The Tulip is broken

[Jac3510]

Answer

Question: How can you know you are saved?

Drstevej answers:

First, I do not doubt I am saved. (ASSURRANCE !!!) Why?

• (A: HIS PROMISE BELIEVED) His word says if I put my trust in Jesus as my savior I will be saved and I did.
• (B: HIS WORK IN ME) His Spirit has been active in my life in sanctification.
• (C: INNER WITNESS) His Spirit bears witness with my spirit that I am a child of Good

If you don't mind my pointing something out, I didn't ask if you knew you were saved. I asked how you knew you were one of the elect. Obviously, if you are elect, then you are saved. And, of course, the elect believe, have the Spirit, and your theology tells you that they have the witness of the Spirit. That's all fine and good.

So, if I may, again . . . what makes you sure that you are one of His chosen?

 

[Jac3510]

Nor response to this: Further, all of my professors at Dallas Seminary were dispensationalists and to my knowledge none fell off horses. Dr Bob Lightner did survive a plane crash, but he was a dispensationalist before and after it went down.

You could always respond by pointing that the argument is a genetic fallacy . . .

 

[drstevej]

I am a Calvinist. I do not believe that a saved person is not elect. So answering the one answers the other.

 

[drstevej]

You could always respond by pointing that the argument is a genetic fallacy . . .

edited ... misunderstood

 

[Jac3510]

I am a Calvinist. I do not believe that a saved person is not elect. So answering the one answers the other.

But you also believe that someone can believe that they are elect and be wrong about it. Calvinism recognizes that there are some people who are deceived about their salvation. They think that they are elect, but their "good works" are only from their own flesh. Their faith is not the living faith granted from God (as in Luke 8), and as such, they will fall away eventually.

What I want to know is how you know that you aren't deceived. How do you know you will persevere unto the end. Observe:

1. All the elect will persevere until the end;
2. I am elect;
3. Therefore I will persevere until the end.

So, how do you know (2) is true?

Your statement is an insult to the faculty members that taught me at DTS who were not convinced by a head injury.

I dunno . . . I bet Chafer, Ryrie, Pentecost, Lighter, etc. could spot genetic fallacy when they saw one.

 

[drstevej]

But you also believe that someone can believe that they are elect and be wrong about it. Calvinism recognizes that there are some people who are deceived about their salvation. They think that they are elect, but their "good works" are only from their own flesh. Their faith is not the living faith granted from God (as in Luke 8), and as such, they will fall away eventually.

What I want to know is how you know that you aren't deceived. How do you know you will persevere unto the end. Observe:

1. All the elect will persevere until the end;
2. I am elect;
3. Therefore I will persevere until the end.

So, how do you know (2) is true?

It is the SAME answer to how I know I am saved... posted before.

I dunno . . . I bet Chafer, Ryrie, Pentecost, Lighter, etc. could spot genetic fallacy when they saw one.

I apologize, I didn't know the meaning of genetic fallacy. Sorry

TEN MILLION REP POINTS coming your way

 

[Jac3510]

It is the SAME answer to how I know I am saved... posted before.

I'm sorry, I'm not being clear. OK, you say you know you are saved/elect because the saved/elect (1) believe, (2) have good works, and (3) have the witness of the HS. That's all fine and good.

But you will also point out that there are people who believe "for a little while" and then fall away, proving they were never saved to begin with (at least, that's the standard perseverance line). These are people who were genuinely convinced they were saved, but they were deceived, and eventually manifested their reprobate states.

Thus, while you may (1) believe, that belief may also be false belief, if you are not one of the elect; you may (2) have good works, but those good works may only be from your flesh, if you are not one of the elect; and you may (3) think you have the witness of the Spirit, but that witness may be you deceiving yourself, if you are not one of the elect.

How, then, do you know that your belief, works, and witness are genuine, as opposed to those whose belief, works, and witness were not genuine, even though they believed them to be so with the same intensity you now do? I am asking you you know that you are not deceived about the state of your soul? For don't you believe that there are people who believe that they are saved when they are, in fact, not? And if you concede that, then how do you know that you are not one of them?

I apologize, I didn't know the meaning of genetic fallacy. Sorry

NP - I hope I didn't come across as arguing against your point. If anyone else missed it, I meant that the original idea that Dispensationalism is doubtful because the man who came up with it had a head injury is an invalid argument, because it assumes that the source of the argument has validity on its truthfulness. But that assumption is what is called a genetic fallacy. Ideas are true or false on their own merit, not on the merit of the person who came up with them. For instance, a child rapist can teach his first grade class that 2+2=4, but just because he is a rapist, we are not justified in saying that what the children were taught is false. That would be a genetic fallacy.

edit: Thanks for the rep points. Now I need to be schooled on what they (and the blessings things) are. Link/explanation? Thanks much

 

[drstevej]

Jac - Time will tell if I am deceived. I certainly am not concerned.

Calvin said Christ is the mirror of our election:

Christ, then, is the mirror in which we ought, and in which, without deception, we may contemplate our election. For since it is into his body that the Father has decreed to ingraft those whom from eternity he wished to be his, that he may regard as sons all whom he acknowledges to be his members, if we are in communion with Christ, we have proof sufficiently clear and strong that we are written in the Book of Life.

 

[heymikey80]

I'm sorry, I'm not being clear. OK, you say you know you are saved/elect because the saved/elect (1) believe, (2) have good works, and (3) have the witness of the HS. That's all fine and good.

But you will also point out that there are people who believe "for a little while" and then fall away, proving they were never saved to begin with (at least, that's the standard perseverance line). These are people who were genuinely convinced they were saved, but they were deceived, and eventually manifested their reprobate states.

Thus, while you may (1) believe, that belief may also be false belief, if you are not one of the elect; you may (2) have good works, but those good works may only be from your flesh, if you are not one of the elect; and you may (3) think you have the witness of the Spirit, but that witness may be you deceiving yourself, if you are not one of the elect.

How, then, do you know that your belief, works, and witness are genuine, as opposed to those whose belief, works, and witness were not genuine, even though they believed them to be so with the same intensity you now do? I am asking you you know that you are not deceived about the state of your soul? For don't you believe that there are people who believe that they are saved when they are, in fact, not? And if you concede that, then how do you know that you are not one of them?

You're running the reasoning of an epistemological paradox, "What do I really know is true?" The Enlightenment is flatly focused on this issue.

The fact that anyone could be deceived, leaves all human beings open to the charge that they're being deceived, themselves.

Because the fact is, none of us is the arbiter of truth.

But -- a question here -- what if we relied on the Arbiter of Truth to undeceive us? That is, to redeem us? Not our own self-sustaining action or self-serving theology, but looking to Him, knowing our inability to recognize the truth?

Is He trustworthy?

The result is this: that at any given time we're deceived. As wheat we don't look any different from the tares.

If we rely on the True, though, we are constantly being led into all truth. We can cite falling away as prime evidence (not infallible -- primary) that we weren't relying on the True, because He would be leading us into truth. We can cite doing what Christ commands as prime evidence that we have come to know Christ. We can cite a confession of our sins as prime evidence that we are forgiven of all our sins and led into all righteousness.

When we assess evidence, that assessment is not infallible. But it can be prime. People can be deceived, sure. But God accomplishes what He intends in the hearts, minds and actions of His children. Relying on God Who is trustworthy is critical in all this. Without Him we're already deceived. And with Him we're already being redeemed.

 

[Jac3510]

Jac - Time will tell if I am deceived. I certainly am not concerned.

I appreciate the fact that you aren't concerned. I certainly don't think that you are sitting around biting your nails wondering about it all the time. But, if I may press still very gently, just because we don't wonder about an issue doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Are you saying that you don't know for sure that you are saved, but you are only hoping for the best?

You're running the reasoning of an epistemological paradox, "What do I really know is true?" The Enlightenment is flatly focused on this issue.

Careful not to commit that genetic fallacy. Whether or not the Enlightenment brought the issue up, and whatever we may think about that period of time, the idea is the idea and needs to be taken on its own terms.

The fact that anyone could be deceived, leaves all human beings open to the charge that they're being deceived, themselves.

But there are some things that we cannot be deceived about. I cannot be deceived that 1+1=2 or that I exist. I can't be deceived in my personal beliefs or thoughts, for my they are a very matter of my own constitution. And, to the extent that my premises are true and my methodology correct, I cannot be deceived about any given conclusion. So while your statement is in one sense true, it is not true of all facts.

Because the fact is, none of us is the arbiter of truth.

Of course not, but all of us are discoverers of truth. Unless you believe that we cannot know any truth?

But -- a question here -- what if we relied on the Arbiter of Truth to undeceive us? That is, to redeem us? Not our own self-sustaining action or self-serving theology, but looking to Him, knowing our inability to recognize the truth?

I have no problem with that at all. It is the basis of my own assurance. But when this Arbiter of Truth has (supposedly) told us that some of us are mistaken in our belief that we are looking to Him--that we are deceived--then the entire issue becomes moot.

Is He trustworthy?

He is certainly trustworthy to save those whom He has elected. But how, then, do you know if you are elect? For if I know I am elect, then I know my belief is not false. But that means I cannot use my belief as a basis of knowing whether or not I am elect, and thus, my belief cannot serve as a basis for any assurance of my salvation. The logic is simply inescapable:

1. Some people who claim they have believed, and are convinced they have believed, have not actually believed, but are deceived;
2. I claim I have believed and am convinced I have believed;
3. Therefore, I may be one of the ones who are deceived.

The result is this: that at any given time we're deceived. As wheat we don't look any different from the tares.

Only in perseverance theology. I know I am not deceived, but I don't hold to perseverance. I hold to eternal security. So, for those who do hold to perseverance, how can they claim to know that they are not deceived? And if they cannot know that they are not, then how can they say that they know they are saved?

If we rely on the True, though, we are constantly being led into all truth. We can cite falling away as prime evidence (not infallible -- primary) that we weren't relying on the True, because He would be leading us into truth. We can cite doing what Christ commands as prime evidence that we have come to know Christ. We can cite a confession of our sins as prime evidence that we are forgiven of all our sins and led into all righteousness.

Yes, and all those things prove that you cannot know that you are saved, for if I fall away, it happens at a place in time subsequent to my profession in faith, my keeping His commands, and my confession of sin. That means that any given profession of faith, keeping of the commandments, and confession of sin does not mean I can know I am saved, for it is possible that I may fall away in the future if I, unbenownst to myself, am not elect.

When we assess evidence, that assessment is not infallible. But it can be prime. People can be deceived, sure. But God accomplishes what He intends in the hearts, minds and actions of His children.

I certainly agree that God accomplishes His goals in His children. But how do you know that you are one of them? Perhaps you are a tare, and you simply don't know it? Perhaps in time you will fall away, demonstrating the fact that your faith was not real.

Isn't it true, then, that you don't KNOW you are saved, but you only hope/think you are?

 

[nobdysfool]

What is a "genetic" fallacy? Are you sure you don't mean "generic" fallacy?

 

[drstevej]

I know I am saved, time will prove it to YOU.

 

[heymikey80]

Careful not to commit that genetic fallacy. Whether or not the Enlightenment brought the issue up, and whatever we may think about that period of time, the idea is the idea and needs to be taken on its own terms.

Well, not quite. If an idea emerges from a group of cultural assumptions, and that issue is not married to cultural assumptions from other eras and areas, then the cultural assumptions themselves could be what bears examination.

It need not be taken on its own terms. It need be taken in real terms, not necessarily its own.

But there are some things that we cannot be deceived about. I cannot be deceived that 1+1=2 or that I exist.

Actually you can't demonstrate either. 1+1=2 is simply a mass of communicative definitions brought together and resolved by a concept of logical meaning.

I think this can be demonstrated with a question.

Is logic an invention or is it reality?

I can't be deceived in my personal beliefs or thoughts, for my they are a very matter of my own constitution.

1. You can be deceived about their connection with reality, which reaches the same result.

2. You can't communicate those personal beliefs or thoughts in a way that guarantees their accurate reception.

3. You may even have a tough time putting them into words, in which case you're having trouble communicating them to yourself. Worse, your attempt to reduce them to the communicable may deprive them of reality -- and you may lose the actual sense of their reality when you experienced them.

Words are not reality. Words are map symbols.

And, to the extent that my premises are true and my methodology correct, I cannot be deceived about any given conclusion. So while your statement is in one sense true, it is not true of all facts.

And how do you propose to demonstrate the correctness of your methodology and the truth of your premises?

Logic uses the term "validity" for a reason -- it doesn't establish truth or falsehood.

Of course not, but all of us are discoverers of truth. Unless you believe that we cannot know any truth?

My question is whether you have any assurance that you know any truth.

If you don't then my point is valid, and addresses your point accurately.

I have no problem with that at all. It is the basis of my own assurance. But when this Arbiter of Truth has (supposedly) told us that some of us are mistaken in our belief that we are looking to Him--that we are deceived--then the entire issue becomes moot.

It is definitely not a moot point when the Arbiter of Truth has (supposedly) told us how to escape this deception.

He is certainly trustworthy to save those whom He has elected. But how, then, do you know if you are elect? For if I know I am elect, then I know my belief is not false. But that means I cannot use my belief as a basis of knowing whether or not I am elect, and thus, my belief cannot serve as a basis for any assurance of my salvation. The logic is simply inescapable:

1. Some people who claim they have believed, and are convinced they have believed, have not actually believed, but are deceived;
2. I claim I have believed and am convinced I have believed;
3. Therefore, I may be one of the ones who are deceived.

The assertion of Scripture is that people are deceived due to certain means. As long as we ignore the means, or misassess the means as being something that it's not, then of course the syllogism holds.

But what if there's another means? Then the syllogism becomes irrelevant. Valid -- but irrelevant.

Only in perseverance theology. I know I am not deceived, but I don't hold to perseverance. I hold to eternal security. So, for those who do hold to perseverance, how can they claim to know that they are not deceived? And if they cannot know that they are not, then how can they say that they know they are saved?

Waitin' on that Scripture verse that says "You can't know you're not deceived."

Yes, and all those things prove that you cannot know that you are saved, for if I fall away, it happens at a place in time subsequent to my profession in faith, my keeping His commands, and my confession of sin. That means that any given profession of faith, keeping of the commandments, and confession of sin does not mean I can know I am saved, for it is possible that I may fall away in the future if I, unbenownst to myself, am not elect.

As I hold to perseverance, my point is that the Scriptural "fall away" is not a falling away from my salvation or saving belief, but from the people of God, or the keeping of Christ's commands.

You're listening to your nouns, right? "I, my, my, my, I, I, I, myself".

Again, the syllogism holds, but would be shown irrelevant if there's another means of reaching the conclusion. You can be deceived by whom? "I, my, my, my, I, I, I, myself".

The car won't "go" just because I'm at the wheel. It takes something else that I rely on: a key, a mechanic, a tank with gas. If you're just looking at whether "I'm at the wheel", that's not a reliable scheme for assuring the car's headed somewhere.

But that logic is irrelevant -- valid, but irrelevant -- if you simply observe the car zooming down the street.

I certainly agree that God accomplishes His goals in His children. But how do you know that you are one of them? Perhaps you are a tare, and you simply don't know it? Perhaps in time you will fall away, demonstrating the fact that your faith was not real.

Wouldn't you apply the rules of evidence that the Truth provided to determine this?

Isn't it true, then, that you don't KNOW you are saved, but you only hope/think you are?

Wouldn't you trust the rules of evidence that the Truth provided (and you trust in) to determine this?

 

[JDS]

I could say that I am elected to be saved before the foundation of the world and some others are elected to not be saved and that would mean nothing. However, if God said I was elected to be saved before he created the world, while others were not, then that would make it true and undeniable.
The problem I have had with ALL Calvinists I have spoken with is that they say they are elected by God but they never quote God saying they are elect in the manner they claim. That is because God never says it! This is a problem for them because God tells us who he will save and on what basis he will save them and he has never said it is on the basis of pre election. I challenge anyone to present a statement in scripture where he has.
heymickey80 earlier made a case like many Calvinists do when challenged. They ignore passages where a certain doctrine is expressly explained or stated and run to obscure and ambiguous statements whose intentions are not to address the subject at all. Following is a classic example.
I said this in post 382
I am sorry Mickey, but if your posts are supposed to show faith as the gift of God in the context of salvation from sin, you have missed the boat. One need only to consider the whole context and see that Paul is speaking to Phillipian Christians in your first passage,”
I had said earlier that faith is not said to be the “gift of God” in the context of salvation.
Heymickey80 responded with this:
“This is a clear sign to them of their destruction, but of your salvation, and that from God. For it has been given to you that for the sake of Christ you should not simply believe in him but also suffer for his sake Pp 1:28-29”
He merely went to his concordance and found a verse that had both words, given and faith in them and used that to refute my claim. This passage does not advance his argument, especially in this translation. Also the term salvation does not always mean salvation from sin. Certainly no one would believe Paul is concerned about salvation from sin in a statement earlier in this chapter. Php 1:19 For I know that this shall turn to my salvation through your prayer, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ
There is much said about the gift of God and faith is never said to be it. That is just an inarguable fact. Try substituting “faith” for the “gift of God” in the following verses and see if it makes sense.
Joh 4:10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.[/font]
Ac 8:20 But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.
Ro 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
2Ti 1:6 Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands.[/font]
Ac 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Ac 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost

Ro 5:17 For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Ro 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
The gift of God is the Holy Ghost to indwell and make those who possess him "alive". He quickens them by his presence. He is life! Possessing him is salvation. It is regeneration! It is being born again! It is passing from death to life!Here are some synonyms for you to consider!
Ac 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? 31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, (shall receive the Holy Ghost; shall be regenerated; shall pass from death unto life) Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved (receive the Holy Ghost; passed from death unto life; regenerated) through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:
Salvation, regeneration, the Holy Ghost is the gift of God offered by his grace (unmerited favor), and is not earned by good works.
This is just what the gentiles needed because they had been proclaimed dead in verse 1.
This is theology 101 and I do not understand why some try to complicate it!

 

[nobdysfool]

What is a "genetic" fallacy? Are you sure you don't mean "generic" fallacy?

Seems he won't answer.

If a man has a son who is mentally challenged, does that constitute a genetic fallacy?

 

[Jac3510]

what is a "genetic" fallacy? Are you sure you don't mean "generic" fallacy?

Yes, I'm sure. I'm not allowed to post links yet, but go to Wikipedia and look up "Genetic Fallacy" -- Here's the whole thing (it's short):

The genetic fallacy is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context.​

The fallacy therefore fails to assess the claim on its merit. The first criterion of a good argument is that the premises must have bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim in question. Genetic accounts of an issue may be true, and they may help illuminate the reasons why the issue has assumed its present form, but they are irrelevant to its merits.
​

According to the Oxford Companion to Philosophy, the term originates in Morris Cohen and Ernest Nagel's book Logic and Scientific Method.
​

From Attacking Faulty Reasoning by T. Edward Damer, Third Edition p. 36:

You're not going to wear a wedding ring, are you? Don't you know that the wedding ring originally symbolized ankle chains worn by women to prevent them from running away from their husbands? I would not have thought you would be a party to such a sexist practice." There may be reasons why people may not wish to wear wedding rings, but it would be logically inappropriate for a couple to reject the notion of exchanging wedding rings on the sole grounds of its alleged sexist origins
​

From With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies by S. Morris Engel, Fifth Edition, pg. 196:

America will never settle down; look at the rabble-rousers who founded it.
​

I know I am saved, time will prove it to YOU.

Actually, you can prove it to me by telling me that you believe the Gospel. Jesus says that every single person who believes in Him has everlasting life; so if you believe, the Bible says you are saved. That's proof enough for me (unless, of course, you are lying, but that's another issue entirely).

But to the point at hand, you are simply asserting "I know I am saved." Wonderful. How do you know?

------------------------------------------
OK, Mikey . . .

I think we might need a new thread, because it is apparent you and I have a VERY different epistemological system. Do you actually think logic is an invention? And, yes, words are symbols, but what are they symbols OF? And the idea that 1+1=2 may not be true? I'm guessing you've never studied analytical truths as opposed to synthetic?

I'm very interested in pursuing this with you, but we need to make sure we are on the same page first. So just a couple of questions for you:

1. Do you hold to particular metaphysical and/or epistemological system, or do you at least know anyone in particular who has influenced you? (Just to help me understand where you are coming from)

More importantly,

2. How would you define "knowledge"? And what are some things you think you actually know you know?

 

[drstevej]

Actually, you can prove it to me by telling me that you believe the Gospel. Jesus says that every single person who believes in Him has everlasting life; so if you believe, the Bible says you are saved. That's proof enough for me (unless, of course, you are lying, but that's another issue entirely).

But to the point at hand, you are simply asserting "I know I am saved." Wonderful. How do you know?

Already answered a time or two. (See above)

 

[Jac3510]

Already answered a time or two. (See above)

I'm trying not too press too much so as not to send the wrong message. Perhaps we are misunderstanding one another. You say that you know you are saved (elect, whatever) because you:

1. Believe;
2. Have good works;
3. Have the witness of the Spirit.

But I asked you how you knew you were not deceived with reference to each of those, for you believe that there are people who have thought they had all three and turned out that they were wrong.

To this, you replied, "Time will tell if I am deceived."

When I asked you how you knew you weren't deceived, you said because you knew you were saved. But that was the original question!

So it seems to me like you are saying, "I know I am saved because I believe, have good works, and have the witness of the Spirit; I know that each of those witnesses are true witnesses, that I am not deceiving myself, because I know I am saved." But surely you can see how such an argument is illogical.

Help me understand your position. Suppose I came to you and said I wanted to be sure I was saved. I had read Westminster and could see that I believed, that I had good works, and that I believed I had the witness of the Spirit. But suppose, also, that I said to you, "But what if all of this is only my sinful flesh deceiving me, for Jesus Himself said that there would be some who would believe for awhile and then fall away, and history has proven that to be the case!" How, then, would you give me assurance that I was not deceiving myself? How do you know that your marks of assurance are not false evidences, like they are in the lives of all false-believers?

 

[drstevej]

I know whom I have believed,
and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed
unto him against that day.

My answer is that of Paul.

 

[MamaZ]

I'm trying not too press too much so as not to send the wrong message. Perhaps we are misunderstanding one another. You say that you know you are saved (elect, whatever) because you:

1. Believe;
2. Have good works;
3. Have the witness of the Spirit.

But I asked you how you knew you were not deceived with reference to each of those, for you believe that there are people who have thought they had all three and turned out that they were wrong.

To this, you replied, "Time will tell if I am deceived."

When I asked you how you knew you weren't deceived, you said because you knew you were saved. But that was the original question!

So it seems to me like you are saying, "I know I am saved because I believe, have good works, and have the witness of the Spirit; I know that each of those witnesses are true witnesses, that I am not deceiving myself, because I know I am saved." But surely you can see how such an argument is illogical.

Help me understand your position. Suppose I came to you and said I wanted to be sure I was saved. I had read Westminster and could see that I believed, that I had good works, and that I believed I had the witness of the Spirit. But suppose, also, that I said to you, "But what if all of this is only my sinful flesh deceiving me, for Jesus Himself said that there would be some who would believe for awhile and then fall away, and history has proven that to be the case!" How, then, would you give me assurance that I was not deceiving myself? How do you know that your marks of assurance are not false evidences, like they are in the lives of all false-believers?

Then I would ask you if you really believed. For what you are saying here is not the words of belief but of doubt.. For you have your eyes on you and not on Jesus who is the author and finisher of our faith.. We believe what scripture tells us. Remember what scripture tells us about the double minded man.. We walk by faith and not by sight.. We take God at His word.