How can you witness to people who don't have a foundation for their beliefs?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Blair Reynolds on March 25, 2016 at 4:25am

In a way, your mom is right.  Divinely inspired as it may be, the Bible is still the produce of an ancient prescientific, semi-barbaric culture. The are many laws in Scripture we definitely would not hold with today.  The OT sanctifiers slavery,selling your daughter into slaver, and beating slaves, for example. Nobody comes to Scripture, with a blank mind.  Everyone views Scripture through a lens.  For many laity, the lens is that provided by traditional church teachings.  Many come to Scripture with the idea firmly implanted in their minds that Scripture has to be inerrant.  The way teh Bible describes things as happening is exactly the way they did. From the standpoint of serious biblical studies, that is about the worst thing to do.  You should come to the Bible, with an open mind.  You should view Scripture through the lens provided by a healthy skepticism about tradition. The doctrine of an inerrant Scripture is simply a human-made theory about how God and Scripture may be related.  Maybe it is true, maybe not.  Let's test it out. I submit that when you to do, with a careful historical and linguistic study, this theory washes out very quickly.  The situation with the Bible is far more complex that assuming God dictated it word for word to purely passive scribes. There are about 100 major contradictions in Scripture, for example. There is actually more than one Bible.  Early on, you had Hebrew texts and then the Septuagint, a Greek OT, followed by the Jews in Alexandria,  which was much longer than the Hebrew. Years later, Catholicism opted to include the longer Greek OT.  Originally, Protestantism did, too.  Later, however, Protestant dropped these texts.   The father often argued about what texts to include.  Luther said that Ester should be thrown in the river and called James a "straw epistle."  He included the latter, but out it in a special section separate from the rest of the Bible. My point is that while divine inspiration is always at work, so, too, are human beings, and the Holy Spirit does not csuse a miracle by which we are no longer human and subject to error and prejudice.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ananda Welikala on March 26, 2016 at 12:17am

The very REASON that Almighty God put on flesh and came down to planet earth was because the Old Covenant was impossible to keep.  If it had been possible to keep then there was no reason for the Creator God aka Jesus Christ to step into this world of incorrigible sinners.  Romans 3:10 teaches thus: " As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:..."  Here's another:  Rom. 5:12: Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Jesus Christ being the Second Person of the Tri-united God came to solve the SIN-problem.  With His innocent Blood He paid the PRICE for all of human sin.  Even though this is the case,  not all human beings BENEFIT from the sin-cleansing Blood because the benefit comes from the APPLICATION of the Blood of Jesus on the HEART of the sinner.  This priciple is stated here:  Hebrews 9:22:  "...all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.  It's like this:  You buy a medicine for a sickness.  You keep it in your medicine box and never APPLY it to your body.  What is the result?  You will not get well.  In the same way...if you do not APPLY the Sin-Cleansing Blood on you... there is no salvation from sin and hell.

Now there is ONLY  one choice in this matter.  Either one believes the teachings of Jesus Christ regarding ones sin and salvation or one doesn't.  There is NO middle ground! The REMEDY (medicine) is ALWAYS available, but if not APPLIED, the sin remains and the result (Hell-fire) remains.  We human beings have to make the choice!  God will not make it for us.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Blair Reynolds on March 26, 2016 at 12:45am

I'm sorry, Ananda, but I don't see what this this to do with anything I said in my post. Also, I do not hold with the penal-substitutionary theory  of the  Atonement, which I find unjust and unforgiving. Also, I believe in a truly loving God.  When you truly love someone, you do not seek to coerce them with threats of terrible punishments. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Leonard T on March 26, 2016 at 4:04pm

Blair,

So, you do not believe that the Bible is God's Word, nor do you believe Jesus died for our sins? 

I believe in a truly loving God.

God is love, but He is also holy and righteous. No one attribute trumps another, nor can one attribute solely explain God.

When you truly love someone, you do not seek to coerce them with threats of terrible punishments.

You begin with the wrong premise. Man has already been judged. Our default state is lost and separated from God because of our sin nature. God does not try to coerce, but because of His grace and mercy He has extended an offer of redemption, new life, that is in Him. 

 I do not hold with the penal-substitutionary theory  of the  Atonement, which I find unjust and unforgiving. 

Upon what is your opinion based, besides the fact that you do not believe the Bible to be God's Word and you have established in your own mind that God is loving and surely could not be like this? Without the Word of God you are left with personal opinion (that would truly be cruel of God, to leave man to his own ideas), but with the Word of God we have a standard given to us by God (which you reject, I get that). So, again what is your standard? Society, man, opinion? 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Blair Reynolds on March 26, 2016 at 5:48pm

You raised some good questions, so I thought it worth my while to answer.

 I'm not sure how you are using the terms "holy and righteous."  Often Christians will say  that God is loving and righteousness, but then turn around and depict God as a kind of Ruthless Moralist, and Ruthless Moralists are never very loving. Churches so doing send out a contradictory message where they have God saying in effect, "Love me, or Ill beat the tar out of you and  send you to eternal torment." 

   I gather you hold with th4re notion of Original Sin.  I don't and I don't think the Bible does either.  If we are born evil through and through, if that is our nature, so be it.  It's bad to go against your nature. So let's all go out and be as evil as we can.

  I don't agree with "separated" from God.  That comes from the dualistic metaphysics of classical theism or the church fathers.  Accordingly, the  temporal-material world is all evil, a big illusion.  God, an utterly simple, immaterial being, resides outside the universe.  I view the universe as the body of God.  I don't know of any model that does as much justice to God's sensitivity, empathy,  and intimacy with any and all creaturely feeling.  I see this model of God strongly implied in Scripture.  If teh Incarnation is to have any real meaning, then it must reveal God's general MO with creation, in which case God is incarnate throughout the whole of the universe.

   Contrary to popular myth, the penal-substitutionary theory of the atonement is not the only one in Christendom. Actually, it s a late comer, coming on the scene in the Middle Ages.  There is also the classical theory of the atonement and the perfect-pattern-man theory.  If you want, I can go more into detail here or on any of these other points.

   I never said Scripture was not inspired, just that the limitations of the biblical writers also entered the picture.  What you are doing is holding with the inerrancy theory of Scripture.  That is a human-made theory and so needs tested out.  In many cases, it does not hold.  So we have to read the Bible with great discretion. When you speak about Scripture, you are always speaking about your own interpretation of Scripture.  How do we know it's any good?  We can't accept it with no more authority behind it than your own say-so.  So we need to test it out. 

    We are all human beings and we have to think in human terms.  Anything you or I or anyone else says about God is a human idea coming from a human being.  If our human ideas are all off, then it's hopeless  for us to ever know anything.

   OK, done for now.  I don't know how much detail you want me to go into.  Let me know if you have any questions.

   

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Leonard T on March 26, 2016 at 6:46pm

 I'm not sure how you are using the terms "holy and righteous." 

How are these two terms defined in the Word of God? We do not determine their worth from external opinion, but seek to derive our understanding from how it is used and defined within God’s Word.

 

Often Christians will say  that God is loving and righteousness, but then turn around and depict God as a kind of Ruthless Moralist, and Ruthless Moralists are never very loving.

Often those who reject God’s moral stance attempt to turn Him around to be only a God of love who has no standard, nor is there any consequence for failure. What is often lost by those people is that they cannot see the beginning from the end. Man is lost because of Adam and Eve’s disobedience. Their failure has affected all of mankind. Only Christ redemptive work can change our condition from lost and separated to one becoming a child of God. God’s love is not based on human standards. How does the Word of God describe/define love and how does that, being one of 16 recognizable attributes, operate in harmony with all of His attributes that make up who He is?

 

Churches so doing send out a contradictory message where they have God saying in effect, "Love me, or Ill beat the tar out of you and  send you to eternal torment." 

You confuse having a moral standard and desiring to live by that standard as given by God with legalism. That is far from true. A child of God recognizes what He deserved and recognizes the great grace and mercy that has been bestowed upon him. The child of God seeks to live in alignment with God’s Word not out of fear, but because we love Him.

 

I gather you hold with the notion of Original Sin. 

I hold to the doctrine that is found in the Word of God that presents that Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden and due to that sin mankind has become separated from God and in need of redemption.

 

I don't and I don't think the Bible does either. 

But you don’t believe the Bible. You think it has been changed and affected by man and thereby is not trustworthy. If you believe it is not trustworthy how can you even attempt to present what you think it does or does not say with any seriousness? For in the end in your mind it holds no sway over you. You have already determined that God is a loving God and thereby reject any parts that do not align with your personal belief system.

 

If we are born evil through and through, if that is our nature, so be it.  It's bad to go against your nature. So let's all go out and be as evil as we can.

The Word of God reveals we have a sin nature. In comparison to God we are evil, but that does not mean we are like Satan in all of our ways, or that all humans act the same way. We were created in God’s image and due to the fall a change has taken place and we are found to be spiritually dead needing to be born again. 

 

I don't agree with "separated" from God.  That comes from the dualistic metaphysics of classical theism or the church fathers.  Accordingly, the  temporal-material world is all evil, a big illusion.  God, an utterly simple, immaterial being, resides outside the universe.  I view the universe as the body of God.  I don't know of any model that does as much justice to God's sensitivity, empathy,  and intimacy with any and all creaturely feeling.  I see this model of God strongly implied in Scripture.  If teh Incarnation is to have any real meaning, then it must reveal God's general MO with creation, in which case God is incarnate throughout the whole of the universe.

That is utterly ridiculous. Let’s have a serious conversation. Quit trying to put everything into a nice neat little box as if this is how everyone who believes we are separated from God needing a Savior thinks. Separated from God does not mean that God is far off … He is omnipresent. Separated from God relates to our condition, not proximity.

 

Contrary to popular myth, the penal-substitutionary theory of the atonement is not the only one in Christendom.

Not really concerned with what “Christendom” thinks. There have been many perversions of the church down thru the ages. I am interested in what the Word of God says. The Word of God presents in simple straight forward terms the need for a Savior who came to die in our place.

 

Actually, it s a late comer, coming on the scene in the Middle Ages.  There is also the classical theory of the atonement and the perfect-pattern-man theory.  If you want, I can go more into detail here or on any of these other points.

Again, not concerned with how the church, or perversions of the church, thought down through the years. What did Peter, Paul and John understand and give us under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?  

 

I never said Scripture was not inspired, just that the limitations of the biblical writers also entered the picture. 

God is not limited by the limitations of man. What you attempt to present renders the Bible as practically useless. In what you present it would not be the standard and would have no authority. Man at will can freely change or ignore the words found therein because they are really only the words of man, not God.

 

What you are doing is holding with the inerrancy theory of Scripture. 

You may call it a theory and attempt to replace the truth with your own theory, God gives you that liberty.

 

That is a human-made theory and so needs tested out. 

Tested out? Using man’s rules and methods … hahaha. We are back to the beginning where you want man to stand in judgment of the Word of God instead of the Word of God being the standard for man.

 

In many cases, it does not hold. 

Your opinion that God gives you liberty in this life to hold.

 

So we have to read the Bible with great discretion.

Code for let’s see how it aligns with my own understanding.

When you speak about Scripture, you are always speaking about your own interpretation of Scripture. 

Not true. There are two parts here. 1) Scripture speaks for itself. If we take Scripture at face value many times no further “interpretation” is necessary. The basics of Scripture is not written in code. We could debate some over prophecy and some of the allegories, but much of that is defined in the Word itself and some is not yet meant to be known. 2) Any teaching presented must not simply be an opinion (unless stated). When we study the Word of God we are able to present the teaching found therein when we let the Word interpret (speak for) itself. If you are truly a student of the Word you will know what that means.

 

How do we know it's any good?  We can't accept it with no more authority behind it than your own say-so.  So we need to test it out. 

You are attempting to use the common human argument attempting to start with fallible man and work backwards to thereby apply that fallibility to the Word. Does not work that way.

 

We are all human beings and we have to think in human terms. 

Not true. As children of God we have the Holy Spirit alive and working in us. Our minds and eyes have been opened as we have been brought from spiritual death to spiritual life. The earthly minded cannot perceive the things of heaven.

 

Anything you or I or anyone else says about God is a human idea coming from a human being.  If our human ideas are all off, then it's hopeless  for us to ever know anything.

This statement ignores the power and influence of the Holy Spirit.

 

OK, done for now.  I don't know how much detail you want me to go into.  Let me know if you have any questions.

No question. I have a pretty good idea of where you are coming from and what you believe.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Blair Reynolds on March 26, 2016 at 7:59pm

The fact that God is wholly loving and does not seek to coerce or punish does not mean God is without standards or takes an anything-goes attitude.  God is continually interacting with us, providing us with creative possibilities for beauty.  God works with the grain, not against it.  If we slack off, then the opportunities or possibilities extended to us won't be as rich.

   Also there must be some analogy between our experience of love and God's; otherwise, why say God is loving?

   Many churches and Christians do in fact give such a contradictory or double-bind message.  As long as you cling to  the hellfire and brimstone concept of God, that contradictory message will always be there.

   If you feel other theories of the atonement are "perversions.," you are really going to have your hands full proving that.  I guess, then, that Martin Luther was a pervert because he held with the classical theory of the atonement. Also, as I just said, you need to make a case why you feel you are right and all these other Christians are wrong.

  God is in fact limited by us.  God works with the grain, not against it.  God can't move any faster than we are ready and capable. Also, we have genuine freedom, so that God cannot coerce us or force us. The fact that human beings had considerable say in the writing of Scripture does not mean they controlled the whole thing.  Scripture,a s is any endeavor, was a conjoint task.

    When you are saying that Scripture is the Word of God and inerrant, you are simply stating your interpretation, nothing more or less.  Whether that is valid or not yet remains to be determined. Loads of people make all sorts of claims about God, the Bible, etc., and many are total nut cases.   Just claiming that you are speaking via the Spirit is no guarantee to me or anyone else that your views are valid.  All you've given here is your authority, and I'm not about to take something based nothing more than your authority. So, you need to make a case why Scripture is inerrant.   That means you would have to carefully address issues such as the contradictions in Scripture, when, where, and under what circumstances was Scripture written, etc.  Also, I'm not sure how wise it is to call Scripture the Word (capital W) of God.  In  the Bible, that title is reserved exclusively for the Second Person of teh Trinity.  Applying it to Scripture seems too much like bibliolatry for me to be happy with it.   Also, you need to address the knotty problem of teh Canon.  Why are certain books in the Bible and others not?  Do you think the Apocrypha is Scroiotrure?  Why?

   Granted, the Holy Spirit may inspire us, but the Holy Spirit does not cause a miracle by which we are no longer human.

   Your claim that the earthly minded cannot perceive the things of heaven largely stems from  the early influx of  certain Hellenic metaphysics into the church, schools which took the temporal-material world to be evil, a big illusion.  The truly divine, the" really real," was a wholly simple, immutable immaterial realm. 

  No, I don't think you really know where I am coming from.  There is a whole metaphysical, doctrinal side to be explored here.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Leonard T on March 27, 2016 at 6:38am

To be fair I must state that this person is no longer with us on AAG. Thus, he will not be able to respond back.

 

The fact that God is wholly loving and does not seek to coerce or punish does not mean God is without standards or takes an anything-goes attitude.  God is continually interacting with us, providing us with creative possibilities for beauty.  God works with the grain, not against it.  If we slack off, then the opportunities or possibilities extended to us won't be as rich.

I wonder what Sodom and Gomorrah, the Egyptian army at the Red Sea and those who perish in the Book of Revelation would have to say about God not punishing? I wonder what the rich man (and Lazarus) would have to say regarding this. Of course if you erase the inerrancy of Scripture and read it purely as a suggestion through allegoric lenses you might be able to ignore these actions of God that He is not ashamed of, nor asking man’s approval of, which are found in the Word of God.

 

Also there must be some analogy between our experience of love and God's; otherwise, why say God is loving?

You present a human argument that one must be able to explain God using human reasoning. God is not explainable. Our understanding will be limited as Paul (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) states in 1 Corinthians 13, (1Co 13:9-13) “NIV84  For we know in part and we prophesy in part,  (10)  but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.  (11)  When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.  (12)  Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.  (13)  And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.”

 

Many churches and Christians do in fact give such a contradictory or double-bind message.  As long as you cling to  the hellfire and brimstone concept of God, that contradictory message will always be there.

There you go again assuming that if one believes in eternal punishment that one must be preaching hell fire and brimstone. Maybe one day you will stop your one size fits all approach and seek to have a real conversation with someone on another site. While it is true that there are many churches that preach only hell fire and brimstone, there are others that articulate the condition of man, his lostness, and present our only hope, Jesus Christ. Damnation without hope is an incomplete message. Hope without the understanding of condemnation too is an incomplete message. Condemnation and hope are not at odds with each other, but are revealed in the Word of God to be in harmony.

 

If you feel other theories of the atonement are "perversions.," you are really going to have your hands full proving that.  I guess, then, that Martin Luther was a pervert because he held with the classical theory of the atonement. Also, as I just said, you need to make a case why you feel you are right and all these other Christians are wrong.

You have really got to stop this bait and switch tactic. Did I mention Luther? Did I mention Irenaeus, or Justin, or Polycarp? Only a fool would believe that there are no perversions throughout the history of the organized church. One’s belief must be soundly found within the pages of the Word of God. These other writings are not the basis of faith, but may be used to enhance our understanding … not our understanding of man, but of the Word of God.

 

God is in fact limited by us.  God works with the grain, not against it.  God can't move any faster than we are ready and capable. Also, we have genuine freedom, so that God cannot coerce us or force us. The fact that human beings had considerable say in the writing of Scripture does not mean they controlled the whole thing.  Scripture,a s is any endeavor, was a conjoint task.

God, as sovereign God (another attribute by the way), is limited by man only in as much as He chooses to limit Himself. This limitation is known as our liberties. At no point does sovereign God stop being sovereign. God created the natural laws of nature, but is not bound or limited by those laws He created. God created man and has chosen to give many liberties, but He is not bound by or limited by man. The only thing God is bound by is His word and Who He is, as He cannot act out of character.

 

When you are saying that Scripture is the Word of God and inerrant, you are simply stating your interpretation, nothing more or less. 

All Scripture is God breathed and God does not make mistakes therefore we know that Scripture as originally given is without error. That is not an opinion but a base understanding of Scripture found in Scripture. If we use eisegesis instead of exegesis we can come up with all kinds of conclusions. For every part of Scripture there is only one true interpretation with the possibility of numerous applications. The interpretation must be what did God mean when He gave this Word to mankind through human authors. The Word of God is not open to personal interpretation. A good student of the Word will acknowledge when they are confident based on Scripture that this is what God meant and at other times acknowledging that at this point it is merely my opinion.

 

Whether that is valid or not yet remains to be determined. Loads of people make all sorts of claims about God, the Bible, etc., and many are total nut cases. Just claiming that you are speaking via the Spirit is no guarantee to me or anyone else that your views are valid.  All you've given here is your authority, and I'm not about to take something based nothing more than your authority. So, you need to make a case why Scripture is inerrant.  

I never stated in our conversation that I was speaking for the Spirit, nor did I ask you to believe me simply because I said it. Amazingly enough in my 20+ years of pastoral ministry and over 10 years operating on the internet I have challenged people numerous times to not take something as truth simply because I say it … please go flush it out with Scripture. In those years I have also learned that it is not my job to prove it to you or anyone that God’s Word is inerrant, that is the Holy Spirit’s. I have also learned that that work is hindered when the person has already concluded that it is not inerrant which leads the person to picking and choosing what they like and reading into Scripture what they want. If the Word of God is not inerrant then it has no authority. If the Word of God has no authority, then the authority for life and how it is to be lived out rests on someone or something else. Thus, we either have the Word of God which has authority or we have some man made view or thing exercising authority over man.

 

That means you would have to carefully address issues such as the contradictions in Scripture, when, where, and under what circumstances was Scripture written, etc.  

There are no contradictions, but numerous difficulties.

 

Also, I'm not sure how wise it is to call Scripture the Word (capital W) of God.  In  the Bible, that title is reserved exclusively for the Second Person of teh Trinity.  Applying it to Scripture seems too much like bibliolatry for me to be happy with it.  

Thanks for the warning, but I am OK with capitalizing the Word in this sense. I understand the difference in the two and only worship the Living God. The written Word is given to reveal the Living Word. So, rest at ease … the Bible is not an idol just because I use the capital “W.”

 

Also, you need to address the knotty problem of teh Canon.  Why are certain books in the Bible and others not?  Do you think the Apocrypha is Scroiotrure?  Why?

The council that selected the Books to be put together in one unit did not vote on what to include as much as they affirmed what was already being used throughout Christendom. There is much more to this that could be unpacked, but that would be a long discussion in itself.

 

Granted, the Holy Spirit may inspire us, but the Holy Spirit does not cause a miracle by which we are no longer human.

The miracle He performs in us is that we are transformed from being lost and spiritually dead and into children of God who are now spiritually alive. There are two kinds of humans, which you already stated by inference that you reject. There are those who are spiritually dead and those who are spiritually alive. (1Co 15:49)  “And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven.”

 

Your claim that the earthly minded cannot perceive the things of heaven largely stems from  the early influx of  certain Hellenic metaphysics into the church, schools which took the temporal-material world to be evil, a big illusion.  The truly divine, the" really real," was a wholly simple, immutable immaterial realm. 

The Word of God describes our current world as a fallen world. Romans 8 clearly teaches the fallen nature and redeemed nature. Romans 8 also speaks of the fallen world held in bondage awaiting liberation. Revelation speaks of the new heaven and new earth that will be cleansed by fire.

 

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tammy on March 28, 2016 at 6:24pm

Good because I was really holding back my tongue when he said a few things about Amanda. I actually posted it but removed it & was going to wait to see if he came back. If he said something else towards her, I was losing my Jesus for a second or two.

Permalink Reply by Tammy on March 26, 2016 at 9:09pm

I would like to ask that if you could, when you have the time, post two or three contradictions in Scripture & more if you feel you have more. 

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next ›
• Page