What is Necessary For Evidence and For Being Saved?

Tetsugaku

Well-known member
The evidence that He actually exists, is only acquired by keeping his teachings.
Whosoever will call on his name shall be saved.

I am interested in how Christians see these two quotes as being consistent. Here's how I would derive a contradiction from them:

1. A rational person requires evidence in order to believe. (Premise)
2. Belief is required for being saved. (Premise)
3. A rational person can be saved. (Premise)
4. It is possible for anyone to call on God's name without keeping God's teachings. (Premise)
5. Evidence is only acquired after keeping God's teachings. (First Quote)
6. Anyone who calls on God's name will be saved. (Second Quote)
7. A rational person requires evidence before they can be saved. (From 1 & 2)
8. A rational person who calls on God's name without keeping God's teachings will be saved. (From 3, 4, & 6)
9. A rational person who calls on God's name without keeping God's teachings will not receive evidence. (From 3, 4 & 5)
10. A rational person who calls on God's name without keeping God's teachings will not be saved. (From 7 & 9)
11. A rational person who calls on God's name without keeping God's teachings both will and will not be saved. (From 8 & 10)
QED

So which premise(s) from 1-4 do Christians reject?
 
Last edited:
Q1: The evidence that He actually exists, is only acquired by keeping his teachings.
Q2: Whosoever will call on his name shall be saved.

I am interested in how Christians see these two quotes as being consistent.
If it helps, I can tell a story instead. Jim Bob is a rational unbeliever, in that he will believe if given good evidence, but has not yet seen any such evidence. Because he is not a believer, he is not at all concerned about keeping any Christian teachings, but he is curious so he calls upon the name of Jesus asking if He is real. According to Q2, Jim Bob will be saved... but how? According to Q1, Jim Bob will not have acquired any evidence, as he is not yet keeping any Christian teachings. As a rational person, he is not going to start following teachings without believing Jesus to be real, and without evidence he has no reason to think that Jesus is real... plus by Q1, without following Christian teachings he's never going to get that evidence. It follows that Jim Bob is never going to believe Jesus to be real, despite calling upon His name. So can he still be saved, as per Q2, without this belief? If Christians are right that one must first believe in order to be saved, then either Q1 or Q2 must be incorrect.
 
I am interested in how Christians see these two quotes as being consistent. Here's how I would derive a contradiction from them:
Let's see if you actually are. 14 years of debating strangers doesn't make it appear that you actually are interested.
1. A rational person requires evidence in order to believe. (Premise)
A rational person isn't a coward, spending 14 years arguing about matters they don't know.
A rational person actually takes the time to learn what's entailed, and then follows the instructions given.
2. Belief is required for being saved. (Premise)
which begs the question of what biblical belief actually is.
pity you've repeatedly disregarded the descriptions given, along with the examples to better understand what biblical faith/belief is.
3. A rational person can be saved. (Premise)
that is YHVH's promise to us.
4. A rational person can call on God's name without keeping God's teachings. (Premise)
that is what YHVH said.

now, the real question is-- did it ever occur to you that part of keeping the teachings of Jesus actually starts with calling on his name?



5. Evidence is only acquired after keeping God's teachings. (First Quote)
John 14:20-23.
you've been given this enough times that you should have it memorized by now.
Jeremiah 24:7
the interesting thing about this is.... He's stated in John 14 that he'll come and make their home with us.
I've stated that hundreds of times before. Being married to my wife for 33 years now, it's impossible to miss her existence. To enjoy God living under the same roof is incredibly profound.
in the Jeremiah passage, he's stating that he will give us the wherewithal to actually know YHVH.

6. Anyone who calls on God's name will be saved. (Second Quote)
Joel 2:32, and restated in Romans 10:13
7. A rational person requires evidence before they can be saved. (From 1 & 2)
Going back to what a rational person actually does in order to learn...

If I took your "rational person" routine tact with my various jobs, and college experiences over the past 55 years, I'd never have gotten out of bed.

Even as a child I had to learn to use utensils to eat, glasses to drink, toilets to urinate, and defecate. I had to learn how to put clothes on and take them off.
My grandfather taught me to use tools, wrenches for removing and installing nuts and bolts, a pain brush to paint, a lawnmower to cut lawns..
You however continue demonstrating your refusal to engage in the least activity. There's absolutely nothing reasonable, rational or logical about this.

8. A rational person who calls on God's name without keeping God's teachings will be saved. (From 4 & 6)
Apparently the concept that calling on YHVH's name being the introductory phase of keeping the teachings of Jesus hasn't connected with you yet.
9. A rational person who calls on God's name without keeping God's teachings will not receive evidence. (From 4 & 5)
Another preconception.
Jeremiah 29:11-14a.

He doesn't say he will ignore you.
He said if you called, he'd listen and answer you.

Jer 29:11-14 WEB 11 For I know the thoughts that I think toward you,” says Yahweh, “thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you hope and a future. 12 You shall call on me, and you shall go and pray to me, and I will listen to you. 13 You shall seek me and find me, when you search for me with all your heart. 14 I will be found by you,” says Yahweh,

I'm not seeing anything which would state God's not going to hear you, and respond accordingly.

I am however curious what you think that YHVH's response will be like, or appear as.
Those preconceptions can prevent you from actually perceiving the answer.
I've repeatedly explained that I had no idea if YHVH was real or not. I couldn't have begun to conceive of a certain answer or response.
But the answer he gave me was utterly profound. Far more than I ever could have imagined.

so, Stop thinking that unless you get a specific result, you're not going to believe him.
As previously discussed, hundreds of times before, YHVH knows exactly who you are, what you want, what you actually need and what will convince you he's real and knowable.

He is the one who decides the revelation he'll give you. If you're clinging tightly to your preconceptions or wants, you'll completely miss what he's giving.

It's akin to a parent who has a gift for their child. The child has an old raggedy doll, that's their favorite toy. The parent wants to give their child a toy which is wayyyyyy better. But the child refuses to let go of the toy, so they can receive the new gift.
They're clinging to the old worn out toy, and refuse to release it.

Which is exactly why I asked you....
what do you really want?
you can indeed cling to your old ways, and ideas. He's not going to force you to receive the gift he has waiting to give you.

what's more important to you?





10. A rational person who calls on God's name without keeping God's teachings will not be saved. (From 7 & 9)
a rational person who is stuck on their preconceptions about what keeping the teachings of Jesus actually are, will miss out on the gift being offered.

11. A rational person who calls on God's name without keeping God's teachings both will and will not be saved. (From 8 & 10)
QED
Classic preconception, and bias confirmation! Ding ding ding!
So which premise(s) from 1-4 do Christians reject?
The real question here is....

Is your childhood toy really so important to you that you'll refuse to engage YHVH on his terms and receive the gift he's wanting to give you?
 
Let's see if you actually are. 14 years of debating strangers doesn't make it appear that you actually are interested.

A rational person isn't a coward, spending 14 years arguing about matters they don't know.
A rational person actually takes the time to learn what's entailed, and then follows the instructions given.

which begs the question of what biblical belief actually is.
pity you've repeatedly disregarded the descriptions given, along with the examples to better understand what biblical faith/belief is.

that is YHVH's promise to us.

that is what YHVH said.

now, the real question is-- did it ever occur to you that part of keeping the teachings of Jesus actually starts with calling on his name?

John 14:20-23.
you've been given this enough times that you should have it memorized by now.
Jeremiah 24:7
the interesting thing about this is.... He's stated in John 14 that he'll come and make their home with us.
I've stated that hundreds of times before. Being married to my wife for 33 years now, it's impossible to miss her existence. To enjoy God living under the same roof is incredibly profound.
in the Jeremiah passage, he's stating that he will give us the wherewithal to actually know YHVH.

Joel 2:32, and restated in Romans 10:13

Going back to what a rational person actually does in order to learn...

If I took your "rational person" routine tact with my various jobs, and college experiences over the past 55 years, I'd never have gotten out of bed.

Even as a child I had to learn to use utensils to eat, glasses to drink, toilets to urinate, and defecate. I had to learn how to put clothes on and take them off.
My grandfather taught me to use tools, wrenches for removing and installing nuts and bolts, a pain brush to paint, a lawnmower to cut lawns..
You however continue demonstrating your refusal to engage in the least activity. There's absolutely nothing reasonable, rational or logical about this.

Apparently the concept that calling on YHVH's name being the introductory phase of keeping the teachings of Jesus hasn't connected with you yet.

Another preconception.
Jeremiah 29:11-14a.

He doesn't say he will ignore you.
He said if you called, he'd listen and answer you.

Jer 29:11-14 WEB 11 For I know the thoughts that I think toward you,” says Yahweh, “thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you hope and a future. 12 You shall call on me, and you shall go and pray to me, and I will listen to you. 13 You shall seek me and find me, when you search for me with all your heart. 14 I will be found by you,” says Yahweh,

I'm not seeing anything which would state God's not going to hear you, and respond accordingly.

I am however curious what you think that YHVH's response will be like, or appear as.
Those preconceptions can prevent you from actually perceiving the answer.
I've repeatedly explained that I had no idea if YHVH was real or not. I couldn't have begun to conceive of a certain answer or response.
But the answer he gave me was utterly profound. Far more than I ever could have imagined.

so, Stop thinking that unless you get a specific result, you're not going to believe him.
As previously discussed, hundreds of times before, YHVH knows exactly who you are, what you want, what you actually need and what will convince you he's real and knowable.

He is the one who decides the revelation he'll give you. If you're clinging tightly to your preconceptions or wants, you'll completely miss what he's giving.

It's akin to a parent who has a gift for their child. The child has an old raggedy doll, that's their favorite toy. The parent wants to give their child a toy which is wayyyyyy better. But the child refuses to let go of the toy, so they can receive the new gift.
They're clinging to the old worn out toy, and refuse to release it.

Which is exactly why I asked you....
what do you really want?
you can indeed cling to your old ways, and ideas. He's not going to force you to receive the gift he has waiting to give you.

what's more important to you?

a rational person who is stuck on their preconceptions about what keeping the teachings of Jesus actually are, will miss out on the gift being offered.

Classic preconception, and bias confirmation! Ding ding ding!

The real question here is....

Is your childhood toy really so important to you that you'll refuse to engage YHVH on his terms and receive the gift he's wanting to give you?
You haven't indicated in any of this which premise(s) from 1-4 that you think are wrong. All the later lines you object to are derived with deductive logic from those premises combined with your two quotes. So you are not telling me yet how you resolve the contradiction.
 
Steve, here's one example of why your above post fails to address the proof...

9. A rational person who calls on God's name without keeping God's teachings will not receive evidence. (From 3, 4 & 5)
Another preconception.
Line 9 is not a preconception. It is, as indicated in parentheses, a sub-conclusion derived from previous lines 3-5. So if you disagree with line 9, you need to show either (i) that one of lines 3-5 are false; or (ii) that I am wrong in thinking that 9 follows from 3-5, i.e. that 3-5 can be true without 9 also being true.

In this instance, 9 follows because the rational person (as per 3) who has called on God's name is not keeping God's teachings (as 4 says is possible) and therefore will not receive evidence (as 5 clearly states).
 
You haven't indicated in any of this which premise(s) from 1-4 that you think are wrong. All the later lines you object to are derived with deductive logic from those premises combined with your two quotes. So you are not telling me yet how you resolve the contradiction.
I provided detailed answers for each.
Are you saying that you didn't actually read?
 
Steve, here's one example of why your above post fails to address the proof...


Line 9 is not a preconception. It is, as indicated in parentheses, a sub-conclusion derived from previous lines 3-5. So if you disagree with line 9, you need to show either (i) that one of lines 3-5 are false; or (ii) that I am wrong in thinking that 9 follows from 3-5, i.e. that 3-5 can be true without 9 also being true.

In this instance, 9 follows because the rational person (as per 3) who has called on God's name is not keeping God's teachings (as 4 says is possible) and therefore will not receive evidence (as 5 clearly states).
Yes, actually it is. I explained why in the body of my post. Are you saying that you didn't actually read?
 
I provided detailed answers for each.
Are you saying that you didn't actually read?
Yes, actually it is. I explained why in the body of my post. Are you saying that you didn't actually read?
You typed words after each line, but they did not show a rejection of any of lines 1-4, or show how any of the subsequent lines do not in fact follow from those combined with Q1 and Q2. If you can give me a simple True or False for each line 1-11, we can then work through the proof to see where any error on my part (or yours) might be.
 
Let's see if you actually are. 14 years of debating strangers doesn't make it appear that you actually are interested.
Actually, 14 years of debate shows a great deal of interest.

A rational person isn't a coward, spending 14 years arguing about matters they don't know.
A rational person actually takes the time to learn what's entailed, and then follows the instructions given.
But you agree with Line 1 that a rational person requires evidence to believe, yes?

which begs the question of what biblical belief actually is.
pity you've repeatedly disregarded the descriptions given, along with the examples to better understand what biblical faith/belief is.
I meant belief that Jesus/God is real and exists. I agree that there is typically more to biblical faith than this, but Line 2 just says that being saved requires at least the belief that Jesus/God is real and exists. Agreed?

that is YHVH's promise to us.
So you agree with Line 3.

that is what YHVH said.

now, the real question is-- did it ever occur to you that part of keeping the teachings of Jesus actually starts with calling on his name?
And you agree with Line 4. You can say that calling on God's name is one initial part of keeping the teachings of Jesus. I don't think this affects the proof.

John 14:20-23.
you've been given this enough times that you should have it memorized by now.
Jeremiah 24:7
the interesting thing about this is.... He's stated in John 14 that he'll come and make their home with us.
I've stated that hundreds of times before. Being married to my wife for 33 years now, it's impossible to miss her existence. To enjoy God living under the same roof is incredibly profound.
in the Jeremiah passage, he's stating that he will give us the wherewithal to actually know YHVH.
So you agree with Line 5. It is your own quote, after all.

Joel 2:32, and restated in Romans 10:13
And you agree with Line 6.

Going back to what a rational person actually does in order to learn...

If I took your "rational person" routine tact with my various jobs, and college experiences over the past 55 years, I'd never have gotten out of bed.

Even as a child I had to learn to use utensils to eat, glasses to drink, toilets to urinate, and defecate. I had to learn how to put clothes on and take them off.
My grandfather taught me to use tools, wrenches for removing and installing nuts and bolts, a pain brush to paint, a lawnmower to cut lawns..
You however continue demonstrating your refusal to engage in the least activity. There's absolutely nothing reasonable, rational or logical about this.
But do you agree with Line 7, and accept that it follows from Lines 1 & 2?

Apparently the concept that calling on YHVH's name being the introductory phase of keeping the teachings of Jesus hasn't connected with you yet.
This doesn't tell me whether you agree with Line 8, and accept that it follows from Lines 3, 4, & 6.

Another preconception.
Jeremiah 29:11-14a.

He doesn't say he will ignore you.
He said if you called, he'd listen and answer you.

Jer 29:11-14 WEB 11 For I know the thoughts that I think toward you,” says Yahweh, “thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you hope and a future. 12 You shall call on me, and you shall go and pray to me, and I will listen to you. 13 You shall seek me and find me, when you search for me with all your heart. 14 I will be found by you,” says Yahweh,

I'm not seeing anything which would state God's not going to hear you, and respond accordingly.

I am however curious what you think that YHVH's response will be like, or appear as.
Those preconceptions can prevent you from actually perceiving the answer.
I've repeatedly explained that I had no idea if YHVH was real or not. I couldn't have begun to conceive of a certain answer or response.
But the answer he gave me was utterly profound. Far more than I ever could have imagined.

so, Stop thinking that unless you get a specific result, you're not going to believe him.
As previously discussed, hundreds of times before, YHVH knows exactly who you are, what you want, what you actually need and what will convince you he's real and knowable.

He is the one who decides the revelation he'll give you. If you're clinging tightly to your preconceptions or wants, you'll completely miss what he's giving.

It's akin to a parent who has a gift for their child. The child has an old raggedy doll, that's their favorite toy. The parent wants to give their child a toy which is wayyyyyy better. But the child refuses to let go of the toy, so they can receive the new gift.
They're clinging to the old worn out toy, and refuse to release it.

Which is exactly why I asked you....
what do you really want?
you can indeed cling to your old ways, and ideas. He's not going to force you to receive the gift he has waiting to give you.

what's more important to you?
Do you agree with Line 9, and accept that it follows from Lines 3, 4, & 5?

a rational person who is stuck on their preconceptions about what keeping the teachings of Jesus actually are, will miss out on the gift being offered.
But do you agree with Line 10, and accept that it follows from Lines 7 & 9?

Classic preconception, and bias confirmation! Ding ding ding!
What is 'bias confirmation'? Did you mean 'confirmation bias'? And how is it applicable here? Line 11 simply combines Lines 8 and 10 together, so there is no bias of any sort involved. Obviously Line 11 is contradictory and false, but the question is where a mistake was made in getting here. Unless you can show an error in inference from one line to another, one of the initial assumptions of Lines 1-4 must be wrong.

The real question here is....

Is your childhood toy really so important to you that you'll refuse to engage YHVH on his terms and receive the gift he's wanting to give you?
That might be your question, but my question was which premise from Lines 1-4 do you reject? If Lines 1-4 are all true, then which subsequent line doesn't follow from the lines I've derived them from?
 
Last edited:
If it helps, I can tell a story instead. Jim Bob is a rational unbeliever, in that he will believe if given good evidence, but has not yet seen any such evidence. Because he is not a believer, he is not at all concerned about keeping any Christian teachings, but he is curious so he calls upon the name of Jesus asking if He is real. According to Q2, Jim Bob will be saved... but how? According to Q1, Jim Bob will not have acquired any evidence, as he is not yet keeping any Christian teachings. As a rational person, he is not going to start following teachings without believing Jesus to be real, and without evidence he has no reason to think that Jesus is real... plus by Q1, without following Christian teachings he's never going to get that evidence. It follows that Jim Bob is never going to believe Jesus to be real, despite calling upon His name. So can he still be saved, as per Q2, without this belief? If Christians are right that one must first believe in order to be saved, then either Q1 or Q2 must be incorrect.

Salvation is initiated by God, not by the one being saved. He discerns the receptive hearts, not the curious minds, and beckons those with such hearts to come to Him to be rescued from a world which they feel has an unhealthy grip on them. If Jim Bob is looking for evidence and not for release from his own sins, most likely because he does not recognize or is not troubled by those sins, then Jim Bob will experience nothing and will go on his merry atheist way, as much, that is, as an atheist can be merry.
 
Salvation is initiated by God, not by the one being saved. He discerns the receptive hearts, not the curious minds, and beckons those with such hearts to come to Him to be rescued from a world which they feel has an unhealthy grip on them. If Jim Bob is looking for evidence and not for release from his own sins, most likely because he does not recognize or is not troubled by those sins, then Jim Bob will experience nothing and will go on his merry atheist way, as much, that is, as an atheist can be merry.
Can you relate this to the proof? It sounds like you are rejecting Line 6, i.e. the second of the two quotes.
 
If it helps, I can tell a story instead. Jim Bob is a rational unbeliever, in that he will believe if given good evidence, but has not yet seen any such evidence. Because he is not a believer, he is not at all concerned about keeping any Christian teachings, but he is curious so he calls upon the name of Jesus asking if He is real. According to Q2, Jim Bob will be saved... but how? According to Q1, Jim Bob will not have acquired any evidence, as he is not yet keeping any Christian teachings. As a rational person, he is not going to start following teachings without believing Jesus to be real, and without evidence he has no reason to think that Jesus is real... plus by Q1, without following Christian teachings he's never going to get that evidence. It follows that Jim Bob is never going to believe Jesus to be real, despite calling upon His name. So can he still be saved, as per Q2, without this belief? If Christians are right that one must first believe in order to be saved, then either Q1 or Q2 must be incorrect.
To clarify, Jim Bob seems stuck with an impossible circle for which he will never gain access.

Jv2sDcd.jpeg


He can't believe without evidence (Line 1), he can't get evidence without following the teachings (Quote 1), and he has no reason to follow the teachings without first believing. So he will never get to belief or evidence, and without belief he cannot be saved (Line 2), which then contradicts the claim that by calling on God's name he will be saved (Quote 2).
 
Last edited:
You typed words after each line,

wow.

quite astute.
those words were actually arranged in a very specific manner.
but, this does indeed show that you never actually read them.

but they did not show a rejection of any of lines 1-4, or show how any of the subsequent lines do not in fact follow from those combined with Q1 and Q2. If you can give me a simple True or False for each line 1-11, we can then work through the proof to see where any error on my part (or yours) might be.
Meh.....
Pity you failed to read the words I typed.
 
wow.
quite astute.
those words were actually arranged in a very specific manner.
but, this does indeed show that you never actually read them.
Meh.....
Pity you failed to read the words I typed.
I read and responded to what you wrote. Can you do the same for me in return?
 
Can you relate this to the proof? It sounds like you are rejecting Line 6, i.e. the second of the two quotes.

No, I not only do not reject "Whosoever shall call upon the Lord Jesus shall be saved," I heartily believe it, but of course I believe that that "call" must be from a hungering heart and not from a curious mind. The Lord cannot be dispassionately conjured up.
 
No, I not only do not reject "Whosoever shall call upon the Lord Jesus shall be saved," I heartily believe it, but of course I believe that that "call" must be from a hungering heart and not from a curious mind. The Lord cannot be dispassionately conjured up.
So which step or premise in the OP argument is in error?
 
So which step or premise in the OP argument is in error?
I wouldn't necessarily call 2 an error, but it's problematic unless we have the proper (I don't like the word "correct") object for the noun "belief." Belief in what? God? Belief in His ability to save or belief in His existence? The latter is much easier to come by than the former. When I first called upon His name at age 26, I had a weak belief in the latter and even weaker in the former, both mixed with serious doubts. God responded to my belief, weak as it was, since for the first time I IMPLORED with sincerity instead of requesting for the sake of establishing a correct life view.
 
I wouldn't necessarily call 2 an error, but it's problematic unless we have the proper (I don't like the word "correct") object for the noun "belief." Belief in what? God? Belief in His ability to save or belief in His existence? The latter is much easier to come by than the former. When I first called upon His name at age 26, I had a weak belief in the latter and even weaker in the former, both mixed with serious doubts. God responded to my belief, weak as it was, since for the first time I IMPLORED with sincerity instead of requesting for the sake of establishing a correct life view.
I explained what I meant by belief in a reply to Steve above. I meant that a belief in God's existence is necessary for being saved (but not necessarily for getting evidence from God when calling upon his name). I don't think a sincere calling upon God requires belief that He is real. In any case, I'm still not clear which step or premise of the argument you would question.
 
I meant that a belief in God's existence is necessary for being saved ...........

And the Bible backs you up in that belief:

Hebrews 11:6:

"And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him."
 
And the Bible backs you up in that belief:

Hebrews 11:6:

"And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him."
Exactly. So where is the faulty premise or inference in the OP proof?
 
Back
Top