The Foolishness Test
by Ted Slater on 11/05/2007 at 10:48 AM
Something our senior pastor said during yesterday's sermon stunned me.
First, he presented some key elements of "the gospel":
- Jesus died for our sins.
- Jesus was buried.
- Jesus rose from the dead.
And then he said that if you find any of that to be foolish, you're probably not saved. "Not saved."
If you find yourself hesitating to embrace any of those points, if you roll your eyes at the thought that Jesus in fact was literally as dead as a doornail and after a couple of days his heart literally started beating again, if you smugly question whether or not one death could really solve the problem of sin ... then you may not be saved from a hellish destiny.
That doesn't have to be the end of your story, of course....
May we say with Paul, "I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes." The power of God for salvation. Salvation. And that's good news indeed.
1. John D. said the following at 11:06 AM on Nov 5:
I'm happy to say that I absolutely and completely believe every one of those points.
2. DT said the following at 12:16 PM on Nov 5:
Agreed completely on the points and the pastor's perspective.
3. Andrew R. (aka Canadian Boy) said the following at 12:33 PM on Nov 5:
John D.-
Me too!
:-D
4. Anu said the following at 12:37 PM on Nov 5:
question: Do you think that belief is a choice or simply a state of being?
I used to think that belief was a choice, but now I'm having more trouble with that. For example: I used to believe in the creation story as told in Genesis--and now, after actually studying it, I no longer believe. This was not a choice for me, and I don't think that I can "trick" or wish myself into believing something just to help me sleep better at night. I wish I still believed in the literal creation story, because my disbelief makes me question my salvation, since I was raised in a conservative church that taught that you either accept all of the Bible or none of it.
5. Mike Theemling said the following at 12:56 PM on Nov 5:
Ted, why would you be stunned? The Bible clearly states that if Christ did not rise from the dead, then our faith is in vain.
6. DT said the following at 1:09 PM on Nov 5:
Anu, straying from the literal six-day Creation account as told in Scripture is entirely your choice (and I would venture, with respect, a sinful one). One only has to know the meaning of the word "day" to understand that the way it's used in Genesis is the way it's used in the rest of the Bible when referring to a 24-hour period. The semantics, and the math, is quite simple.
Faith in Christ as Savior isn't a personal choice, though. God calls those whom He will. When you're called to Him, you don't have a choice.
7. Nate said the following at 1:18 PM on Nov 5:
Anu--Good question! Gets at the whole Arminianism vs. Calvinism thing ... wish I knew the answer.
About Genesis, different verbs are used for God's different activities, which makes it possible that he created the earth geologically and then created life later. The whole thing about whether it's a literal "day" of creation or an indefinite length of time is a valid one, I think. I mean, "the day of the Lord" probably doesn't mean exactly 24 hours, or even however many hours of sunlight ... especially since the Hebrews counted days differently (starting with the evening).
I really don't think belief in a literal creation story is required for salvation. The Bible is pretty clear about what is.
Hope that's encouraging to ya! :-)
8. Ted Slater said the following at 1:34 PM on Nov 5:
Mike, I was stunned that he told people that they might not be saved. It's not often that you hear someone say that someone in earshot might very well be going to hell.
9. J.T. said the following at 1:40 PM on Nov 5:
I agree with those three points.
10. Rachel said the following at 1:56 PM on Nov 5:
Anu, try reasons.org to see how the Bible is remarkably compatible with science.
On the subject of whether belief is a choice, C.S. Lewis had a fictional dialogue in The Great Divorce:
"Do you really think people are penalized for their honest opinions? Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that those opinions were mistaken."
"Do you really think there are no sins of intellect?"
"There are indeed, Dick. There is hide-bound prejudice, and intellectual dishonesty, and timidity, and stagnation. But honest opinions fearlessly followed - they are not sins."
"I know we used to talk that way. I did it too until the end of my life when I became what you call narrow. It all turns on what are honest opinions.... When, in our whole lives, did we honestly face, in solitude, the one question on which all turned: whether after all the Supernatural might not in fact occur? When did we put up one moment’s real resistance to the loss of our faith?... You know that you and I were playing with loaded dice. We didn’t *want* the other to be true. We were afraid of crude salvationism, afraid of a breach with the spirit of the age, afraid of ridicule, afraid (above all) of real spiritual fears and hopes."
"I’m far from denying that young men may make mistakes. They may well be influenced by current fashions of thought. But it’s not a question of how the opinions are formed. The point is that they were my honest opinions, sincerely expressed."
"Of course. Having allowed oneself to drift, unresisting, unpraying, accepting every half-conscious solicitation from our desires, we reached a point where we no longer believed the Faith. Just in the same way, a jealous man, drifting and unresisting, reaches a point at which he believes lies about his best friend: a drunkard reaches a point at which (for the moment) he actually believes that another glass will do him no harm. The beliefs are sincere in the sense that they do occur as psychological events in the man’s mind. If that’s what you mean by sincerity they are sincere, and so were ours. But errors which are sincere in that sense are not innocent."
11. Carrie said the following at 2:07 PM on Nov 5:
Anu, you can't go to hell for not believing that the earth was created in six days.
There are many creationist theories out there and the longer I'm a Christian the less I stress out about believing the 6 literal days of creation. I was not there when it happened, so I can't say "It's impossible", it may have happened. I think part believing the account of creation is to not put limits on God. If one were to say 6 literal days of creation is impossible, that's dangerous ground. However to say "Well, maybe He did, but maybe He didn't. I don't know, but I do know that humanity is fallen and is need of redemption. I know that I can't save myself. Oh! look! Jesus! The Messiah! Yay!" (OK, cheesy and watered down, but oh well, it's Monday and daylight saving time is finally catching up with me.)
12. Scott W said the following at 2:49 PM on Nov 5:
Those 3 bullet points are the most precious truths of all humanity. God help me if I ever hesitate to accept them. I love them and don't know where'd I'd be without them.
13. Sara said the following at 2:49 PM on Nov 5:
Anu, (you're getting a lot of responses!) I think belief is often a choice when you choose to only read/intake material that supports what you already believe.
Rachel wrote,
"Anu, try reasons.org to see how the Bible is remarkably compatible with science."
I would hope that Rachel also knows a web address that puts forward what she believes to be the best argument *against* the compatibility of the bible and science: anyone can be convinced of an argument if they choose to only seriously and carefully consider one side.
Somewhere else, Candice wrote about how when she got to college and found some professors talking about how he and others believed that many stories in the old testament were composites of other stories and traditions, and not literal reportage--things like that--, instead of investgating this, she chose to avoid it and instead look for people or ideas that would support the kind of faith she wanted to keep.
When I took a standard NT history course that looked at the NT from a historical perspective, the more I studied, the more I became convinced that the New Testament isn't a holy book, or literally true. I'm no longer a Christian.
I've never heard of anybody who can take a course like that, or read a book like the text we used (we used Bart Ehrman's "the new testament: a historical introduction", but there are dozens of similar books), and not seriously reconsider their faith.
14. Ted Slater said the following at 3:18 PM on Nov 5:
Sara, I'm sorry to hear of your loss of faith in Christ.
I did a bit of research on Bart Ehrman, and am convinced that he first rejected Christ and then approached the Scriptures with the intent of diminishing them. A lot of legitimate scholars find fault with his methods. Consider the following, for example:
Daniel B. Wallace, Th.M., Ph.D.
P.J. Williams, M.Phil., Ph.D.
Brian J. Wright
Mark D. Roberts, Ph.D.
Please, for the sake of truth and for the sake of your soul, take some time to consider the arguments against Ehrman's positions and in favor of the veracity of Scripture.
15. DT said the following at 3:43 PM on Nov 5:
Ted, you're completely right about Ehrman. I had a "history of Christianity" professor at a public university who used his work extensively in our class. To his credit, my professor wasn't trying to sway any of us from our faith, but my radar was sharp from day one in that class.
Just anecdotally, weeks into the class, I tentatively raised my hand and asked when we were going to learn anything about Jesus. The professor told me that we didn't need to talk about Jesus in order to study the history of Christianity. I became a bit of a thorn in his flesh after that, constantly butting in with "but the Bible says...", because the Bible was never used as a text in the course. I took mine with me to each class regardless. The guy didn't like me much, but I think he respected me for politely and respectfully arguing with him. I got a good grade in the class, and if anything, my faith was strengthened by the experience.
So, Sara, I took a course "like that" and my faith got stronger. Have you considered the fact that perhaps you were never truly saved to begin with? If you never were, I pray God will bring you to Him one day. If you are truly saved and are in a dark time of transgression and confusion right now, I pray that your return to the fold will be swift and secure.
16. dana111 said the following at 4:27 PM on Nov 5:
Even though I am having some trouble with what it means to truly live for God, I totally and utterly believe all three of those statements. It's good to know that even in the midst of some doubts, I truly believe that Jesus is who He says He is.
17. John said the following at 4:54 PM on Nov 5:
Anyone who denies Christ on intellectual grounds is an idiot.
Be a man (or woman) and just have the guts to tell God you're not going to do what he wants you to do.
To say the bible doesn't jive with science is just plain ignorant.
You're a coward to deny Christ based on those grounds. It's just a sad wall built up to avoid the Truth.
On a different note, has anybody heard of the idea that the world is millions of years old, and that there was a creation before the creation story in genesis? That's when Satan fell and the Earth was flooded before Noah. (Pre-Adamite) Pretty interesting.
18. Michelle said the following at 5:38 PM on Nov 5:
Here's another thought to the is-the-creation-story-literally-true debate: I once heard someone say that macro evolution couldn't be true because it involves many generations of animals dying and changing over time. But before Adam's sin, there was no death. Therefore, God could not have used evolution because it implies there was death before Adam, thus contradicting Scripture.
19. Bridget said the following at 7:29 PM on Nov 5:
DT--
In regard to the six days of creation, no matter how well we understand the Hebrew, we can't say definitively that those six days were how we define a day now; our day is based on the solar cycle, and the sun wasn't created until day four.
20. BDB said the following at 7:36 PM on Nov 5:
Sara wrote:
>>I've never heard of anybody who can take a course like that... and not seriously reconsider their faith. <<
May I recommend for your reading Alasdair MacIntyre's book, "After Virtue." He started writing the book as an atheist, but what he discovered in his research resulted in him converting to Christianity by the time he was finished.
You should also consider Simon Greenleaf's, "Testimony of the Evangelists," which runs the Bible's claims through legal rules of evidence. Those original disciples would pass the test of being a good witness in a court of law.
21. HC said the following at 7:52 PM on Nov 5:
With all respect to the intentions of the author, it is important that those three truths be planted in the heart and not be solely intellectual. It is true that if a person does not believe these three things he is likely not "saved", but believing those three things does not make a person "saved." I'm not going to get into the calvinism vs. arminianism debate because I don't think it's necessary here, but there is a verse that I think is important to consider: John 17:3 "Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." This verse states, quite implicitly, that eternal life is to know God. Not to know about God, although theology is vastly important, but to actually know God. I know that I have struggled with believing these "three points" over the years in different times in my faith, but it is my relationship with God that has given me the greatest solidity. The three points only exist because they are necessary for the relationship between man and God to exist. I would caution a blanket statment such as, "If you find yourself hesitating to embrace any of those points...then you may not be saved." I think that most people, if not all, struggle with the "dark night of the soul" at one point or another, and have doubts. It's ok for Christians to struggle with intellectual issues, as long as they lay them squarely before God...there is no question that is too hard for Him or that He has not already anticipated. That said, the death, atonement, and resurrection of Christ are essential elements of having a relationship with God, and I do not mean to downplay their significance at all.
Questions we do need to ask are:
"Are the desires of my heart becoming increasingly conformed to the desires of God's heart?"
"Is there evidence in my life that I am seeking to become more like Him?"
"Am I growing in love?"
22. Ted Slater said the following at 8:07 PM on Nov 5:
HC, you wrote, "With all respect to the intentions of the author, it is important that those three truths be planted in the heart and not be solely intellectual."
I concur wholeheartedly. I'd probably change your word from "important" to "imperative."
The three questions you ask at the end are extremely helpful. I challenge all our readers to consider them.
23. Adam T. said the following at 8:14 PM on Nov 5:
I like the wording Sara uses:
"I've never heard of anybody who can take a course like that, or read a book like the text we used... and not seriously reconsider their faith."
Key word - "reconsider".
In fact, I agree with her. The modern church in the west has got a real problem: it doesn't teach about things like the reliability/historical accuracy of scripture; instead we read garbage like 'The Purpose-Driven Life' and wonder why our kids go to college and stop believing.
(Ever had a lesson in your church about the reasons we know the New Testament is historically accurate? Ever? Maybe you have, but most western evangelicals haven't.)
And so, in our society, where Christians with doubts are told that they "just need to BELIEVE harder", encountering scholarly arguments for the first time can indeed cause a person to "reconsider" their faith - but that doesn't necessarily mean *losing* faith (at least, not in the long term. It may in the short term simply because the person is emotionally overwhelmed by these arguments by all these really smart people that they've never heard of before). In fact, it often means the opposite, and in answer to what Sara says, I know *lots* of folks who read books by Ehrman et al. and come down firmly on the side of Christianity.
I'll tell you a story: I've been reading scholarly criticism, etc., of scripture for years. Some time ago, a personal tragedy occurred in my life that made me want to reject my faith. I *tried* - I searched for excuses and arguments to convince myself that I couldn't really believe anymore. But it didn't work - because I was too familiar with the evidence for the truth of the Christian account.
Sara's also right, as a matter of fact, about "choosing" only to listen to one side of the evidence - but that works both ways. If she's going to ask others to be familiar with anti-Christian material, I'm going to expect her to be familiar with N.T. Wright and Ben Witherington, today's foremost biblical scholars (both far above the likes of Ehrman. I'll let you guess which faith they profess ;) ).
24. Adam D said the following at 9:16 PM on Nov 5:
Anu - Check out Kent Hovind's website and seminars on Creationist Science. There is plenty of reason to believe in a 6 day literal creation, and many lies are cleared up through the seminars. A good knowledge builder for anyone interested in strengthening their faith in concrete Creation evidence.
25. Jamie Morton said the following at 11:03 PM on Nov 5:
Kind of foolishly oversimplified, don't you think?
I think this is an interesting point about the "non-negotiables" of faith . . . But I would like to point out that our opinions have evolved continually. For example, Jesus himself only says to believe in him and be baptised. Those are the requirements for salvation. But he doesn't specify what "belief" entails. So when we're superimposing our "doctrine" on Jesus's words . . . I'm just hesitant to ever make such absolutest statements.
And now literal fundamentalists may commence providing me with scripture quotations without context or commentary.
26. anu said the following at 12:02 AM on Nov 6:
Thanks for all the kind words. My point wasn't so much what I believe about Biblical creation, but that in my opinion, while I can look at all the evidence and research and pray, I feel that ultimately whether or not I believe the creation story, or any other part of the Bible does not feel like a choice to me, but that rather belief is something one either has or doesn't have.
27. Patricia said the following at 6:10 AM on Nov 6:
I think HC makes a really important point in that many Christians often go through periods of questioning. To me, it seems that in these times we must continue to believe in the Gospels and pray to God for strong faith. St. Augustine said, "I believe so that I understand." I love that quote because to me it suggests that first we must believe and ask God for believe so that our understanding of the world, scripture, and Christianity will follow from that. I think often people get too bogged down in one or two passages such as the creation account and lose sight of the larger unity in the Bible. The more I study the Bible, the more I see coherence and consistency about who God is and his plan to bring about the Kingdom of GOd.
28. DT said the following at 6:28 AM on Nov 6:
Bridget, words have meanings. If we understand what the word "day" consistently means in Hebrew, that's all we need. If we allow ourselves to start questioning whether "day" in Genesis really meant what it says, then we can easily be circled around to questioning the three points Ted raised in his original post. At some point you MUST take a stand. Either the Bible is all true, every wordy of it, or it is all up for debate. If the meaning of "day" is up for debate, then shouldn't Christ's death and resurrection be as well? Which parts are you willing to toss out?
I'm not willing to question any of it. Sola Scriptura!
29. Irene M. said the following at 7:00 AM on Nov 6:
Sara,
Have you heard of John Stonestreet? He too lost his faith after having a class with Ehrman and has since experienced another religious transformation. He completed his Masters Thesis on Bart Ehrman and is currently the chaplain for UNC's Orthodox Christian Fellowship. I have had a chance to sit down with Stonestreet and Ehrman together and it was quite the experience. You can find his information at: ocf-nc.blogspot.com
Ted while you and I both agree on Christianity, I have to disagree with your assessment. Ehrman wants to believe in the historical authenticity of the Bible more than anyone I have ever met. He also refuses to believe in any Christian scriptural interpretation that does not believe in Biblical inerrancy and Sola Scriptura. By saying that he rejected Christ and then interpreted the scriptures completely misrepresents him and harms Christians who are struggling with similar issues. Your statement simply dismisses Ehrman's problem as one of faith and ignores the very real theological issues (Biblical innerrancy and "faith derived by reason") that have caused him to leave the faith. These need to be directly addressed by the evangelical community and not just swept under the rug by saying things like, "he rejected Christ first" or "she must not have been a true believer." That's simply counterproductive.
30. Courtney P. said the following at 7:25 AM on Nov 6:
Thats the Pure Gospel in a nutshell, that's as simple as it gets. Some people are not readily accepting savalation because it's simple simple. Our God is not "the author of confusing" so He made the gospel simple. Thank God for that !
31. Sara said the following at 8:38 AM on Nov 6:
Ted, and Adam T, I'll look into those authors you mention, and their methods.
It wouldn't surprise me that some people can read Ehrman-style scholarship and not lose their faith, but I'd be interested to know how they fit the two together. Most of the people I know who kept their faith through this course said things like 'All I know is I need to believe in God', things like that. I'd be interested in the less reflexive responses.
DT, in our course, the Bible was far and away our main text: we read through most of the New Testament and other early gospels and epistles. The book I mentioned was a supplement. A 'History of Christianity' course has very little in common with a 'Historical Introduciton to the New Testament'
John wrote:
"Anyone who denies Christ on intellectual grounds is an idiot.
Be a man (or woman) and just have the guts to tell God you're not going to do what he wants you to do."
Those things only hold true if there is in fact a god. Besides, what would you say to someone who said, "Anyone who denies Mohammad on intellectual grounds is an idiot"? You'd probably start giving them *reasons* why that was wrong: you'd say, 'you're not listening to the holy spirit' or you'd give them 'Mere Christianity' or you'd talk about love and grace.
BDB wrote:
"You should also consider Simon Greenleaf's, "Testimony of the Evangelists," which runs the Bible's claims through legal rules of evidence."
Thanks for the suggestion, but I find that books like that take the Bible to be literally true or close to it to begin with, and then argue from there. Saying things like, "would the disciples have risked their lives if they didn't truly believe?" assumes what's recorded as being their actions actually were their actions (and besides, being convinced of something says more about the certainty of the believer than the legitimacy of the belief.)
32. Ted Slater said the following at 8:55 AM on Nov 6:
Irene -- something you wrote confuses me.
You wrote, "Ehrman wants to believe in the historical authenticity of the Bible more than anyone I have ever met. He also refuses to believe in any Christian scriptural interpretation that does not believe in Biblical inerrancy and Sola Scriptura."
What you write cannot possibly be correct. He's confessed that he's not a believer, but is a "happy agnostic." One cannot value "biblical inerrancy" and be an agnostic. He decontructs Scripture until it's nothing; he just doesn't respect it. You cannot honor Scripture and call Jesus a mere "myth" and "legend," as he's done.
Consider the things he's written, and the consequences of his writings on his readers. His work is instilling doubt -- in Scripture, and in God. If he believes in biblical inerrancy, then he would not believe his very own books, as they promote biblical errancy.
Ehrman's labors are leading people away from Christ. Whether it's his intention or not, he is an anti-evangelist. He's bent on destroying faith in Christ, and that's a frightful place to be.
I maintain my conviction that he left the faith not because of his search for truth, but in an effort to justify his sinful choices (which, of course, I'm neither able nor interested in identifying).
Chesterton wrote, "The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried." I would argue that Ehrman found practicing Christianity "difficult," and has found an academic way to justify his leaving it "untried."
May we instead turn to the Lord in repentance. He is a gracious Lord, eager to forgive and reinstate. Humility and repentance can be difficult. But distancing ourselves from the Lord, looking for evidence to justify such turning, will ultimately prove more difficult.
God is good. All the time.
33. Christina said the following at 9:55 AM on Nov 6:
Sara,
Less reflexive responses to stuff like that - how do they interpret the bible as a historical document? relevant or irrelevant? Does this match up to how they treat other historical documents? How do people view intelligent design? Random chaos or perfect order? Are ocean waves really chaotic enough for disproving or is the table of elements ordered enough for proving?
Being faced with questions or "facts" that contradict already held beliefs shouldn't dissuade you from believing in them, but challenge you to go out and see if you can prove yourself in the face of them. It takes study, but it also requires faith when there IS a lack of proof - because there will be. I'm a naturally curious and rather intellectually rebellious person to start with, so rarely do I just take what people say to be true as truth. And the same goes with Christianity and doctrine - I don't believe because mom and dad said I should, I believe because I don't see how there could NOT be a God...
People who argue against the validity of scripture and the existence of God often hold a double standard (not that Christians are innocent of this, but I've found its easier to be consistent as a Christian...). Find out what the double standard is and if they're arguments against scripture and all things christian can stand against the things they are ok with. And don't be afraid of being told your wrong or facing "facts" that do contradict you. At some point, you need to be ok with the fact that you might not know everything there is to know about God and Christianity and be able to accept his reality on faith rather than intellect.
34. Bridget said the following at 10:27 AM on Nov 6:
DT,
My point wasn't so much the Hebrew etemology as our concept of time. Our nature as creatures in time makes it hard for us to grasp the concept of existence outside of time; the Author of time could have made those first three days last thousands of years according to our calendar, or thirty seconds.
The basic principle of creationism is that God created the world out of nothing by a perfect act of His will and His will alone. There is a massive difference between saying we can't speak with absolute certainty on how he did (or how long he took) and denying the fundamental principle of the Gospel, just as there is a gulf between "questioning" (with intent to disprove) scripture and seeking to understand scripture.
Just for the record, I am a creationist.
35. Sara said the following at 10:56 AM on Nov 6:
Ted, whoa! I don't think you've read anything by Ehrman except interviews and already you're taking on a crusade against him. Please, don't just google him, investigate his methods, not his character!
Ted wrote:
One cannot value "biblical inerrancy" and be an agnostic."
I do. I highly value scriptural inerrancy in that I hold it to be essential for being a Christian. I am unconvinced of of biblical inerrancy, and so I'm an agnostic.
You wrote, "He decontructs Scripture until it's nothing; he just doesn't respect it. You cannot honor Scripture and call Jesus a mere "myth" and "legend," as he's done."
If you read his books, he greatly respects Scripture as historical documents. He doesn't honour Scripture in the same way you do because he doesn't believe it's holy.
You wrote, "Consider the things he's written, and the consequences of his writings on his readers. His work is instilling doubt -- in Scripture, and in God."
Yes, that's what's happening. That doesn't make what he writes in and of itself wrong. It doesn't matter whether he's an evil fiend or a disappointed truth-seeker; it's all in the approach he and others like him take to Scripture, and whether or not you think his methods are valid. I think they're valid; you haven't investigating them.
Irene, your post is really interesting. I'm just going to start looking at things now and after class (not a NT class...)
Christina, if at root you are a Christian because you accept God by faith, how do you know that you have that ability to be aware of the Holy Spirit? If, again, a Muslim said they believe on faith alone, would you just say, 'Oh, OK, I understand that: it's the same with me'? I think you'd start backing things up with arguments.
36. Carrie said the following at 11:02 AM on Nov 6:
Sara said:
"Those things only hold true if there is in fact a god. Besides, what would you say to someone who said, "Anyone who denies Mohammad on intellectual grounds is an idiot"? You'd probably start giving them *reasons* why that was wrong: you'd say, 'you're not listening to the holy spirit' or you'd give them 'Mere Christianity' or you'd talk about love and grace."
Christina said: "It takes study, but it also requires faith when there IS a lack of proof - because there will be."
First off, I completely agree with Christina.
Sara, what you are wanting is to remove faith. Basically, if I understand you correctly you want to know without a doubt, 100%, no wavering whatsoever that the Bible is in fact true. You have come across materials that raise doubts in your mind and because it raises some serious -- and maybe even valid -- doubts, you cut your losses and run.
What I find troubling is that people want proof.
Any human will tell you that "nobody is perfect". Christians use the term "fallen humanity". So, "the nobody is perfect" rule -- then there must be a standard for perfection out there, right? Is there a desire for perfection written on our hearts? Who put that desire there?
I have never been one for the "scientific" way of things, even before I became a Christian.
37. Sara said the following at 11:19 AM on Nov 6:
Carrie, again, what would you say if a Muslim said your words:
"[Carrie], what you are wanting is to remove faith. Basically, if I understand you correctly you want to know without a doubt, 100%, no wavering whatsoever that the [Koran] is in fact true"
Would you then just accept the validity of the Koran on faith like they asked you to? I doubt it; you'd want them to back up their faith-feelings with reasons. Just like you go on to reason at the end of your post.
Ted, I'm just starting to read the webpages you linked to. They seem to be talking about Ehrman's latest book about textual criticism, which is only a small part of his other book that I found so convincing. I'll keep reading, in any case. Thanks for your answers, very much.
38. Esther said the following at 11:23 AM on Nov 6:
The college class that challenged my faith the most was not evolution or philosophy, or even history. It was a writing seminar focused on the first person writings of the Crusades. I took it because I didn't know much about that time period, and it seemed interesting.
Why it was challenging: I'd heard a lot about "early Christians", and while Crusaders weren't the earliest believers, they were within the first 1100-1400 years. It shook me up to read their Scripture quotations used to defend and promote these violent and greedy attacks on Arabs, Jews and even other Christians. Not to mention the promises of salvation by martyrdom. How could the entire Christian world (of the time) be so blind to the 'truth of Scripture' (as we believe it now)? It made me ashamed to identify myself as a Christian in that class.
How I worked through it- with the knowledge that Christ is growing and refining his Bride. Chesterton made a reference in one of his books that the history of the church is one of desperate swings to one extreme, and then the other, with the final direction being forward to greater truth and purity, but at any period in time, it looks very much like it is headed to ruin.
One of the curses (blessings?) of having attended many different churches and denominations, is the realization that every group has their pet philosophies, customs and terminologies that become very comfortable and dear. These lead to a shared faith-journey (like the sermon illustration that connects with every person who heard it). Every other church may feel foreign and "wrong", even when the essentials are solid. I find it hard to settle, though, when each church seems closed to the wisdom and experiences of their sister congregations (e.g. "we won't read anything by that writer", "Catholics can't really be Christians", "gifts of the Spirit aren't for today (or, "those who don't believe in spiritual gifts can't be saved")", "contemporary music isn't worshipful", ad nauseum). I see the value of the local church, and do my very best to submit and serve in the body that I'm in, but sometimes the blindness and unwillingness to wrestle (rather than reject out of hand) the ideas and philosophies of other Christians.
39. JB said the following at 11:39 AM on Nov 6:
I agree with HC that what's important is that we believe these things in our hearts and not just intellectually. But I think that raises the issue of what it means to believe in a set of facts versus what it means to believe what those facts tell us. For example, a person might believe that some guy was nailed to a cross 2000 years ago in Palestine, his heart stopped for three days, and then he got up and walked away. That person might be a Christian, or he might just believe that it was a really weird medical aberration.
So believing the facts isn't enough, what's necessary is to believe in the meaning of the crucifixion and what it tells us about God, sin, and salvation. But if that's the case, why can't one believe in the meaning of the crucifixion and disbelieve or else remain agnostic about the historicity of the resurrection? (There's probably no good reason for anyone to doubt that Jesus was crucified, though some might dispute the resurrection.) Couldn't one say, "I believe in the Word of God and the witness to the life of Christ. It tells me about the world, about myself, and tells me how to live. What do I care how long Creation took, or whether Jonah was literally swallowed by a whale, or whether Jesus was resurrected in his original body?" Maybe not everyone could go that route, but it seems to me that person could be a Christian. Insisting on the literal truth of the Bible, I think, misses the point. It's all about the message, not a set of historical and scientific facts.
40. DT said the following at 11:40 AM on Nov 6:
Bridget, I'm afraid you're just not getting it. You're leaving the door wide open for confusion, and I would hope we could agree that our Lord is not a God of confusion. Either the words in the Bible mean what they say they mean, or they do not. Either day means day, or it means maybe a few million years, or maybe a split second. It HAS to mean one or the other. Why is it hard to accept that "day" means 24 hours? Why would God do one thing and tell us another? What *else* in the Bible could we find that we think means one thing but really means something else? How could our faith survive a tragedy such as that at all?
Either the Scripture is all true, all the time, all of it, or it's ALL up for debate and interpretation. Sometimes things ARE black and white and sometimes there IS no middle ground. You have to decide which you believe and along with Luther be willing to say, "Here I stand".
41. farmer Tom said the following at 12:10 PM on Nov 6:
(Ever had a lesson in your church about the reasons we know the New Testament is historically accurate? Ever? Maybe you have, but most western evangelicals haven't.)
Our church is small, we could use more people, but let me make this clear, if you come to our church you will hear this stuff.
In fact as the teacher for the jr. sr. high Sunday School class, I can personally say that they have heard it repeatedly in the last 6 month, we have been doing a series I put together on "defending your faith".
In fact I've pounded on the reliability of Scripture until they know it like the back of their hand.
42. nikki said the following at 2:16 PM on Nov 6:
JB, you said "Couldn't one say, "I believe in the Word of God and the witness to the life of Christ. It tells me about the world, about myself, and tells me how to live. What do I care how long Creation took, or whether Jonah was literally swallowed by a whale, or whether Jesus was resurrected in his original body?" ...Insisting on the literal truth of the Bible, I think, misses the point. It's all about the message, not a set of historical and scientific facts."
The thing is, if you don't accept certain things as being true, you don't have a basis to accept the "message." The Bible functions on the assumption that it is all true. If I can't believe Scripture when it says Christ came back to life, how can I believe it when it tells me that Jesus says to love my neighbor? (That's just one of the messages I assume you're referring to.) I've yet to hear someone explain how you can logically accept one thing but not another. If some of it's true and some of it's not, then what standards are you using to decide? In every instance I've witnessed, the choosing is based purely on personal preference or a lack of faith that the impossible - such as the virgin birth - is possible. It is crucial that Scripture be completely true, otherwise all of it is compromised.
I'll repeat myself: if you can't accept that Christ came out of that cave alive, then you have no logical basis to believe any other recorded events really happened, either.
43. Carrie said the following at 3:24 PM on Nov 6:
Sara, I actually wouldn't believe the Koran is a "holy" book. I think Muslims are misguided. There is nothing that can convince me otherwise.
Why? Because Islamic belief dictates that you have follow rules in order to get saved and enter heaven.
I will break the rules in some fashion because I am human. I need salvation that is outside of myself.
This is what is offered by Jesus the Christ.
44. Nate said the following at 3:54 PM on Nov 6:
DT--Linguistcs says otherwise. If I call someone a "rock", I don't mean he's a literal rock. I mean his character or something else about him is firm. Word have a primary meaning, which is usually what people mean by "literal". They also have secondary meanings (like for "heart", not the organ but your emotions). They also have figurative meanings--idioms, metaphors, stuff like that. That's why you can't translate a word the same way every single time it's used in the Bible. If you tried to do that with the English word "key" and put it into Spanish, it'd just be gibberish, 'cos a piano key, a house key, the key to a crossword puzzle, etc. all have distinct words. Languages just don't match up one-to-one. The word "day" in Hebrew does not always mean "a 24-hour period".
45. DT said the following at 7:00 PM on Nov 6:
Nate, have you studied this? I'm not really following your argument here.
In the ORIGINAL Hebrew, when the word "day" is used for a literal, 24-hour period, it is the SAME as it is when used in the Genesis description of the Creation. There is NO mistaking that the spelling and etemology is the SAME. Yes, I'm talking about the word's primary meaning. We're not talking about implied meaning here. We're not talking about multiple meaning words. We're not talking about anyone's interpretation or what it may or may not be saying. We're talking about what the word MEANS.
I feel like I'm beating my head against a wall, trying to explain this over and over. I think it's SO simple that the point is being missed entirely by those who simply don't want to agree. If Christians can't agree about the clear, distinct, inarguable, literal meaning of one tiny little word, then it's no wonder we disagree on so much else.
46. Sara said the following at 7:41 PM on Nov 6:
For interest, a transcript of a debate between Ehrman and philosophy professor William Craig on "Is there historical evidence for the ressurection of Jesus?", and also the audience Q&A.
Good for seeing how each side sees things.
http://www.holycross.edu/departments/crec/website/resurrdebate.htm
47. JB said the following at 12:53 AM on Nov 7:
Nikki,
I disagree. We know scripture is truth because we experience it as the living Word of God. It speaks to us and illuminates our experience. The message makes sense. You don't really need to know the Jonah was swallowed by a fish to know that you should obey God, do you? What could that fish possibly matter to the truth the Bible tells us about obedience?
You believe the Bible's teachings about love because the Word of God is speaking to you and you can see clearly that it's true. What the Bible says about love makes sense and it illuminates your life and on that basis you accept it as truth. If I could get in a time machine and show you that, say, this Benjamite army was 25,000 men and not 26,000, it wouldn't make a bit of difference to the truth you know about love. Clearly, it's not the case that everything must be literally true or none of it can be true.
I just think there is more than one way to be a Christian. Some people just can't see the difference between believing in facts and believing in messages and that's fine. Other people can make that distinction. What makes a person a Christian, though, is the belief in the message. If we agree on what Jesus' life meant, then surely we both have the essence of Christianity even if we disagree about how many hours creation took, or whether a person can survive inside of a fish. Our debate about the things we disagree on is a discussion between brothers and sisters in the faith, not between believers and fools as this post implies.
48. Theo K said the following at 7:12 AM on Nov 7:
JB, you said "Couldn't one say, "I believe in the Word of God and the witness to the life of Christ. It tells me about the world, about myself, and tells me how to live. What do I care how long Creation took, or whether Jonah was literally swallowed by a whale, or whether Jesus was resurrected in his original body?" ...Insisting on the literal truth of the Bible, I think, misses the point. It's all about the message, not a set of historical and scientific facts."
Ap. Paul thinks that if Jesus Christ wasn't resurrected in his original body, then our faith would have been in vain:
"Now if Christ is preached, that he has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, neither has Christ been raised. If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, and your faith also is in vain. Yes, we are found false witnesses of God, because we testified about God that he raised up Christ, whom he didn’t raise up, if it is so that the dead are not raised. For if the dead aren’t raised, neither has Christ been raised. If Christ has not been raised, your faith is vain; you are still in your sins. Then they also who are fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have only hoped in Christ in this life, we are of all men most pitiable. But now Christ has been raised from the dead. He became the first fruits of those who are asleep." - 1 Corinthians 15:12-20
49. Robert J Espe said the following at 8:16 AM on Nov 7:
Anu, I believe the prayer you are looking for is, "Lord, I want to believe, help my unbelief". Creationism is not a salvation issue, but it is a theological one. The only essential beliefs are in the creeds. As long as you confess those (and know Christ, which is the natural response to sincere belief, and follow His commands which comes from knowing Him) you will be saved, even if you have incorrect understandings of more complicated theology.
Esther, don't be too worried about the crusades. First, 1100 years isn't that early. First 300 years is early, 800 more years is a VERY long time to get things mixed up. It also wasn't the whole Christian world. The crusades were launched by the pope, who at best represented half (the Orthodox were in the east) of Christianity at the time (and the Christians in Egypt and Asia weren't involved at all) Besides, the First Crusade actually went very well. And while there may have been some greedy imperfect people involved, the aims of freeing Jerusalem, protecting pilgrims, and most important, protecting Eastern Christendom from Muslim invaders who were killing thousands of women and children were good ones. You could balance your perspective by reading what Muslim soldiers were writing at the time, or broaden it by reading what the more level headed on both sides wrote. The violence of history usually offends modern sensibilities, you need to judge people by the standard of their day, not ours. The world was more violent back then. But it's not like all Christians hated all Muslims and vice versa. The friendships between people of both religions can be historically documented.
50. Nate said the following at 8:52 AM on Nov 7:
DT, trust me on this. I'm a linguist. I'm also in seminary (and a very conservative one). The Hebrew word whose primary meaning is "day" is yom. The plural is yamim. The construct form is yemei. You're right, etymologically it's clear what the word is from one end of Scripture to another. But that doesn't preclude its being used with multiple meanings, and that's the point I was trying to make in encouraging Anu. 99.9% of the Bible is really easy to interpret because it's really clear what the author means. If you've taken hermeneutics, you know what I mean. And that includes all of the important stuff. There are, though--linguistically speaking--passages that can go either way. We simply don't know enough about Hebrew (or Koine Greek) to have all the senses of the word, given the limited corpus, and the fact that there aren't any native speakers around whom we can ask. So from there it's a best guess, and even then Bible translators and scholars do a really good job.
So you're right, etymologically the word "yom" doesn't change. But just like I used the phrase "99.9%" and I didn't mean exactly 99.9%--not 99.89% and not 99.9%, 99.9%--I just meant "the vast majority", and I bet that's how you took it--words in Hebrew have multiple senses. That's what I was trying to explain using the word "key". The fact is, if we don't know all the meanings of a word, we can't say definitively that it only has one (and there aren't a whole lot of words that only have one meaning--a basic course in lexical semantics will show you that).
Honestly I don't really want to argue about this brother. I happen to agree with you, that Scripture is 100% inerrant (and by that I do mean 100%), that it does say "and there was evening, and there was morning" (although as someone pointed out above, God didn't make the sun until v. 16), and that it's probably easiest just to take it as a plain old day. But that doesn't preclude the fact that words have multiple senses and Moses might not have been using "yom" in its primary sense. And that doesn't make it sinful to believe that maybe it's being used in a secondary or figurative sense. Again, the essentials of Christianity are really clear--this isn't one of them.
51. Ted Slater said the following at 9:08 AM on Nov 7:
I appreciate the discussion of "day" when it comes to creation, but that's just too off-topic here. I won't be publishing any more comments having to do with "day."
Feel free to comment, though, on the original post or other relevant comments!
Perhaps I'll begin a post specifically to explore the meaning of "day."
52. Leah said the following at 10:38 PM on Nov 7:
Anu, you can choose what to believe. I can choose to believe creation, or I can choose not to. I find it difficult to believe that you are disbelieving a 7 day creation against your own will. I'm not saying you're lying or anything- I'm just wondering what it is behind your disbelief, because I don't believe it is as simple as "I believe x y z and I can't help it". I think you can choose to believe in a 7 day creation, and then work to keep your thoughts in order with that.
Perhaps look at it this way? I know that God is eternal- he had no beginning. I can't fathom that. I cannot comprehend that God simply always existed. To me, it's impossible, simple as that. Does that mean I don't believe it? No. I believe it, but I have absolutely no understanding or comprehension of it.
I understand your church which says "you either accept all of the Bible or none of it". I don't know if this is what your church says or if it's the more extreme as you implied, but I wouldn't say that you only have 2 options: Believe All or none. Someone may believe only some. I think they'd be wrong to believe only some, and foolish, but I think it's equally as foolish to tell someone that they can't believe only some- people will believe what they like. However, as I said, I do understand the reasoning behind it. If you were to disbelieve some of the bible, who's to say any of it is true? Say I disbelieve Genesis, why should I believe Matthew? It's like reading an Encyclopedia- if I discovered that the "K" volume was all a big lie, why should I believe the "A", "S", "W" or any other volumes?
Just because we don't understand something- like how God could simply talk and things could come into existence in one week- doesn't give us reason to disbelieve. Do you understand how Jesus came back to life after 3 days of death? We might say "because he's God". You can say the exact same thing about a 7 day creation, too.
Nate, I don't think Anu's question has anything to do with Arminianism vs Calvinism. I understand where you get the idea from- choosing to believe vs God making us believe- but Anu is not talking about salvation. Choosing to believe in regards to peripheral issues, like creation, or a sabbath day, is extremely different to choosing salvation. The Calvinist argument is that, as unbelievers, we are spiritually dead and so unable to choose salvation, unless God chooses it for us. However, once saved (whether by the Arminian or Calvinist process), we are spiritually alive, and equally able to choose what to believe in regards to peripheral issues.
Jamie Morton- Jesus did not only say "Believe in me and be baptised". He said many other things during his ministry, like "I am the way, the truth and the life, nobody comes to the father except by me". Keep in mind that Jesus' words are no more holy or true than any other biblical words, so when Peter says "In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead", it's clear we must believe in Jesus' resurrection to be saved. And, quite clearly, we must believe that it's our sins Jesus died for- otherwise, what other reason is there for him to die and for us to trust in him? So to say we must believe
* Jesus died for our sins.
* Jesus was buried.
* Jesus rose from the dead.
is quite accurate.
Ted- how did your senior pastor stun you?
53. JB said the following at 12:45 AM on Nov 8:
Theo K,
I think we can say that Christ was "raised from the dead" in more senses than one. The testimony of the gospels is that the resurrection was a more complex event than the reanimation of a corpse. Jesus appears in different forms to different people and disappears without warning, but he also has a physical form at times and eats. The facts of the event are probably impossible to understand, but the message of the resurrection is not.