Trust No Man (Advice Worthy of Acceptance)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Agathon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
the Holy Spirit descended on you in the form of a fire as on the apostles, and whispered to you that God wrote the Bible! you tell anything to deny an obviousness.
And in addition, it is the men who have said that the Holy Spirit can speak to your Spirit and you have trusted them, for what you consider to be the Holy Spirit are probably only your own thoughts.
 
Mboo said:
the Holy Spirit descended on you in the form of a fire as on the apostles, and whispered to you that God wrote the Bible!
Click to expand...
The Holy Spirit works in many ways. He can speak through fanfare and might, but He mostly uses the still small voice. That was how it worked for me. What of you?
 
it was the men who told you all this and not God Himself in person, and you trusted them …
 
And also this little voice as you say, it’s probably your own thought and not the voice of God
 
So let’s clear up your definition of trust first.

Is it confidence with or without evidence?

That would make a difference, no?

If it is without evidence, as I suspect, then your bringing up the definition of faith in Hebrews doesn’t support your view.
Agathon said:
It’s the definition of it in Paul’s epistle to the Hebrews. “Faith is the realization of things hoped for and evidence of things we do not see.” God sees all, therefore He cannot have faith.
Click to expand...
If your definition of trust was “without evidence,” then the writer of Hebrews doesn’t say faith excludes all evidence, he specifically states faith, itself, is “evidence of things we do not see,” meaning that faith itself is the evidence for the things hoped for but not seen.

So he counts faith as evidence, he is not stating that faith is not supported by evidence.

By the way, it is not established that Paul was the author of Hebrews. That question has been an open one since the first century. Even the ante-Nicene Fathers debated the question.
 
Last edited:
Mboo said:
And also this little voice as you say, it’s probably your own thought and not the voice of God
Click to expand...
Doesn’t Scripture say that no one can say Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit?
 
Mboo said:
it was the men who told you all this and not God Himself in person, and you trusted them …
Click to expand...
Even if all of one’s faith was handed on to someone by men, one could use the intellect God gave him to determine truth. Faith in God isn’t a matter of trusting people.
 
Agathon said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
If it is without evidence, as I suspect, then your bringing up the definition of faith in Hebrews doesn’t support your view.

Agathon:
Click to expand...
But it still proves God has no faith, since God sees all, no?
Click to expand...
Only if you equivocate the meaning of faith with the meaning of trust, AND, at the same time, assume that trust means ‘confidence without evidence.’

The first equivocation might be defensible to some degree, but the latter assumption needs to be shown.

In fact, you haven’t even admitted your error when I asked whether you did mean “confidence withOUT evidence,” since you wrote "confidence with evidence,’ in one of your posts.
40.png
Trust No Man (Advice Worthy of Acceptance) Spirituality
Trust is confidence with evidence. God is all knowing so by that definition He can’t trust.
Click to expand...
If you did mean trust is “confidence with evidence,” then you have undermined your whole argument. You equated trust with faith, so if trust is “confidence with evidence” then God, being omniscient, would have access to an infinite supply of evidence and hence would be capable of infinite confidence (or faith) in the individuals he would place confidence (or faith) in.

Hence, you haven’t proved “God has no faith, since God sees all.” In fact, you have disproved it.
 
HarryStotle said:
If you did mean trust is “confidence with evidence,” then you have undermined your whole argument. You equated trust with faith, so if trust is “confidence with evidence” then God, being omniscient, would have access to an infinite supply of evidence and hence would be capable of infinite confidence (or faith) in the individuals he would place confidence (or faith) in.
Click to expand...
You guessed accurately what I meant before. “Trust is confidence without evidence.” I’m holding you to that.
 
HarryStotle said:
Only if you equivocate the meaning of faith with the meaning of trust, AND, at the same time, assume that trust means ‘confidence without evidence.’
Click to expand...
It’s not an assumption.

Even Aquinas said similar statements, “Faith…implies a certain defect…and this defect was not in Christ. And hence there could be no faith in Him (ST, ch. 9: ques. 7: article 3).”
 
Last edited:
Agathon said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
If it is without evidence, as I suspect, then your bringing up the definition of faith in Hebrews doesn’t support your view.

Agathon:
Click to expand...
But it still proves God has no faith, since God sees all, no?
Click to expand...
No it doesn’t because if faith means something like “warranted trust,” then God would have faith (or trust) in those he infallibly knows are trustworthy, precisely because he knows their characters completely and intimately.

If, on the other hand, trust is confidence without evidence, you would need to demonstrate why it is a good idea to blindly trust anyone or anything. It would just seem crazy to trust others before finding them to be trustworthy.

In any case, to repeat a previous point, the writer of Hebrews doesn’t say faith excludes all evidence, he specifically states faith, itself, is “evidence of things we do not see,” meaning that faith itself is the evidence for the things hoped for but not seen. That means faith is, itself, evidence, not that it is confidence without evidence.
 
HarryStotle said:
If, on the other hand, trust is confidence without evidence, you would need to demonstrate why it is a good idea to blindly trust anyone or anything. It would just seem crazy to trust others before finding them to be trustworthy.
Click to expand...
Which is exactly why we’re told “Cursed is the man who trusts in man.” God doesn’t have faith since, as Aquinas stated “Faith…implies a certain defect…and this defect was not in Christ. And hence there could be no faith in Him (ST, ch. 9: ques. 7: article 3).”
 
Last edited:
thistle said:
40.png
Agathon:
“Cursed is the man who trusts in man.”
Click to expand...
This means our main dependence should be on God. It does not mean we should not trust people.
Click to expand...
It takes huge mental gymnastics to say the verse “Cursed is the man who trusts in man” means the exact opposite of what it clearly states.
 
Agathon said:
It takes huge mental gymnastics to say the verse “Cursed is the man who trusts in man” means the exact opposite of what it clearly states.
Click to expand...
D-R Bible, Haydock Commentary:

Ver. 5. Thus. Septuagint continue from the last chapter, “cursed,” &c. (Haydock) — Sedecias had formed alliances with several princes, instead of turning to the Lord, chap. xxvii., and xxxvii. (Calmet) — Our chief dependence must be on God, not on human policy. (Worthington)
 
Not me. Scripture did it first. Do you want to be a person who goes against what Scripture explicitly states? DO YOU?

The fact that I got four likes when I posted this thread proves your statement that “everyone disagrees with you” isn’t accurate. Even if that were true, the truth doesn’t hinge on popular opinion. It never has.
 
Last edited:
Agathon said:
Not me. Scripture did it first. Do you want to be a person who goes against what Scripture explicitly states? DO YOU?
Click to expand...
You are privately interpreting Scripture when Scripture tells us not to do that!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top