this sums it all up for me. Emphasis added is mime...but the point is, without God calling to you, no matter how great your intellect(and some of the greatest minds have rejected God)...His word will have no meaning.

eta...and the argument against a verse like this is that it stifles intelligent disagreement with scripture. If one is to argue against this...well, the words have already defined them as foolish. Kind of leaves both the believer and the unbeliever in a bit of a weird position. But, if you don't agree with me...well, that's just because you are wrong.

medc - that's not the argument that I would use, because I happen to agree with the underlined part of your post.

What that is referring to is the "elect," the doctrine of Election.

It IS by the grace of God that anyone is saved, but WE don't know who the "elect" are.

We are "seed planters" who are planting seeds in obedience to the Great Commission, which is also a revealed truth of God.

"God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe."

WHAT was preached? The fact of Christ, of His death and resurrection, attested to by way of "proof statements" by those who were eyewitnesses to the facts surrounding this "man" Jesus Christ.

It is not our "job" to "prove" Christ. It is our job to present the proof and let God work in the hearts of those who are, by His grace, elected to hear and accept the "proof" that Jesus IS who He said He is, and then to choose to surrender their lives TO Him. What we are "called to do" is to be SERVANTS of God who follow His commands, not to decide which commands we will follow and which ones we won't follow.

To those who are "perishing," the words, the proofs, everything related to a surrendered life TO God through Jesus Christ IS "foolishness." But that is no reason to NOT, ourselves, be obedient to the Great Commission, to be obedient to make the truth of Jesus Christ known to everyone in every corner of the world. In fact, that is a necessary step in the plan of God leading up to His direct intervention in this world and the establishment of His kingdom for all eternity.

When we are told to "stand ready to give a reason for WHY you belief, for the faith that is within you," we are receiving a command from God to TELL people the facts concerning Jesus Christ whether or not they happen to presently be believers or unbelievers.

The reason is twofold; 1) to minimize the chance that error and "another gospel" can be allowed to remain in the "body" of believers, thereby possibly contaminating the whole body with false doctrines, and 2) to be "seed planters" for the unbelievers, for the ones that God HAS elected but who have not yet "understood" who Jesus Christ is (the purpose of the Great Commission).

To "tolerate" false doctrine is to say that God is wrong and that there are MANY ways to be reconciled to God when He has clearly said that there is only one way, HIS way, and that He has revealed HIS way in His Son and in the Scripture.

To not provide the "proof" to unbelievers is to, perhaps, not love them enough to say they are "wrong" and that it's not "just my opinion," but is the direct revelation of God Himself to all of us. It isn't our job to "convince them," it is only our job to present the truth as God has given it to us in the Scripture, His chosen means of conveying that truth to us all.

God bless.

The REASON why I believe has NOTHING to do with provable facts regarding the history of Christ...miracles...etc(as I said, I do not think they can be proven). The ONLY reason I opened myself up to His truth is because He called me....even today with the same intellect, absent his touch, I would not believe.

I can tell you FH that without that call...I see very, very smart people discount God altogether. It is NOT my job to judge an unbeliever and tell them they are wrong. It is my job to tell them what I believe and why.


To "tolerate" something is NOT saying that God is wrong. I do not know another persons heart and their relationship with God.



To people that have not been called to God it is just words in a book that tell...what is at times..a horrible story.


I am sorry, but I can tell you that I will NEVER be convinced that the way to reach someone is by Bible thumping or giving them facts. I have a strong backing for my belief in both the Word and what I have been taught by men of God. You see Scripture a different way. I am not asking you to alter your view...but I can guarantee you that based on my own personal testimony, my ability to reach others when I witness to them and the verse by verse teachings that my church gives to me, I will continue with my current beliefs and approach.

I KNOW the Lord...because He called me.

yes, I know. I was speaking of unbelievers and the arguments that are used against this type of verbiage in any writing or communication.


I agree. We happen to disagree about how the seeds should be planted. FH, I will humbly ask you to consider how many times on this site (and this is a small portion of your life) that you have been told that your approach(style) is one that turns unbelievers away from being open to hearing about God.

I will also humbly ask if you have found this to be a problem in your personal life. I know you have had issues when it comes to worshiping with others. Is this perhaps one of the reasons?

I see the need for a persons heart to be in this before their intellect(that will follow). This is where faith comes into play for me. Again, I will note that faith is the belief in something that cannot be proven.

I ask you the above questions to get you to examine how your approach might be working. If it works fine for you, I say go forth...mine works quite well for me, so I shall do the same. I certainly respect your view on things even if we do see things from a bit of a different perspective.

Of course some "very smart people discount God altogether." But if it's your "job to tell them what you believe and why," WHAT do you tell them? WHAT, to be more precise, is it that you tell them that you believe and WHY do you believe it? Why is it your JOB to "tell them what I believe and why?" Therein is the issue of "what" about Jesus versus anyone else or anything else? Therein is the issue of "why" Jesus, the Jesus of the Holy Bible, and no one else.

To be clear here, there are TWO "classes" of people that are involved in this "judge or not judge" issue. The first are the "unbelievers," those who reject Jesus Christ. "Judgment," as in "condemning someone" or in a "legal" sense is NOT to be applied to unbelievers.

The second are those who PROFESS a belief in Jesus Christ and consider themselves, or at least claim, to be Christians. In that instance the Bible is clear that we, as fellow believers, ARE to "judge" the actions and statements of other believers with respect to being WHAT God has said to all believers.




That is not what I meant by the word "tolerate." I thought you knew that so allow me to explain what I meant further, perhaps it will add some clarification.

Let me quote something from Ravi Zacharias' Bible Study that we are using in our current small group Bible Study, as it has a direct bearing on what I was trying to say, but apparently not communicating the thought very well.


"A lot of people think that if you believe you are right and someone else is wrong, then you are being intolerant. But this is a misunderstanding. Historically, tolerance has been defined as "putting up with beliefs one takes to be erroneous or false." In fact, we often use tolerance in this way today. Most people tolerate Brussels spouts of liver when served it as guests, but no one tolerates what he enjoys (chocolate or ice cream). Today, though, some people have said that tolerance means "accepting all views as true and not saying any are false." But if we define tolerance this way, then we'll start accepting views that contradict one another. The relativist will be put in the awkward spot of believing his view - that everything is relative = and my view - that absolutes exist. But the relativist by definition cannot accept an absolutist's view as false.

Tolerance, properly understood, means that we respect people enough to permit them to hold their beliefs even if we profoundly disagree with them. Tolerance says that all people should be accepted as possessing dignity and thus as being worthy of respect. This does not mean we have to accept their views as true or that they are worthy of belief. True tolerance distinguishes between people and beliefs; genuine tolerance is the acceptance and respectful treatment of other people - even if we don't accept their views. Remember that the relativist will never accept the absolutist's view as true or legitimate. And you've probably noticed how some people can say that we should accept all views as true - until they talk to someone who doesn't accept all views as true! At this point, all logic often stops, and insulting begins!" (What Is Truth?, RZIM Critical Questions Series)




And I wouldn't dream of telling you that you need to change YOUR beliefs or approach. By the same token, I wouldn't expect you to tell me or another believer to change OUR beliefs. There are MANY parts that make up the one body of believers, medc, and you and I are but two of them. We quite likely don't even have the same gifts, as it is God who determines that. He also provides Pastors, Teachers, Evangelists, Missionaries, etc., etc. with differing "skill sets" if you will, so that together they accomplish HIS purpose.




Absolutely. I KNOW the Lord for the same reason, but I'm also willing to "bet" that the method He used to call each of us was different and was the method that you needed and that I needed.

By the same token, we are all accountable to God for CHOOSING to accept Jesus Christ or for rejecting Him. God clearly places an "onus" on us in the area of accountability for CHOOSING Christ. He calls, but He does not FORCE you or me or anyone to listen and accept.




Bear with me on this one, okay? It does not matter to me if people "don't like what they hear." My "goal" is not to "please man," it is to please God through humbly submitting my will, my likes, my fears, my pride, to HIM in humble obedience EVEN IF NO ONE "liked" what was said and even if everyone "hated" me for saying it. That someone may or may not like my "style" of speech is not important to me. Standing for the TRUTH is what is important, not how someone "says" it in an effort to communicate it.

My "mission," if you will, is NOT to "convert" anyone on this site to Christianity and I EXPECT "unbelievers," who you refer to, to be turned away because they don't have Christ in their lives and it's all "foolishness" to them. Look at 1 Corinthians 5:1-13 for example. Was Paul "concerned" about what he said or was he concerned about standing FOR God? Was he being "judgmental?" Does his language offend you?





Though this seems a bit of a DJ, let me respond anyway. No, I have not found it to be a problem in my personal life, if that really is any business of yours, but it has not.




What "issues" about worshipping with others are you referring to? I worship together with many other believers, have held leadership positions in church before, have taught Sunday School with many people telling me afterward how much they enjoyed and appreciated the way I handled and presented the topic. I have been asked by the Pastor and the Elders to enter the Leaders in Training program at our church, and have declined as I don't think I am personally ready to commit the time needed to be more involved than just as a Teacher and small group Bible study particpant right now. So just what "issues" are you referring to?




Let me simple quote Paul on this issue as perhaps a way to better explain my position on this issue of "faith is the belief in something that cannot be proven."

See 1 Corinthians 15:1-11, and then;

"But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is not resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins." (1 Corinthians 15:12-17, NIV)


Perhaps something else to think about regarding how you define "faith" is to consider Jesus' teaching that "unless you have faith like a child you will not enter the kingdom of heaven." That "faith" Jesus is talking about is related to how a child has faith in their parents, a trust in them, even though they may not all the "why's." The assumption that goes with that is that the parents ARE trustworthy and true and will be acting in the best interests of the child. They are worthy of the faith the child places in them, that the child has learned to place in them from how they "parent."

By the same token, Jesus rebukes people for placing their faith in "their father, the devil."

"Again, I will note that faith is the belief in something that cannot be proven."

"Faith" by itself is only as good as WHAT that faith believes in. It is not "just" something that cannot be proven, it is the OBJECT of that faith that is important.

It seems that you may be "splitting hairs" here a little and mixing up the "regenerative work" of God that precedes a heart that can HEAR the Word of God, the testimonies, the proofs, and that can CHOOSE to accept Jesus Christ as one's personal Lord and Savior with "proof" not being needed in any way, shape, or form.

God bless.

I may be mistaken. I was under the impression that you did NOT go to a church and worship with others. I must be mistaken. Sorry for the confusion.


I am very familiar with these verses FH. They do not offer any proof...but they are profound.




I do not agree that Christ was suggesting a child/parent type faith here at all. I understand where you are coming from though.

I agree that the object of the faith is what is supremely important. I just disagree that His existence and deity can be proven.



I agree 100%.



It was a question, nothing more.

I need to run. Have a nice night.

You're mixing faith-based concepts (belief) with facts (Cuba's existence).

Hence, I KNOW it exists (though I have never been there, I have seen orbiter images of it, and I have no reason not 2 trust my cartography colleagues that it is really there), but I don't believe in the political state of Cuba as it has been since Castro 2k it over.

Similarly, I KNOW that religions that worship their concepts of God exist, but I don't believe in them.

-ol' 2long

Thanks for making my point for me. The point of the analogy was to demonstrate that one can believe in somethings EXISTENCE without having been there. You have not been to CUBA yourself, but you have FAITH it is there because of the evidence. I have faith in the existence of Jesus Christ because of the evidence. I have faith that he is God because of the evidence. The evidence leads me to believe that Cuba is an ISLAND and that Jesus Christ is GOD.

You're welcome, if you think I did.

I don't think I did. I think you completely missed my point. I think it would be respectful (though I don't expect it), if you would refrain from claiming I'm making your point in fu2re. I didn't intend what you are claiming I said. I hope others reading what I wrote will try 2 understand what I said from their own viewpoint, rather than referring 2 yours.

In science, it is possible 2 believe that something is possible, and acting on that belief by taking a chance that it'll work out as anticipated - like sending rockets 2 Mars. Even then, it's as much a matter of practice as it is faith, because we've done it before (more often successfully than not, but we have failed as well).

I believe that something that you folks like 2 label "God" does in fact exist, without having a way or a need 2 prove it 2 you or anyone else. I prove it 2 myself 2 my own satisfaction every day.

I don't believe in the religions around that subject (the God stuff), though.

That was my point.

-ol' 2long

Actually, you did make my point for me. Thanks..

2long, you may be "stretching" this analogy a bit.

You seem to equate "belief" with a "man-made" concept, an "invention of the mind" with no basis in factual events and reasons.

Cuba, as an island, DOES exist today, but let's "fast forward" a thousand years and suppose (like the fabled Atlantis) it no longer exists. Would belief at that time, say the year 3008, that Cuba "exists" be real or "faith-based?" How about a belief that Cuba "existed" and still does though it has sunk so far beneath the waves that there is no way to "get down there to take a look for myself?" Would that be a belief in facts or a "faith-based" belief? What if all we had were books that described Cuba and told how real it was? Why should we believe the books, the history and historical recordings and accept them as "facts" that proved the existence of Cuba?

The "thing" that distinguishes Christianity from all other religions is that it is NOT about a "concept" but about a real, factual, Person, who is the OBJECT of that faith.

Now, as with belief in Cuba, "little green men from Mars," Jesus Christ, or just about anything, no one has to "believe" the facts, but even if they do "believe" the facts, they don't have to accept Jesus Christ AS their Lord and Savior. They CAN acknowledge Him for being who He is, and still refuse to accept Him as Lord and Savior and surrender their lives to Him.

Shoot, 2long, you and I have been "all over" the creation/evolution options of how life originated, as well as how the diversity of life is explained. Yet you and I know that Origins cannot be duplicated and tested in the lab or by using the "scientific method." The same holds true for the origin of life and also for the "how" did all the various life-forms come into being.

Proponents of both evolution and creation ALL hold their positions on a "faith based concept" and NOT on "hard facts."

But it is different when it comes to the Christian faith, because it IS grounded in a real, factual, person, who he said he was, what he did, and the faithful recording of all the events that occurred that "proved" his "claims." Without the person of Christ, there is no "Christian religion" and without His resurrection from the dead, even Christianity would be "no better" than any other belief system, religious or otherwise.

The resurrection IS the proof, medc. And Paul is presenting that fact as proof. Whether or not anyone "accepts" the proof is irrelevant. Paul clearly presents the resurrection of Christ as the "definitive proof" that Jesus IS who He said He is and, therefore, IS the only way by which anyone can receive forgiveness of sin and reconciliation with God.

Without the FACT of the resurrection, Christianity would be as useless as any other "belief system" in obtaining justification with God. It is NOT the "belief system" that is important, it is the OBJECT of that belief, the FACTUAL existence of Jesus Christ and the FACTUAL reality of who He is, as "proven" by the miracles, up to and including His resurrection from the dead.

And yes, I agree, they ARE profound.

Will you please just cut it out?

I did not make your point, I made MINE. You just didn't get it.

-ol' 2long

You're welcome.

Great post, ForeverHers!

I am certain other beliefs feel the same way about Christianity.


There is no PROOF of the Resurrection. I believe it to be fact because the Lord has called me...but even as a believer, I see no "proof." I have faith that those things are true and part of history....but have never seen proof and most likely these mortal eyes never will. I do NOT believe that it can be proven...just like I do not believe any of the miracles can be proved. I honestly wish they could so that all the world would open themselves to God's love.

There is NO record of any of these events that would stand up in a court FH....doesn't mean they aren't true...it just means it requires faith to believe them. As I stated earlier in this thread, documenting things YEARS(decades) after the event does not constitute proof.

You can continue to say that there is proof...but, I don't believe it exists. Thank God for faith. My pastor speaks to this very issue and I think he is right.

Do we have proof that the Lord created the world? No.
Do we have proof that Jesus gave sight to the blind? No.
Do we have proof he walked on water? No.
Do we have proof that he called Lazarus from the dead? No.

But we do have faith. Praise God.

Faith is defined as “unquestioning beliefs that do not require proof or evidence.”

Heb 11:1 (KJV) Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the [b]evidence of things not seen.[/b]

I agree with you, Medoc.

If one believes Christianity is the only true religion, one must then discount the Bible as proof of God's existance. Consider the logic.
Other religions are false.
Other religions have scriptures saying the religion is true, and the scriptures were either dictated by the divine or inspired by the divine.
If the other religions are false, the scriptures which claim they are true must be false.
If those scriptures are false, they cannot be evidence.
If you disallow others scriptures as evidence that their religions are true, how can Judeo-Christian scripture be considered proof?

It can only be considered evidence or proof if you already believe.

Evidence based on belief or faith is not proof.

You cannot show a Muslim the Bible and expect her to convert immediately because she's been shown the evidence that Christ is the way. Only when God calls her to see the Bible will she accept it.

Look at the whole chapter, MEDC.

Yes, Noah had not seen or experienced a flood before he built the ark. And yes, Abraham went to an unknown land and he never saw a person raised from the dead before, but believed God could do it...

But, were they acting w/o evidence? Did they have no knowledge of what they were doing, or why they were doing it?

God told Noah how to build that ark. He told Abraham where to go and was promised an inheritance. He was told that it was through Isaac that his seed would be called.

We have not died and gone to heaven yet, but we believe we will b/c of the evidence we already have. We know He will be faithful.... we know He will keep His promises based upon the evidence we DO have.

Sorry Marsh, but I have FAITH that God will keep His promises. That faith is not based on evidence. I understand you see it differently.

I stand by my statements about proof.

Do we have proof that God told Noah how to build an ark? No...we have faith.

Do we have any proof that any true believer has gone to heaven? No...we have faith.

If there is proof of these things, I am still waiting for someone to show me proof....but wait, I do not need it. I have faith in the Lord. His call to me is all the proof I need.

Before anyone continue with this discussion, please know, I respect your right to disagree. I am not at all standing against your faith...but unless someone can show me PROOF....and proof would NOT require faith, I will continue to believe as I do.

I have spoken to people that have spent almost their entire lives in the Word and even they admit that proof does not exist. Even if the ark were found tomorrow..that would not offer proof that the Lord was the reason Noah built the ship. Perhaps there is just a difference in my literal use of faith and proof here. Faith IMHO would not be required if proof were available.