University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit Global Warming Fraud Exposed

Ed Morrissey over at HotAir.com has this story which confirms what I had heard earlier today from other sources.  This story is huge and has the potential for untold damage to the cause of the global warming elitist demagogues. Their push for government control of whole populations through societal change and wealth re-distribution is in real jeopardy now, so keep alert for some nasty pushback from them and their allies in the lamestream media.  After Obama/Pelosi/Reid care passes in some form, a government bid to seize control of 1/6 of the nation's economy from the private sector, watch out for the next big grab: Cap and Trade.

The Answer

I.

He watched the orange flame rim the mountains as the canvas began to be wiped clean. The dark pointed shapes rose higher in relief against the hazy orange and blue-gray sky. Blood-red shadows moved slowly across the landscape, filling the void where the horizon rose to meet the ever darkening sheath of crystal ebony.

This is it.

As he looked upward, here and there tiny specks shimmered, came into focus. Everything around him was fading from the warm, soft colours of day into the ash gray of night. It had always been this way. He had thought it would always be, right up until a few years ago.

This end. This last sunset of humanity.

He shivered, though it wasn't cold as Octobers go. He knew there was very little time left. Little time for tears and pain. For laughter. Or regrets. How did his favourite band put it?

No more cry.

All that was about to give way to intimacy and warmth. The joy of fulfillment and the fulfillment of joy would merge now and forever. It was the Answer. And more than that. He was even more sure of this than he was of the last Answer.

Childhood's End sat open pages down on the damp grass next to him after it had slid down off the open attache case. It was further away from him as he sat there, out of reverence for his Bible, which he carefully cradled captive on his lap. He looked over at the old paperback lying on the ground. No sense worrying about ruining it now, he thought. Having just finished it again, the expected torrent of melancholy that inevitably overtook him upon his completion of it wasn't inevitable this time at all. As usual, trying to project any meaningful theistic correlation onto the sovereign Overmind in the light of special revelation had failed at every turn of the page. The forces that brought about the kind of punctuated equilibria described in the story were ultimately impersonal and without compassion, as is to be expected. It was merely a mechanism. Intelligent, yes, but really no more than an impersonal guide to the next step. This revelation, no doubt, only served to validate the melancholy of the reader.

But not for him. Not today. Especially not today.

Contrast that with Lewis who wrote of whole races living on those shining spheres above, one whose cold, ancient existence was coming to a close even while a new and warmer world was witnessing the birth pangs of its new Lords. Those ancients who saw the passage coming and had never known within themselves what it was to be bent, patiently and with great reverent expectancy awaited the turn of the page.

And now it was the turn of the page for his own people.

Who knew of it? Hadn't it been known for so long now? They had tried to get the word out. Tried to warn everyone. But so few would listen, even among those who were supposedly destined to be called the Remnant.

But the Remnant was so much smaller than he had ever dreamed. Why hadn't they listened?  Had he and the others like him failed?

He was alone. In spite of it all, in spite of the tearful pleading, even his friends, and finally his family, had abandoned him. That was to be expected, he was told, though it offered him little comfort.

Being true to his calling he argued and cajoled, carefully laying out the plan in his blog which he kept meticulously updated. There was no shortage of argument and mockery, even from those whom he thought he might have received some sympathy. Some he had previously counted among his friends. The gospel had gone forth, had been going forth from the churches for centuries, for millennia. His own special fellowship group had picked up the baton after the churches had failed, when God had withdrawn Himself. The Great Commission was now a thing relegated to fallen history. And now...

All good things.

His ruminations moved him softly, quietly, to examine himself. Was he ready for this? Would those dalliances, those flirtations with transgression, haunt him now in these final hours? It had been said that when the end comes no one will be thinking I really wish I had spent more time at the office. Indeed, all of that was far from his mind. But misery and dread can accompany even the saintliest disciple, and wreak havoc with his assurance.

Too late. Either I have trusted or I have not. I cannot judge. But I can hope...

The night was passing swiftly. He had been thinking of his family, his friends, all those who told him he was crazy for believing. Again. And yes, they had abandoned him. He was, in a real sense, a pariah of the first order.

But all that would change. And then they would know. And it would be too late. It was getting well on into the night, and very dark, although the moon still cast a hazy blue glow on the landscape before him. And whether it was a product of overexcitement or merely fatigue, as the last hour approached he found himself drifting off in spite of himself. In spite of his fears and doubts, his self-recriminations. In spite of everything. And right in the middle of prayer, he was not even conscious of having broken the connection as he slipped under.

II.

The dawn broke suddenly to someone who had not expected to see it. The sun had carved its way through the inky black without his notice. The moon had moved on too. Too bad. It was a lovely sight. And made all the more lovely by virtue of its sameness, its continuity. It is what has been decreed; a new morning.

With the dawn came the dawning of all hopes and aspirations. Everything was new. It was beautiful. And it was dispiriting. For the Answer, like the last Answer, was not the Answer at all. What had he given up to follow it? To follow him? Oh not much. He had quit his job for the sake of it. Had left his friends for the sake of it. Had even left his family all for the sake of it. Not much, he lied to himself.

And though it was Saturday, the churches, their individual clocks nearly synchronous, nonetheless began to toll their bells together as if triumphant for having managed to stay sober and faithful amidst the brazen theological onslaught against them and their Lord Christ. It was as if they were inviting him to return to humanity. Return to sanity.

And he thought that he might, if he could but conquer his embarrassment and pride. And if he could convince them to take him back. Convince them all.

Maybe it won't be that hard, he thought. After all, they are Christians. All is forgiven. All is well. Give it some time. I just need a little time.

And Mary. And the boys. And all those once and future brothers and sisters, dear friends who stayed behind at his old church.  And all the other churches, the ones he left for the higher calling of True Fellowship with the True Believers in him and his calculations. A fellowship, as it would ultimately turn out to be, of one.

Would I be in violation of Matthew 5 if I called myself a fool? Would they? Perhaps.

But maybe, just maybe not.

His heart began to pound louder in his ears with the thought of it, making the bells seem more distant than before. He stood up from the dewy grass, the soggy pages of the respective books sticking together as he placed them in the attache.

I should have been more careful.

But as the sun slowly continued its upward climb on the new day he felt courage return to him. I can try, he thought. I'll go back. I'll apologise. I just need a little time. I'll make it right with everyone on my blog. It will be hard, but God's people are forgiving. At any rate, the worst thing I can do is give up hope.

Hope. Hope for what? Hope in what?

And here he began to waver. Here he began to question. And so he faltered. In spite of everything; the job, the church, the friends, his family, he began to explore the unthinkable with recriminations.

What went wrong? How could we have been so wrong? We must have missed something. But we were so careful. We read the Bible very, very carefully. We took the whole Bible, everything into account. We diligently compared Scripture with Scripture.  It was quite complicated, but there was so much confirmation from the others who also were watching and waiting. So much. And we were so sure this time. There has to be an explanation!

Yes. He was hashing it all out now, a cool, steady stream of computation that would be sure to meet his approval.

Yes. We missed something this time, there's no doubt about it. But I'll tell you, that's what we need. A new resolve to work it all out right again!

He sat on the grass thinking for some time. The more his thoughts swirled about his head, the more he felt the urge to reach up and scratch his ears. Screwing up his courage in the face of a hopeless though noble cause, the more determined he felt, he noticed, the more the church bells faded into oblivion.

I just need a little more time to figure it all out.

Yes, he would go back. And yes, he would keep on working the problem. And if they would have him, he would stay.

At least until the next Answer.

2 Timothy 4:34

Stargate Universe

Steve Hays over at Triablogue has a short article on the latest incarnation of the Stargate franchise.  Check it out.

Beautiful Philadelphia Too

30th Street Station at dusk.  Click on the picture to enlarge for detail.
(Photo by Stephen)

Beautiful Philadelphia

Click on the picture to enlarge for detail.
(Photo by Stephen)

Some of the buildings included in this shot are, from left to right:

Comcast Center (tallest building on left)

One Liberty Place (middle, with the triangular-looking top and spire)

The Murano (cylindrical-shaped glass building to the right)

Cira Centre (tallest building, far right)

Bryn Athyn Cathedral: Dream Architecture

I've been giving some thought to presenting a series on the churches I tune for and otherwise come across in my travels through rural Pennsylvania. We might as well start off big. Click on the pics to enlarge.


Bryn Athyn Cathedral, Church of the New Jerusalem, Bryn Athyn, PA
(Photo by Pilgrimsarbour)

Emanuel Swedenborg was an 18th century Swedish scientist, inventor and mystic theologian. He began to receive dreams and visions while in his late 50s. No Sola Scriptura here. Much of his theology revolves around the book of Revelation. His followers today are called Swedenborgians.

Architecturally speaking, our tour guide told us, everything about the design of the Cathedral is asymmetrical; there isn't a perfect right angle anywhere in the entire structure, inside or out.

Sanctuary

(Photo by Pilgrimsarbour)

Notice the seven golden lampstands of Revelation surrounding the Ark of the Covenant. Above in stained glass are depictions of the twelve apostles. The woman clothed with the sun in Revelation (not pictured here), Swedenborg believed, was both a depiction and a prophecy of his New Church.

An outside walkway

(Photo by Pilgrimsarbour)

No carving on any stone pillar or wooden pew, no depiction in stained glass, is alike. This is to demonstrate the beauty of diversity in creation. This principle gave the architects and artisans a great deal of latitude in their designs, but they had to be reflective, in some way, of the Church's teachings.

Swedenborg taught a form of gnosticism that envisions man as moving from the physical (material) to the spiritual (incorporeal). He also disdained Reformation theology, particularly Sola Fide, and taught against the traditional Christian understanding of the Trinity, favouring a unitarian approach similar to that of today's Oneness Pentecostalism.

Wikipedia has an article on Swedenborg and his beliefs here.

Rhetoric Matters: Justifiable Homicide of the Calvinist Christian Believer

The "Calvinist God"

Homicide by reputation.

When I read this article by Steve Hays over at Triablogue, which is a response to an Evangelical Protestant Arminian commenter's singularly unfortunate depiction of Calvinism (that is, Reformed theology), I was incensed. In this caricature, the commenter set forth the idea that the "God of Calvinism," by the commenter's inference of Reformed doctrine, is an evil dictator and tyrant on the level of Adolf Hitler. In addition, the "God of Calvinism" is the ultimate racist, and His Calvinist followers are to be likened to KKK thugs.

This post and any additional comments by me here will be in blue.

Arminian commenter Robert said...

With the non-reprobates then wearing the white sheets and justifying and rationalizing their hatred. And like the KKK the calvinists have the gall to use scripture to justify and rationalize their hatred.

For the Nazis it was the Jewish race that needed to be eliminated by any means at their disposal. For the KKK it was the blacks. I find these groups and their actions to be morally reprehensible and showing the most ugly aspects of what humans are capable of.

And yet if the calvinists are correct about God and the “reprobates”, then God is the ultimate racist.

He decides beforehand that certain individuals will be part of the class of reprobates. He then hates everyone in this class regardless of what they do or what kind of person they are. He just hates them because they are reprobates (and he decided they would be in the reprobate class, the class of those “automatically damned”). And the calvinists just can’t understand why non-Calvinists find their system to be so morally objectionable. That is like the Grand Dragon or Imperial Wizard not understanding why non-racists find their beliefs and practices to be morally objectionable. The parallels between racists like the KKK and the Nazis and the God of calvinism who reprobates most of the human race for his pleasure are chilling.

In speaking of the Evangelical Protestant Arminian's obsession with the "God is Love" God to the exclusion of all His other attributes revealed in the Scriptures, I responded:

Unless we are willing to take God as exaggerating, then "Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated" means nothing. And there is the great flaw in the Arminian's doctrine--a false dichotomy between those that are "automatically damned" and those that are "maybe damned," or something.

The truth is, we, that is, all of us, are "automatically damned" because of our sin. It is only by the grace of God that any of us is saved. Even the elect, before God the Holy Spirit regenerates their hearts, are just as lost as the reprobate. It is His promise to save the elect that we cling to.

I remember, before having been brought into the light of God's salvation, that I would read passages from the Scriptures that talked about both the righteous and the wicked. Oddly enough, I never would even think of associating myself with the term "wicked" before God, in His time, showed me my true nature. Before that, when I saw the word "righteous," I always thought that I fit right in with that group. I wonder how many others have seen it that way before becoming a true disciple of Christ?

We should wonder more why any of us is saved than why any of us is lost.


Calvinist door-to-door evangelism

I also added this:

By the way, I find comparisons between the Holy God of the Scriptures and Nazis and Klanners to be morally reprehensible. It doesn't get much lower in terms of religious discourse, in my view.

I have never, and I do mean never seen a comparable statement made by a Calvinist regarding the God of Arminian theology, no matter how much error we may think is involved in their doctrine.

If one is going to keep his own counsel of what "God is Love" means without contextual reference to the ways in which God has revealed Himself in His Word, his counsel is sinful and should be ignored. He then becomes the final arbiter of biblical definitions and creates a god in his own image, fashioned after his own notions of what love should look like. God then becomes subject to his own fancies about how the Creator should behave and think.

What does the Arminian do with the story of Lot's wife? Did she really deserve to be turned into an animal's salt lick for merely looking back?

What about Aaron's boys Nadab and Abihu in Leviticus 10? Weren't they just trying to be innovative for the LORD with their seeker-friendly worship style? Did they really deserve to be toasted for their transgression?

And how about Uzzah's death at God's hand for touching the ark? Wasn't he just trying to help out by steadying it? Was it really necessary to kill him? The Scriptures clearly state that God was angry with him for his error.

So we answer the questions in each case with:

1) yes

2) yes

and

3) yes

because God is God and He does as He sees fit, and everything He does is necessary, good, right, holy and just. It may not seem "loving" to us, but the Scriptures set those definitions, not we ourselves apart from His revealed Word.

By the Arminian's non-biblical definitions, none of these events could possibly come from the hand of the "God is Love" God.


Calvinist summer church retreat

Another commenter then attempted a moral equivalence rhetorical approach to the issues being discussed by pointing to a blog post that Steve Hays had written a couple of years ago about the "Arminian God," the title of which was:

"Why the Arminian God Is Not Just a Pansy but Is Also Just Plain Stupid"

Again I responded:

I am not obligated to agree with that kind of language and approach, nor would I adopt it as my own. But it is not, repeat, NOT comparable to God being called "Hitler" or "Der Fuhrer," and his (Calvinist) disciples being called "Nazis," "fascists," and "Klanners."

In one comparison, God is said to be stupid. In the other, He is accused of mass murder. Do you see the difference? Both are wrong, in my view, but one is way over the line. Can you see it?

Perhaps these comparisons are the same in your undifferentiated world--not in mine.

My statement stands. I have never seen anything akin to it.

I can see where such a caricature of Calvinism as presented by the opposing viewpoint here might lead to some outlandish inferences. But since that caricature in no way represents what Calvinism truly is, any and all inferences which flow from it are meaningless.

I see a moral equivalence here, reflective of our secular culture, which is used to justify the most outrageous statements imaginable. Furthermore, I suspect that additional discourse on this matter would also be meaningless, so I'll bow out at this time.

As I said previously, the use of such language would not be my approach to discourse. I suspect, though, a disavowal by the other camp is not forthcoming.

I didn't know I was prescient! Just when I think I'm out, they pull me back in!

But it is not uncivil or unloving to point out what you think are the logical implications of someone else's doctrine.

Ah, there's the rub! "...what you think..." Your crass caricature of what you think Calvinism is is despicable. You make an assertion, the straw man makes his appearance, and then you create "logical implications" from that.

I won't buy it.

My advice is to first try to understand in an objective way what Reformed theology is. When you've done some serious research on the subject and can break out of your groupthink, then perhaps we can talk.

In the meantime, you seem unwilling to completely disavow Robert's crude language and unloving spirit. Here's an idea--try to think for yourself.

This seems to undo your whole argument. You might think it a caricature, but if Robert or Arminians believe that to be what Calvinism teaches, then by your own admission their conclusion is reasonable. It would seem that if you were inclined to respond to the view,then you would want to show how the depiction is a caricature. Your comments really seem to beg the question.

Rubbish! Nice try. I never said their conclusion was "reasonable," merely that I understood their mistaken train of thought.

But their ongoing and deliberate misrepresentation of what Reformed theology really is condemns them more because they continue to make slanderous comments and multiple errors in spite of the fact that we have pointed out these errors with various correctives. They are either ignorant or deliberately making false statements. Which do you think it is?

No, there's no begging the question. If they are ignorant, then some studying will remedy that. However, if they truly understand Reformed doctrine, they are all the worse for speaking deliberate falsehoods. In either case they should stop talking until they learn something. And for the life of me I can't understand why you insist on rushing to their defence, unless your knowledge of Reformed theology is similar to theirs. In that case, I can't see how our discussion can progress on any level.

I stand by my original statement.

Cage Match

Two criminal masterminds face off in my son Matthew's directorial debut.

EZ-Passed Off: The Movie: Remix

This is a remix of my first attempt at making a movie with Xtranormal Text-to-Movie. It's a re-enactment of a phone conversation I had last year with an EZ-Pass representative in New York. As with all movies, this scene is slightly different than the "book," and some creative license is taken. You may argue with me over the "creative" part.

On the Nature of Saving Faith

Trinity Great Swamp United Church of Christ

(Photo by Stephen)

I've been having a conversation over on Dave Armstrong's blog about the nature of saving faith. This conversation veers off point from the original post which deals with issues surrounding the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, but it is in reality quite integral to it. I am asking, "why is a belief in the PVM necessary for salvation?" The answer has been, "God has revealed it, so we must believe it." Even if I were to grant that God has revealed it, which I don't, again, why is it required knowledge for salvation?

I received this response:

Adomnan said...

We all agree that faith is necessary for salvation. What is faith? It is assent to what God has revealed. If we do not assent to what God has revealed, then we lack faith and so lack salvation (emphasis mine).

I was asking if everything God reveals in Scripture is directly related to salvation and is necessary to it. Notice that the commenter is assuming (and as a Catholic he should) that revelation is brought to us by some means other than the Scriptures; oral tradition, the Magesterium, the Pope, etc. Immediately, we find that we are not on the same page in our discussion. Nevertheless, we press on:

Pilgrimsarbour said...

For example, should we count a knowledge of the genealogies God has revealed to us in Scripture as necessary for our salvation? How about geographical locations in the Bible? The numbers of fish caught in nets (a la Harold Camping)?

Adomnan said...

I'm not a fundamentalist or a biblical literalist and therefore do not count any of these things as "revelation." They may be historical in some cases; they may be legendary; they may be colorful details in an inspired fiction. The books of the Bible are inspired in a way that is consistent with their several genres, and these genres include short novels (Ruth), historical fiction (Esther), tall tales (Jonah), and others. Where the Bible isn't "historically accurate," it is because the writers didn't intend to be historically accurate in our sense.

What is divinely revealed is what the Church teaches as articles of faith. The perpetual virginity of Mary would be one of these.

Here then is our second problem. The commenter and I are not quite on the same page regarding the inspiration of Scripture either. We seem to be in agreement to this extent: with the historical-grammatical hermeneutic at work, we can distinguish between what the writer intends as historical narrative, what is poetry, what is prophetic, what is apocalyptic imagery, and so forth. Although with differences in who and what is required to interpret it accurately, both conservative Protestants and conservative Catholics are in agreement that the Bible is God's inspired Word. We believe everything the Bible teaches, within the parameters set forth by the nature of the genre on display. The differences occur, of course, when one is not convinced that the Bible teaches a particular doctrine. I am not a fundamentalist either, but I would never refer to anything in the Bible as either historical fiction or a "tall tale," which suggests to me that my commenter has a more modernist approach to the inspiration of Scripture. I suspect that the story of Noah's ark, perhaps, would be an example of either historical fiction or the "tall tale," as he says of the story of Jonah.

Pilgrimsarbour said...

As a Reformed Protestant, I would add that the fiducial element of saving faith is absent in this formula. The fiducial element is the element of trust. That trust is in the person and work of Jesus Christ as He faithfully executes His offices of Prophet, Priest and King in righteousness through His life (active obedience), death (passive obedience), resurrection and glorification. Of course, to us, this righteousness is then imputed to the believer for this salvation. I sometimes tell my children, by way of imperfect American legislative analogy, that believers are like a rider attached to a congressional bill (Christ). If the bill passes, and it will because it has already been accepted by the Father, then the riders are accepted also. I'm not looking to get into the question of justification, imputed vs. infused righteousness, etc. I just wanted to fill out the formula somewhat as Reformed Protestants see it.

There is much more, of course, that I have not discussed regarding faith, repentance, effectual calling, regeneration, justification, sanctification, glorification. Also, "mental assent" only vs. evidence of regeneration and renewed life (fruits of the Spirit), and so on. In fact, your description of assent to God's revealed truth (mental assent or belief) sounds Evangelical Protestant! ;-)

I meant this last sentence as a disparaging remark about Evangelical Protestants who believe that faith is merely a naked mental assent to a series of facts about Christ, without any need for regeneration or repentance or other change in lifestyle. But my commenter surprised me with this:

Adomnan said...

I would disagree with you strongly here. I don't think Christian faith is a matter of "trust" at all. You won't find a lot of trust in the NT. You will, of course, find faith.

Again, faith is nothing more or less than assent to what God reveals. In fact, I would go so far as to say that trust, as Protestants understand it, is inconsistent with true faith.

However, within the context of a discussion of faith and works, James said this:

You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! (James 2:18-19).

We see that James acknowledges that faith cannot be merely assent to God's revelation of Himself and His precepts, for even the demons "believe" in Christ. But it is not a belief unto salvation. They do not "trust" in Him for eternal life as God's elect do.

And this brings us to the third problem. The Scripture is replete with admonitions to trust in the Lord, and the commendation of God for those who do so. The word "trust" itself does not appear in the New Testament in connection with the word "faith," as far as I have been able to determine. But this is part of the first problem mentioned above. If the Bible is not a cohesive whole from beginning to end, if the whole of Scripture is not "God-breathed," then we can expect to see a false dichtomy made between the authority of the Old Testament and that of the New Testament. And as a matter of sad fact, Protestants are frequently neglectful of the Old Testament to their detriment.

But if we see the Bible as one cohesive whole, far from being something Protestants cut out of whole cloth and impose on the Scriptures, or on Christ's Church, or upon the consciences of men, trusting in God for what He has revealed regarding Himself and His salvation plan is everywhere commanded and exemplified in the Scriptures. To separate the concepts of faith and trust is grave error. This frequently manifests itself in the Protestant world through "decisionism," that is, saying the sinner's prayer, signing some piece of paper, raising the hand, walking the aisle, etc. None of these things gurantees anything of themselves.

The word faith, as it is used in the New Testament sense of belief, does not readily appear in the Old Testament. The use of "faith" in the Old Testament mostly means "a breaking of trust," as is often the case there, a breach of contract or covenant with (the Lord), especially by sinning (see Leviticus 5-6).

The word "faith" in the New Testament encompasses much more than mental assent. There is no question regarding the Scriptural stance on this. I would argue that the word "faith" in the New Testament is a reasonable replacement for the word "trust" in the Old Testament. Since the word "trust" does not appear much nor in the same context in the New Testament, this makes sense. The two words should not be divorced from each other since they are so intimately connected.

Below I have listed only a few of the many verses which deal with trusting in God for His provision both in this life and the life to come. All bold emphases are mine.

God commands us to trust in Him:

Psalm 4:5

Offer right sacrifices, and put your trust in the LORD.

Acts 20:21

testifying both to Jews and to Greeks of repentance toward God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.

God commends us for trusting in Him:

2 Kings 18:5

Hezekiah trusted in the LORD, the God of Israel. There was no one like him among all the kings of Judah, either before him or after him.

Matthew 8:10

When Jesus heard this, he marveled and said to those who followed him, "Truly, I tell you, with no one in Israel have I found such faith.

God chastises His people for their lack of faith (trust) in Him and His provision:

Deuteronomy 1:32

In spite of this, you did not trust in the LORD your God, who went ahead of you on your journey, in fire by night and in a cloud by day, to search out places for you to camp and to show you the way you should go.

Matthew 6:30

"But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith?"

Reward for those who trust in God:

Psalm 84:12

O LORD of hosts, blessed is the one who trusts in you!

Hebrews 11:16

And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.

God reveals Himself in His precepts:

Psalm 93:5

Your decrees are very trustworthy; holiness befits your house, O LORD, forevermore.

Proverbs 3:5

Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding.

Proverbs 22:19

So that your trust may be in the LORD, I teach you today, even you.

Trusting God for salvation:

Isaiah 25:9

In that day they will say, "Surely this is our God; we trusted in him, and he saved us. This is the LORD, we trusted in him; let us rejoice and be glad in his salvation."

Galatians 2:16

yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

Faith in God is more than mental assent:

Isaiah 50:10

Who among you fears the LORD and obeys the word of his servant? Let him who walks in the dark, who has no light, trust in the name of the LORD and rely on his God.

James 2:22-23

22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; 23 and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"—and he was called a friend of God.

God tells us that His words are trustworthy:

Revelation 22:6

The angel said to me, "These words are trustworthy and true. The Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent his angel to show his servants the things that must soon take place."

Why would I believe in Someone I did not trust? Conversely, why would I trust in Someone in whom I did not believe? I can't even wrap my mind around that.