| Judson McClendon 2008-02-12, 6:55 pm |
| "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
> <snip>>>>
>
> I have snipped your long rationalization of faith although I take no issue with it.
>
> Given YOUR definition, based on quoted scripture, your concern seems to be, not with what God would find "acceptable", but rather
> with the depth and strength of a believer's faith when it is tested in times of adversity.
>
> Summarising your argument, the Bible is necessary so that faith can be reinforced. That certainly works for you. It may not work
> for people who cannot read, and they may have other (perfectly valid) ways of reinforcing their faith. (Like attending Church,
> discussing things with their Pastor and fellows, or anything at all that works for them...watching sunsets on a mountain top can
> be just as real for some people as your reading scripture is for you...)
Pete, there is a vast difference between only knowing part of the truth
(e.g. someone who has only heard enough about Jesus to be saved) and
actively rejecting part of the truth (discounting part or all of the Bible as
untrue). No one but God knows the whole truth. No human can even
completely know and understand all that is in God's Word, the Bible,
even if they memorized every word. My point is that you cannot have
true and solid faith, while at the same time attack the very foundations
of that faith. Jesus is the living Word of God; the Bible is the written
Word of God (yes, many Scriptures to back that up). The situation of
a believer who rejects part of the Bible is similar to Jesus' statement
that "A house divided against itself cannot stand." This is not some
opinion I just pulled out of the air, the principles are clearly defined in
Scripture. The fact that a large number of believers don't realize this
is simply a sign of their ignorance, just as the fact that a large number
of believers live lives that are in contradiction to the teachings of
Jesus is also a sign of their ignorance. Jesus said "If you love Me,
follow my commandments." If they haven't gotten that down, why in
the world would we think they "have down" more subtle points of
Scripture, even when such are clearly defined?
Pete, you yourself have frequently pointed out some of the bad, even
horrible, things that have been done by believers, or in the name of God.
Surely it would be obvious, even to you as a non believer, that there
must be a reason for this? When people who claim the name of Christ
do not act as Christ says they should act, then they have obviously
departed from the teachings of Jesus. Why? It is because they are not
believers, or they are believers who are ignorant of the principles taught
by Jesus, or they don't care what Jesus says, or they are weak and
succumbed to temptation, or some other similar explanation. If they
aren't believers or don't care, then there is no remedy other than repent
and change. But for ignorance, the remedy is to know the truth. The
truth is found in the Bible, the Word of God. Every Christian on the
planet should know or learn this, for it is a fundamental tenet and truth
of Christianity. For believers to claim they don't know this is alarming,
and clearly part of the reason the Church (true believers) are doing
such a poor job these days.
> I believe your fanatical focus on one RIGHT way (faith based on the inerrancy of scripture) does you no credit, and it doesn't
> help others to find faith either, if that is your purpose. It is divisive and alienating, just as insistence on ANY SINGLE road to
> faith is.
If there is any truth taught in the Bible, is is that there is *one way*, and
that is God's way. Individual Christians experience many different ways
of coming to Jesus, but there is only one Jesus, and one salvation. There
is only one way to be acceptable to God, and that is through faith in
Jesus Christ. The Bible teaches this as clearly as it teaches anything.
> Over many days and thousands of words here you have really failed to persuade anyone (including committed Christians) here, that
> the Bible IS inerrant. You have dismissed any argument that refutes your own arguments (polonium in rocks, effects of the flood,
> evolution, etc.) and simply droned on about the inerrancy of the Bible. (When most of us can see that it isn't inerrant, by even
> the most casual inspection).
You "can see?" You see God? You know Him? You observed the
universe being formed? You are certain of these things, you have
absolutely unrefutable evidence?
I didn't see the universe being formed any more than you or anyone else.
But I do know God. I don't know everything about God, and I don't
understand everything I do know about God. But I do know God. I talk
to Him, He talks to me. I can feel His presence inside me day to day. I
know these things as surely as I know anything. And I know that the
Holy Spirit who gives me assurence that God loves me also gives me
assurance that the Bible is God's Word. Jesus called Him the Spirit of
Truth (John 14:15-17). Every true believer has this Spirit of Truth, but
not all believers listen to Him, just as not all believers listen to Jesus.
There is clear evidence in the disobedience of many believers that they
do not always listen to and obey Jesus. Why is it strange to say they
also do not always listen to the Holy Spirit? It would be stranger still
if they did the one and not the other.
> Personally, I have no problem with you finding faith on this basis (or on any other basis...); my problem is when you promote this
> as being the ONLY way, and in doing so dismiss everyone who also has faith but arrived at it via a different route.
I'm not talking about how people come to faith in Jesus. I'm talking
about how they treat the authority for that faith, the Bible.
> You have indicated that your faith has served you well and helped you through hard times. Good. You see your faith as unshakeable
> and "deep and reliable, and trustworthy". All good. (I feel the same way about what I believe, although I accept there are some
> areas that are not 100% and so subject to ongoing review...:-))
Believe me, I would hardly characterize my faith as "unshakable." It
has been pushed to the breaking point (and seemingly beyond) more
times than I can count.
> So there is no reason why you as a faithful Christian, and me as an atheist, shouldn't be able to accept that we each have
> something working for us and leave it at that. I can do this, why can't you? Why are you so driven to propound your view? Are you
> really trying to convince yourself?
Because if you are right, you and I will cease to exist at death, and it
doesn't matter in the long run what I believe. But if I am right, you will
spend an eternity in torment unless you accept Jesus before you die.
I do not want that for anyone, and I don't want to stand before God
and hear Him say "Jud, if you had persevered longer, Pete Dashwood
(or someone else reading these threads) would have accepted Jesus
and be standing beside you now."
> It arises when you are not content to simply have what you've got, but find it necessary to promote it as the ONLY way. Your zeal
> to give to others what you have found, leads you to sow on stony ground. (Even Jesus warned against doing that...)
Not so. The parable was about how different soil (people) received
the seed (Gospel), not about whether or not the sewer should have
sewn seed there. Jesus also said:
(Mark 16:15,16)
And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel
to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved;
but he who does not believe will be condemned.
>
> OK, then is it any less "reliable" to the believer himself, than your own? Can you not accept that people can find (and lose...)
> faith in diverse ways?
>
> I have met and spoken at length with people who are every bit as ardent in their faith as you are (some of them came to it by
> amazing twists of circumstance). They would be offended by your suggestion that there is only ONE way. (Especially when that way,
> to a dispassionate observer, is patently nonsensical. You have failed miserably to make your case for Bible inerrancy, despite
> thousands of words and many hours labouring it)
Again, I'm not talking about how one comes to faith in Jesus. That
happens in a vast variety of different ways. :-)
>
> That's fine, and it is the way that YOU refresh your faith.
>
> But it ISN'T the ONLY way.
No, one is free to attack the foundation of their faith, if they choose
to do so, or they can cling to the foundation of their faith. As in
most things, they will experience the consequences of that decision.
>
> They weren't martyred for their belief in Bible inerrancy...
Doesn't matter what they were martyred for. To face martyrdom
without failing requires faith in something solid. Which is why
believers should not attack the foundations of their faith.
>
> Suppose you were inspired by God at the time? Is it anymore unlikely than claiming that the people who wrote it were inspired by
> God?
Inspired by God to deny His Word that Jesus zealously supported?
I don't think so. :-)
>
> And you were the one who was telling us that Free Will was given to us so we could exercise it.
>
> Now, it's a bad thing?
Free will, no. Making bad decisions, yes. :-)
> (I warned you previously that there are logical repercussions from this "Free Will" thing... you still persist, unable or
> unwilling to see that if we have free will, then God doesn't know what the outcome will be, (if He did, there is no point in
> giving us free will).
> If there is something that God doesn't know, then He isn't omniscient. If He isn't omniscient, why should we accept any of the
> other attributes He is supposed to have?)
Warn away. :-)
I did not suggest that God was unaware of what would happen when
He gave man free will. On the contrary, God knew precisely what
would happen, every step of the way, down through history. But
knowing and permitting is not the same as causing. You may know
if you permit your children freedom they will abuse it, but that does
not mean you caused the abuse. God permitted it because it served
His purposes. I do not claim to know what all of God's purposes are,
though the Bible reveals some of them.
> Make up your mind: Is the exercise of Free Will by us a good or bad action? Did God give us free will so He could test us, or
> because He didn't know what the choice made by each individual would be?
Nothing God does is "bad." :-)
> If it was to test us (He seems pretty fond of testing people...), and He already knew what the choices would be, why not just
> snuff out the ones who will choose "wrong" before they even choose (maybe at birth...)? Why make the "right" ones have to suffer
> living with the "wrong" ones?
It's not all about us, and dealing with us. There are a vast number of
other beings whom God created who are observing this. Part of what
God is doing is revealing characteristics of His nature to His creation,
of which we are only a part. For example, the angels who were
subverted by Satan to rebel could not be saved. I don't know why,
but they weren't. Perhaps it was because they had clearer and more
definite knowledge of God than we do. God showed His justice in
dealing with them, but He apparently could not (or perhaps just did
not) show His mercy there. But God is revealing is mercy and grace
and forgiveness in dealing with mankind. God has a purpose in
everything, and those purposes will be revealed in His time.
> Better still, why even have Free Will at all? Why not just have everybody be "right" and full churches every Sabbath?
I can only surmise that God wanted people who *chose* to believe
and love Him, even when there were apparent reasons not to. This
would explain many things which you see as reasons not to believe.
> What about the ones who vacillate? Find and lose faith several times in their lives (or even every other year...)? Does God get
>  as to what their status is :-)?
We might, but God doesn't, of course. :-) Only God can say what
a person's precise state is.
>
> Presumably, the same criteria that brought them to faith in the first place.
Most people come to faith only knowing a little about God. That little
gave them enough faith to accept Jesus and be saved. But who would
want to stay there and never grow in knowledge and faith?
>
> Perhaps the "absolute" is the tiny inner voice that says: "I'm here..." Who knows why people believe what they do? The fact is
> that they do, and it is as real for them as your faith is for you.
"Real" doesn't equate to "mature" and "full." A baby is born with
only a few abilities. It is in the nature of babies and Christians to
grow into maturity with a multitude of abilities. A baby who doesn't
grow is stunted in some way, which is a problem. The same goes
for a Christian. A person isn't "dogmatic" to say such things, or
to be able to recognize a baby who isn't mature, or a Christian who
isn't mature.
> It is certain that there are many paths to truth (and "truth" is not absolute). To adopt tunnel vision in this regard is simply
> denying the validity of anyone's faith except your own. That's a pretty arrogant position to maintain.
Paths vary. Absolute truth doesn't. God is truth. God's Word is Truth.
Every Christian should know this.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
|