The Tension of Faith

Of course the point of bringing up contradictions is to deny the assertion that the Bible is literally inerrant. Which the original readers of the works which make up the Bible would likely not have assumed in the first place. And that includes the New Testament books.Then again asserting that the contradictions are illusions of "anachronistic" thinking is one thing. Actually showing that it is true is another - and it would hardly be the first time that you had made a false assertion on those lines.

quote:

---

I've been impressed at how kbertsche has been getting to the heart of the matters being discussed here, both in raising the question of whether the original readers would have seen contradictions in the Bible, and earlier in saying both the Arminian and Calvinist views are in the Bible when I was stumbling around the question.

---

The first hardly gets to the heart of the matter - in fact the question of whether they would care seems more important. The redactor of Genesis, for instance, does not seem to have worried about having two clearly different creation stories or merging two differing Flood stories.The second is quite obvious to anyone who looks into the matter. Indeed, I pointed out much the same thing and gave a link to a Wikipedia page briefly discussing the issues before he posted. And it's not the first time. Doing better than you is not impressive,Then we have all his refusal to accept solid refutations of his arguments in the other threads.

quote:

---

Unbelievers are always seeing contradictions in the Bible and lies in the simple statements of believers. Evidence of the fallen mind it seems to me.

---

That is because there are contradictions in the Bible and because "believers" quite often make obviously false assertions - which they have no excuse for believing. You could, perhaps argue that the latter is a consequence of the believer's "fallen minds" but I doubt that your pride would let you admit to it.

quote:

---

There are not two different creation stories, there is one creation story followed by a discussion of an aspect of the creation. This and the ridiculous notion that there is more than one Flood story in the Bible are evidence of fallen minds doing their destructive work on God's truth.

---

And so you reject the actual Bible for your own imaginings. If the Bible destroys your God's truth - and what you have said amounts to that - then obviously your God is not the God of the Bible.

quote:

---

Oh, and humility is shown in deferring to God, certainly not in putting trust in your own fallible mind. That is the essence of pride.

---

Which makes you one of the proudest people here.

So, in the human perspective God wants to save everyone and in God's perspective that's not true at all. Perhaps you can explain how they could both be true. Or even how there could be a "different perspective" on that question.

That's not the question I asked. Try again.Edited by PaulK, : Fixed tag

I'm pretty sure that doesn't mean running away from perfectly sensible points you can't answer. Nor does it include trying to cover up that fact by whining about "personal attacks" when your running away gets mentioned.

quote:

---

God's DESIRE is that all would be saved (2 Pet 3:9). But people don't want salvation (Rom 1:18-32); they prefer darkness to light (Jn 3:19). Left to their own, no one would be saved. So, by His mercy, God has DETERMINED to save some people, even though none of us deserve it.

---

While the assertions are disputable I want to concentrate on the logic. If God genuinely wants to save everyone, and if it is completely down to God, with no human involvement in the process at all, why isn't everyone saved ?

quote:

---

Why does God only save some, but not all? Is He being unjust? It may seem so, but we can't see the whole picture. Paul addressed this apparent injustice directly in Rom 9:14-24, implying that it may be too hard for us to understand, but that God's actions are perfectly just.

---

At this stage I am not even considering the question of justice, just why God should permit something contrary to his desire. (But let us also note that without Free Will, the Fall also becomes entirely God's responsibility - which has further implications)

quote:

---

Again, I see this apparent contradiction between God's choice and our free will as analogous to wave-particle duality.

---

If it is just a matter of perspective as Faith suggested then it isn't.But I believe that God's desire to save all, or just a relative few is a key difference which isn't really addressed even if it were a true analog.

quote:

---

In the same way, if the biblical data is clear on an issue of apparent contradiction, we need to be honest with the biblical data, whether it is the dual human-divine nature of Jesus, the unity-Trinity of God, or God's choice and our free will regarding salvation.

---

In the case of Physics being honest to the data means admitting that our models are incorrect, approximations that work only in certain circumstances. We cannot assume that the data is wrong once it has been strongly confirmed. However I do not see why being honest to the Bible requires the assumption of inerrancy - I would say the opposite. That honesty to the Bible requires discarding the notion of inerrancy. The contrived attempts to reconcile the two differing accounts of Judas' death being an instance in point.

quote:

---

An excellent question. But I don't believe I can give you a very satisfying answer. Scripture doesn't completely spell out how God chooses people for salvation.

---

The question isn't how God chooses but why God would choose some and not others at all.

quote:

---

PaulK writes:

​

While the assertions are disputable I want to concentrate on the logic. If God genuinely wants to save everyone, and if it is completely down to God, with no human involvement in the process at all, why isn't everyone saved ?

​

An excellent question. But I don't believe I can give you a very satisfying answer. Scripture doesn't completely spell out how God chooses people for salvation.
But there are a few points that the Bible IS clear on:
1) God does not force people to act against their will; He honors their decision to reject Him (Rom 1:18-32).
2) God does NOT choose people based on their own merits or deeds (Eph 2:8-9; Titus 3:5).
3) We can't really understand why God chooses some and not others, but we are assured that He is perfectly just. (Rom 9:14-24)

---

Point 1 places a requirement on us, and assumes that our will is meaningful and therefore would seem to contradict CalvinismPoint 2 offers two references which don't really address the issue. They don't give any reason why God would refuse to save someone despite wanting to. (Indeed, they are compatible with Arminianism but they don't outright state that anything is required from us)Point 3 in proposing that some people have been created only to be destroyed, it denies that God wants to save everyone. Which would seem to be a contradiction. (Also "God can do whatever he like to you and you have no right to complain" isn't much of a defence of God's justice.)So we don't have anything that resolves the issue at all. One point propose a reason, but is incompatible with Calvinism, another just contradicts the idea that God wants to save everyone and the other two say nothing to the point.

quote:

---

Sorry I can't give you a better answer. Ultimately, I just accept the biblical evidence, even though it seems counterintuitive (much in the same way that I accept particle-wave duality, even though it seems counterintuitive)

---

Wave particle duality is not so problematic. It's counter-intuitive but doesn't seem to be inconsistent. However the idea that God wants to save everyone does seem to contradict the idea that God created people with the express purpose of not saving them.

quote:

---

It is hard for us to get beyond thinking of the whole thing about judgement in terms of a judge in a courtroom

---

That would seem to be your problem, since I wasn't thinking about it in that way at all. I certainly haven't made any references to the law, and I've said very little about justice - which is a wider concern than the courts anyway.And you seem to miss the fact that my question is aimed at the compatibility of Calvinism with the Biblical claim that God wishes to save everyone (indeed with those verses of scripture which seem to contradict the Calvinistic idea of Limited Atonement in general). Remember that in Calvin's view of salvation it is all down to God, our attitude doesn't matter one way or another (at most God arranges for us to have the "right" attitude to get the outcome he wants)Simply putting forward your view or Lewis' view of how salvation works doesn't really address my points at all.

If you have something to add, add it. But if you just want to disagree with Calvinism, replying to kbertsche or Faith would be more appropriate. Or, you, know, you could agree with me since I don't think I'm actually saying anything you would object to.

OK Faith, the prophecy of Isaiah 7 - with a little historical information, which may be found elsewhere in the Bible, indicates that the child mentioned has to be born during the reign of Ahaz.Why do you reject that ? Is it just that your mind has fallen to far to understand the text ?

quote:

---

Since the word "almah" is translated by all traditional Christians to mean "virgin" it must refer to the Messiah, and the New Testament affirms that. If it referred to the time of Ahaz it would refer to an adulterous (unmarried) woman, which would not be possible in the context of a prophecy since a "young woman" which usually means an unmarried woman, could not have conceived a child that would be recognized as legitimate.

---

Your mind is thoroughly fallen if you think this irrational nonsense is an answer.The biggest problem is that it does not address the real issue at all. The child's birth is a sign that the attacks from Aram and Israel will cease because the Assyrians will conquer those nations. Obviously the sign has to come before the fulfilment - which occurred in the reign of Ahaz.To list the other errors in your argumentFirst, the "traditional Christian translation" is probably an error in the first place.Second, even if it isn't it doesn't make the child the MessiahThird, just because the word usually refers to an unmarried woman, it doesn't mean it has toFourth, why would it have to be adultery?Fifth since the child is simply a sign, legitimacy would not seem to be a big issue

quote:

---

That in fact is the clue to readers of the OT that it IS a messianic prophecy and does not refer to the present time

---

These would be "readers of the OT" who can't read it - how else would they miss the context so badly ?

quote:

---

Although there may be messianic prophecies that that have a double reference, both to the present time and to the Messiah to come later, in this case because it is about a virgin that is not probable.

---

Then please explain to me how Jesus can be any use as a sign that the Assyrians are going to conquer Aram and Israel.

quote:

---

Im still coming to grips with the whole idea of Fallen Minds and Regenerated Minds.

---

When used as arguments, both are excuses for exalting the self and denying the truth. Doing so is obviously unChristian.

Oh look, no answer. Looks like the Bible has defeated Faith and her God yet again.And just as a reminder, the key question is:

quote:

---

You're right, it does have to work as a sign to Ahaz, and I'm sure it does but I don't care to research it right now

---

And you have put a lot of effort into trying to deny it. So much for your "regenerate mind"

quote:

---

Even so, it is definitely a prophecy of the virgin birth of the Messiah, because the New Testament says so, and the traditional Church says so, for a couple of millennia already, and they have a lot more authority than any unbeliever.

---

The truth isn't decided by authority. Whoever wrote the Gospel According to Matthew took a small part of Isaiah out of context. Read in context it doesn't appear to refer to a virgin birth at all (nobody claims one happened in the reign of Ahaz), or the Messiah (nobody claims that the child born then was the Messiah) - and if there's some hidden meaning it is very well hidden. And simply appealing to dubious authorities (and they certainly are dubious!) doesn't help that.