Replies

I had a relative who spent a lifetime priding himself on having a ‘scientific mind.’ He finally made a profession of faith in his late eighties. Afterwards he asked a profound question, “Is that all it is to it?”

For each such anecdote I could could post one of someone who didn't convert in the end... which would prove, well...not much on either side, actually.

Believing in the Lord is a decision each person accepts or rejects.

I've never understood this one. How does one make the choice to believe something? When told, "You have to have faith" I can't imagine anything less rational.

How does one make the choice to believe something?

Faith is the confidence that what we hope for will actually happen; it gives us assurance about things we cannot see.

Ultimately everyone makes a choice to believe or not believe in Jesus Christ before they die. Those who choose not to believe will bend their knee to Him at the Judgment, but it will be too late.

I've never understood this one. How does one make the choice to believe something? When told, "You have to have faith" I can't imagine anything less rational.

(whispering) You're right... that's not how it works (according to the Bible), it makes no sense.

If a person could...

obtain the promise of life after death, eternally, with God

by saying or thinking "ok, I believe in God" before they die...

If a person knew they were about to die, they'd say, ok, sign me up. Alright, I believe. I accept.

But would they really mean it ? If they did, that would be nice, but they would not have studied the Bible at all, so they would not have the foggiest clue about the God of the Bible. I don't see how I can say I believe in something, if I don't even know what that something is.

This may be the case with the gentleman who asked "Is that all it is to it". Such a question could indicate a lack of understanding of the profession of faith. This is precisely why Church denominations that preach the true Gospel will have a process called catechism (yes, Protestant Churches should be doing this and some do). This is where the person who is seeking God can be instructed in the faith, that is to say, they can learn about Biblical teachings to the point where a) they know enough of what they believe to understand what they will be professing and b) they understand the gravity of what they are professing and c) they at that point truly in their heart desire to make a true profession of faith. I won't go into details, but a true profession of faith simply must not be made without understanding.

Or maybe they don't really "mean it", and they're just trying whatever they can to give themselves eternal life. That makes no sense, it would be like saying abracadabra, just uttering words and having that count for something.

We have to rely on the Bible to tell us what's what - it self-identifies as a) revealed to man by God and b) the only such revealed Word of God and c) complete, true and perfect.

This is why I would be telling you a wicked lie if I tell you that you can simply say you believe without understanding anything about what the Bible teaches and that such an empty statement would count for anything.

Since it's impossible to disprove that God exists (for those who have some education in logic), and the scope of the Bible is so large (history, moral law, ceremonial law, prophecy, wisdom, songs, etc.) it would probably serve your purposes better to also just take a look at some of those other topics rather than only the existence of God.

The four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John make a natural place to start.

Matthew and Mark both recount Jesus' words, "My God, My God, Why Hast Thou Forsaken Me ?". This is not to be taken at face value, as it is a reference to Psalm 22, written hundreds of years prior to Jesus' birth, a prophetic Psalm, which reads, at verses 7-8

"7 All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying,

8 He trusted on the Lord that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him."

Matthew (written after Jesus' death and resurrection) says:

"39 And they that passed by reviled him, wagging their heads,

40 And saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross.

41 Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said,

42 He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him."

The only ways this could not be prophetic is if the writer of Matthew erroneously recorded the events of that day, which would had to have been done inadvertantly or intentionally. Bearing in mind that at least hundreds of people witnessed the events, thousands enthusiastically flocked to hear Jesus' preach during his lifetime, everyone involved was quite zealous in their religion and for decades later these writings would have had to stand up to the scrutiny of original eye witnesses, the testimony in Matthew and Mark, which contains the same account, would point to Psalm 22 as being truly prophetic. As well, that Jesus, suffering the excrutiating pain of crucifixion, would utter that sentence with it's clear reference to Psalm 22, is nothing short of amazing.

There are several other prophetic verses in Psalm 22 as well, the most interesting to me being this one:

"14 I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels."

Now, the Gospel of John does NOT recount the reference Jesus made to Psalm 22. John, however, recounts the following which occurred just after Christ died, in chapter 19:

"33 But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:

34 But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.

35 And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe."

If we view the water of verse 34 as a fulfillment of Psalm 22:14, it is very interesting to me that John does NOT include Jesus' own words that would point us to Psalm 22. This, IMHO, is evidence that John is not trying, in that case, to fabricate a prophetic connection. He does, in other verses in Chapter 19, explicitly state that specific parts of his testimony do represent fulfillment of prophecy, and he indicates of which Old Testament verses.

Matthew and Mark, on the other hand, do not recount the piercing of Jesus's side. Luke records neither the Psalm 22 reference nor the piercing.

It's also interesting to note that "making up" the water and blood coming out of Jesus' pierced side is extremely far-fetched. We know today that such symptoms would be consistent with fluid having built up around the heart as a result of the process of beatings and/or crucifixion. But in that day, it no doubt would have seemed an odd occurrence, an explanation for which few, if any, would have, since they would have to have seen a crucifixion ending, and the person stabbed in about the same place, from a close vantage point. No doubt John had not seen this before based on how he writes about it. Of course the Apostle John would have no human way of knowing that this event would be readily understandable to people 2,000 years in the future. One can only assume that verse 35 was included because of this oddity seeming to John to lend credibility to his account, though one would think that at that time he would have had no way of realizing just how much.

This is just one of many things, IMHO, that make the Gospels quite convincing testimony. When one reads all the accounts, written by four different men, IMHO, it becomes quite a challenge to dismiss them, since that would imply that they are purposefully untrue accounts (God forbid). Again, given the history and the number of people involved, and the complexity and unity of all four, that seems quite a stretch of the imagination. The Bible tells us, however, that it is only by the Grace of God that man, born into sin, does not continue to stubbornly refuse to believe no matter how convincing the testimony.

How does one make the choice to believe something? When told, "You have to have faith" I can't imagine anything less rational.

This is one I've had trouble with, but only because I used my rational mind to solve a supernatural problem.

We're told that in this arena "seeing is believing" is backwards, that we must first believe and then we will see.

We are also told to ask God to reveal Himself or show Himself to us and if we are sincere, He will answer this prayer.

I followed this advice and then began to look for my answer, not with a preconceived notion of what the answer would look like, but merely with an open mind and enough trust/faith that I would know the answer when I saw it.

It is sorta like learning anything. The more I looked for my answer, the more I learned of others' experiences, the more I began to see and make the connections.

So, I am now at a point where the title of this thread spoke to me and my own experience.

I do see God's Hand in the events around me, great and small, whereas before I would have missed it. Because my inner tuner wasn't tuned to God's frequency, I didn't know how to use it, so I simply missed what was happening all around me.

Knowledge and experience, along with a researcher's mindset, turned on this previously hidden or taken for granted talent to tune in.

I believe this is true for all of us humans, for we all have this ability. It is just not used and waits for us to learn how to use what has always been there, just like with any other ability.