Proving God's Existence

[ttruscott]

We can have faith that God will act, but trusting God to exist makes no sense.

My thoughts run like this...

The relationship between trust and faith is in proof. Hope in someone whom you have no idea if they can achieve what they claim is faith. Once you have experienced their abilities and constancy, them you trust them to keep acting consistently as before.

I know in colloquial use, faith and trust seem to be interchangeable but I agree, I don't think they are. Faith is not just "not by proof" but also "by hope."

GOD defines faith as acceptance of unproven things and as hope:

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Faith is the evidence of things not seen ie not proven; trust is accepting that things seen will continue as they are. Once "things not seen" are seen, faith evaporates but trust is established.

Faith is the substance of things hoped for and hope is based on the full understanding of the options. If you have no idea that something can or cannot be, you cannot hope for either outcome, eh? But if you know A may happen or B may happen, then you can have hope that the one you like the most for yourself may happen.

But if you like A and either A or B is proven to be happening or inevitable, then where is there any more hope? I hope to marry Pam but after marriage how can I still hope to marry her? If I have faith that I will marry her and then we marry, how can I still have faith...faith is ended by reality, by proof.

In this way we can trust after proof but faith is cancelled by proof. If the Lord were to come in and have supper with you like He did with Lot, how could you say you have faith HE exists? But you can say that you trust Him to keep acting in accord with His revealed character, ie loving and just.

Adn that is why GOD rewards faith so strongly; it defines our deepest hopes and desires.
Heb.11:6
But without faith it is impossible to please him:
for he that cometh to God must believe that he is,
and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Peace, Ted

[The Remonstrant]

Please Read

I cannot accept this interpretation:

1. It contradicts the position that we are enslaved to sin and are spiritually blind and can't see the truth without the gracious saving light of the gospel.

Apparently you did not read my post thoroughly (#8). I can only refer you back there, where I briefly (but clearly) address human depravity, the inclusivistic concern and more. I find it difficult to respond beyond that as you (albeit, unintentionally) entirely misconstrued the content of my message. Reread post #8.

[ttruscott]

Originally posted by ttruscott

I cannot accept this interpretation:

1. It contradicts the position that we are enslaved to sin and are spiritually blind and can't see the truth without the gracious saving light of the gospel.

Please Read
Apparently you did not read my post thoroughly (#8). I can only refer you back there, where I briefly (but clearly) address human depravity, the inclusivistic concern and more. I find it difficult to respond beyond that as you (albeit, unintentionally) entirely misconstrued the content of my message. Reread post #8.

I believe Romans 1:18-22 is the best response. God is known, or generally revealed, to all humanity through nature and creation (i.e., general or natural revelation). But, as humanity is universally tainted by sinful thoughts, attitudes and actions (i.e., personal sin), and is lacking the glory of God (3:23*) as his image-bearers, this general revelation is not sufficient in itself** for salvation.

This bit?

I hope so because this is what I will answer, :)

Your position: Romans1 tells us that the people who face GOD's wrath have no excuse because our physical universe proves HIS invisible qualities. But they do not have a full enough understanding from this source to come to salvation... YES?

My position in 1. It contradicts the position that we are enslaved to sin and are spiritually blind and can't see the truth without the gracious saving light of the gospel. could have stopped at this point:

1. It contradicts the position that we are enslaved to sin and are spiritually blind and can't see the truth ... at all.

No truth of GOD, no truth of HIS invisible attributes. No truth of salvation. So while I agree this study of creation cannot bring a revelation of salvation without grace, I contend that according to the doctrine of the ultimate disvalue and enslaving qualities of sin, a study of physical creation chould not even get them this far, let alone saved.

Rom 1:20 cannot contradict Rom 3:10 As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one;
11 there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.
12 All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.”

yet people do it all the time.

The whole import of this passage as exemplified in this verse 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

is that these folk know the truth but ignore it for the profit of sin, not that they know just a little bit of it...

Peace, Ted
ps: oh, and I don't see that as a normal facet of life on earth anywhere either, let alone in unchurched countries...

[siliconwafer]

This bit?

I hope so because this is what I will answer, :)

Your position: Romans1 tells us that the people who face GOD's wrath have no excuse because our physical universe proves HIS invisible qualities. But they do not have a full enough understanding from this source to come to salvation... YES?

My position in 1. It contradicts the position that we are enslaved to sin and are spiritually blind and can't see the truth without the gracious saving light of the gospel. could have stopped at this point:

1. It contradicts the position that we are enslaved to sin and are spiritually blind and can't see the truth ... at all.

No truth of GOD, no truth of HIS invisible attributes. No truth of salvation. So while I agree this study of creation cannot bring a revelation of salvation without grace, I contend that according to the doctrine of the ultimate disvalue and enslaving qualities of sin, a study of physical creation chould not even get them this far, let alone saved.

Rom 1:20 cannot contradict Rom 3:10 As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one;
11 there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.
12 All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.”

yet people do it all the time.

The whole import of this passage as exemplified in this verse 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

is that these folk know the truth but ignore it for the profit of sin, not that they know just a little bit of it...

Peace, Ted
ps: oh, and I don't see that as a normal facet of life on earth anywhere either, let alone in unchurched countries...

The unregenerate don't have a correct view of God, but God has revealed Himself in such a way so that people have no excuse for not believing that God exists.

[ttruscott]

The unregenerate don't have a correct view of God, but God has revealed Himself in such a way so that people have no excuse for not believing that God exists.

Ok, so the total and complete lack of corroboration of HIS proof of HIS existence throughout the history of the world since Adam is caused by:
1. a consipriacy of the whole world to not talk about this revelation / proof of GOD that HE exists so strongly they have no excuse on earth that they have received

2. as mature adults on earth they received GOD's proof that HE exists so strongly they have no excuse but have forgotten it

3. they learned of HIS invisible attributes in the spirit world before their birth on earth by which birth they forgot all their previous experiences much as we forget our earliest months and years in childhood.

Please add your own,

Peace, Ted

[Soyeong]

The relationship between trust and faith is in proof. Hope in someone whom you have no idea if they can achieve what they claim is faith. Once you have experienced their abilities and constancy, them you trust them to keep acting consistently as before.

Why would you have faith in someone if you have no idea what they can achieve? If someone is asking you have faith in them, then they are asking you to make a decision to trust them based on your past experience.

I know in colloquial use, faith and trust seem to be interchangeable but I agree, I don't think they are. Faith is not just "not by proof" but also "by hope."

If you have good reason to believe that someone is trustworthy, then you have good reason to hope that they will keep their promise, so it's pretty much the the same thing.

GOD defines faith as acceptance of unproven things and as hope:

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

The "Now" is a hint that something on the topic was said previously. So if we look at the context, the author is encouraging his audience to keep the faith because they have reason to preserver. Because they have reason to persevere they can have hope, even if they can't see what is to come.

Faith is the evidence of things not seen ie not proven; trust is accepting that things seen will continue as they are. Once "things not seen" are seen, faith evaporates but trust is established.

You can still see the evidence, so you have good reason to have trust/faith, you just can't see the proof. Even when trust is established, you still continue to have trust/faith that someone will continue to be trustworthy, because that is not seen.

Faith is the substance of things hoped for and hope is based on the full understanding of the options. If you have no idea that something can or cannot be, you cannot hope for either outcome, eh? But if you know A may happen or B may happen, then you can have hope that the one you like the most for yourself may happen.

You can certainly wish that one will happen, but without any reason to expect it to happen, you can't have any hope that it will. Faith is latching on and keeping your mind fixed on the reasons you have for hope.

In this way we can trust after proof but faith is cancelled by proof. If the Lord were to come in and have supper with you like He did with Lot, how could you say you have faith HE exists? But you can say that you trust Him to keep acting in accord with His revealed character, ie loving and just.

As I said previously, it makes no sense to have faith in God's existence, even before he appeared to you because it is only something that we can come to believe through reason. You can only have faith to that God will continue to act according to His revealed character because you have good reason to believe that he will.