. but obviously Bob's not gonna believe the Bible if he's not a Christian....  

[Vlad!]

Bob is, however, a seeker. If he honestly wants to know about God, he should check out all availiable information. Then, after looking at what different religions believe, he should try to choose the one that best fits the facts.

I have a bunch more to say on this, but I have a class in 13 minutes. I'll get back to you later ^_^

[oneafroboy]

Josh and Vlad! have good advice, so I won't repeat what they said.

But I'll add this. Keep shining. (Let your light shine before all men, that they may see your good works and praise your Father in Heaven.) Keep praying for him. (The prayers of a righteous man availeth much.)

[Guest]

re: Vlad's last point...

he CAN'T "choose the one that best fits the facts" b/c " he can't logically deduce God's identity and then follow that God, b/c that would be building a faith on a corrupt mind's thoughts. so he knows he must depend on a non-corrupt mind to determine God's identity" ... HE CAN'T CHOOSE. he's human, so that would end up in building a faith on corrupted thought processes. the point here is that he's trying to get away from making himself the arbiter of truth.  

[Masta_K]

oops, that last mssg was from me... forgot to log in  

[Skrappybiskit]

This is my point exactly. The reason that people like Sorengaard came up with "leap of faith" philosophies, and the reason that there is something so mysterious about salvation is that it's impossible to just make up your mind about which one makes the most sense, even though many people have come to Christ because Christianity is the most cogent religion. But even in those cases, there is a point where the knowlege in your head has to meet with faith in your heart. Otherwise it's just a bunch of facts.

You can convice (aka Van Til) a nonbeliever that their "faith" or lack thereof is patently noncoherent, but at the end of the day all you'll have is a person that understands that the way they live their life doesn't make sense. Which leads to one of 2 options. 1) Despair. The person doesn't come to Christ, isn't moved by the holy spirit, has an anitpathy toward Christianity, and goes mad, like Nitzche (sp?) and de Sade or 2) becomes a Christian.

Still, God has to move, to draw, to woo, to change the sinner's heart. All the convincing and investigating in the world is useless until God works faith in a person's heart.

The question is always, of course, how does this happen? Well, I think I Corinthians 1 answers it quite well, thanks:

(v18) For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. It is written:

   "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
    the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."

Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. The foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things -- and the things that are not -- to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him.

** It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God--that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. Therefore, as it is written: "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord." **

Skraps

ps: That was the NIV...

[Vlad!]

he CAN'T "choose the one that best fits the facts" b/c " he can't logically deduce God's identity and then follow that God, b/c that would be building a faith on a corrupt mind's thoughts. so he knows he must depend on a non-corrupt mind to determine God's identity" ... HE CAN'T CHOOSE. he's human, so that would end up in building a faith on corrupted thought processes. the point here is that he's trying to get away from making himself the arbiter of truth.

You misunderstand...when one uses logic, one is not depending on one's own (possibly corrupted) mind: Aristotle defines three basic 'first principles' of logic upon which premises can be made and deductions can be drawn because they are always true. So Bob has to take the facts he knows and see what fits the facts using logic.

Of course, this is a general answer unsuitable for full application. Fortunately, there's a shortcut: you see, Bob has already made two decisions already: 1, that God exists and 2, that his mind is corrupt. So, let's look at those. The existance of God is certainly a valid, Romans 1:18-style conclusion to draw from the facts. The corruption of man's mind, however, had to come from somewhere: where? The Bible? If so, why believe that but then nothing else. So Bob has this idea that he pulled out of nowhere: his corrupt mind is incapable of figuring out who God is and how to follow Him. But Bob has already decided that God exists, and he used his (or someone else's) corrupt mind to figure this out. So now he's in a contradictory loop, which means that he needs to reevaluate his premises.

Problem solved. Skraps gets half credit for coming up with an answer based on Scripture, but "he can't" is not the answer we were looking for

[Masta_K]

okay, vlad. logic is obviously not a human invention. my point is, when Bob's using it, he's soing so improperly, b/c he's not doing so w/ perfection.

and Bob came up with those two premises not from any exposure, but from his own life. he looks at the world and senses a creator, he looks at his life and realizes he ain't perfect. get me?  

[Skrappybiskit]

Do get points that the scriptures say that he can't, too?

John 6:

(v. 35) Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.  **But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe.** [skraps: relevant, yes, to most humans?]  All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.  For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.  And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

At this the Jews began to grumble about him because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven." They said, "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, 'I came down from heaven'?"

"Stop grumbling among yourselves," Jesus answered. "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

.... I think that says it better than I ever could.

Skraps

ps: that was NIV again...

[Vlad!]

okay, vlad. logic is obviously not a human invention. my point is, when Bob's using it, he's soing so improperly, b/c he's not doing so w/ perfection.
 

But how does he know that he's doing it with imperfection? He can always make sure that each of his premises is in line with the first principles and with his other premises.

But here's my point: if Bob trusts himself to deduce (or abduce, if you want to be technical) those two premises, how can he not trust himself to go further? Look at this:

Premise: My mind is corrupt
Conclusion: Everything I figure out by myself is suspect because I have used my mind to produce it.
Deduction: All conclusions and deductions I reach cannot be trusted.
Fact: I came up with the above logical sequence with my corrupt mind.
Application of deduction: The conclusion above cannot be trusted.

Thus, you have formed a circle. Bob either has to accept nothing, which in itself is a decision to accept something, accept everything, which allows for just as many contradictions, or accept some things but not everything, meaning that he needs some way to verify truth and falsehood.

At some point, Bob will have to accept that he will never know everything fully, and that he will have to exercise faith regardless of what his choice is. If he doesn't accept this, he becomes either an agnostic or a basket case.

[oneafroboy]

With all this talk about logic, and Vlad you make good sense, isn't it great that our salvation depends on who God is, not in our own intellect or emotions. Great verses Skrappy.

As I said, keep praying for Him. God could use intellect to draw him to Him, or maybe not. Sometimes that brings people to a realization that they need a Savior. Other times not. But in all cases, it's God' spirit that moves someone's heart.  

[Masta_K]

very nice logic, vlad. i am thoroughly impressed, and i'd love to meet you. good brains in that cranium.

but while i agree with you, you still arrive at the same conclusion. he obviously must accept some things but not all, and yes, he thus needs a way of finding out which to accept. but i take it one step further. determining that he must accept some things but not all is something already. so he's setting up pre-conceived notions. the only way to escape that is to accept nothing. than he can't believe anything, rite? wrong. conviction is all about believing without accepting. there's no action of accepting with conviction. its just believing or realizing you believe. its not like i decide to believe it and thus am convicted. conviction is totally passive.

so now Bob's passive. is there no way out?  

[DvChWi]

is there no way out?

Thats where God comes in, I believe.

[Vlad!]

very nice logic, vlad. i am thoroughly impressed, and i'd love to meet you. good brains in that cranium.

I'm taking a Religious Ethics class and a Morality and Justice class this semester, so I've been giving my logic a workout. And I'm always willing to meet fans, provided they come to me rather than vice-versa

but while i agree with you, you still arrive at the same conclusion. he obviously must accept some things but not all, and yes, he thus needs a way of finding out which to accept. but i take it one step further. determining that he must accept some things but not all is something already. so he's setting up pre-conceived notions. the only way to escape that is to accept nothing. than he can't believe anything, rite? wrong. conviction is all about believing without accepting. there's no action of accepting with conviction. its just believing or realizing you believe. its not like i decide to believe it and thus am convicted. conviction is totally passive.

so now Bob's passive. is there no way out?

First off, I'd like to state that I don't disagree that God plays a role in drawing people to Him. But I'm trying to prove a point here (more on that in a bit), so here's my answer to this:
Bob needs to realize that accepting nothing is still making a decision to accept something: that nothing is acceptable. Bob is trying to avoid the responsibility of making a decision on his own. I've seen students try to do that in some of my classes: they are faced with a decision, don't know which option the professor wants them to choose, so they don't do anything at all and expect that to be an acceptable excuse. God, like the professors in those classes, will probably not be impressed with Bob's excuse.

I disagree with what you say about conviction. Conviction comes from the same root as convince: if someone is convicted, they are (or have been) convinced in whatever we're talking about. It probably came about through legal terminology: a person who has been convicted of a crime has been so because the prosecution convinced the jury that the person is guilty. So someone who is convicted has been actively convinced that something is true.

[Masta_K]

okay. i may not agree with all that, but i think we're drifting from giving Bob sound advice. more and more it sounds like he needs to be waiting for God, that he needs to remain active in searching, but he really can't choose God in the end, he needs God to choose him, to convict him. am i right?  

[Vlad!]

I would say not. I don't think God would force Himself on anybody who doesn't want Him. Josh would disagree with me (and you will probably too, given your views on God's soverignty expressed in the other thread. But we've had so many predestination debates that the idea of another one tends to make Josh ill and myself vaguely disturbed, so maybe you should run around in the archives for a while if you want to discuss the issue

[Josh]

he really can't choose God in the end, he needs God to choose him, to convict him. am i right?

I would say that he does have to choose God, but God must choose him first. "You did not choose me, I chose you," Jesus said.  

[Skrappybiskit]

I wanted to sort of electropaddle this subject back to life, because I've been doing a little thinking about free will and predestination. As I see the scriptures interpreting themselves, free will and predestination are compatible with eachother and interact with eachother in a way I don't understand as a human. Sort of in the way that the Trinity interacts as three in one, and Christ could be all man and all God. Sort of a mystery. Like salvation itself is a mystery I think we'll never get sick of plumbing.

As for practical advice for Bob, there is only one thing he can do, and that is trust in Jesus Christ, confess his sin before him, and be accepted into the kingdom of God. Every other remedy fails, and every explaination will fall short, and every argument won't quite make sense until he does that. Otherwise Bob can just sit around waiting for the logical lightning bolt to finally corner his spirit and blast him into becoming a Christian, but that happens rather infrequently. I think.

I hate to question Bob's motives, but from what you're saying and what you've described to me, Mastak, Bob's not so much seeking for God as he is seeking to experience something. Much like most people today. So you probably should ask him what he's really looking for, because until he lays down at the foot of the cross, there's really not much we can do. We can pray our pant-knees off -- a good thing -- or argue him into the ground -- a bad thing -- but that's what it comes down to.

My point is summed up: "There are some who say they will not believe until they see, but I understand that they will not see until they believe."

That was said by some great saint of the past.

Skraps

[Vlad!]

Good point, Skraps. And I've often said the same thing about predestination: we'll probably get to heaven and realize that we're all wrong    

[oneafroboy]

Good words Skraps. And Vlad!, I wonder just how many things we'll find out that we were wrong about. My guess is a lot more than we think.