The Tension of Faith

Faith, great OP! I agree with you completely on this topic. When a doctor gives a terminal diagnosis to a patient, it's not because he WANTS them to die, but because they need to know the truth. What the doctor WANTS is irrelevant. For some reason, most atheists and agnostics can't see that our position is analogous to the doctor's.

But that's NOT the point of this thread or of the OP, as I understand it. The point is to help unbelievers understand our perspective. We don't pick and choose the parts that we like about religion or theology, throwing away the rest. Rather, we have become convinced that the Bible is true, and we are captive to the Word of God. Often we become convinced of things that seem to be counterintuitive or that we would not have chosen on our own.When a doctor gives you an unpleasant diagnosis, you are certainly free to reject it and to call it a "childish fantasy" and a "horror story".But what if it is true?

Gen 3:22 says that IF they had been allowed to eat from the tree, then they WOULD have been able to live forever. What do you think this verse means?

Agreed. That's why Jesus said that there is no marriage (implying no procreation) in heaven.

I agree that the omniscient God knew beforehand that His creatures would sin and that He would have to expel them from the Garden and not allow them to live forever in this sinful stare.

See Eph 5:20-33. Similar husband-wife imagery was also frequently used of God and Israel in the Old Testament.

The Bible seems to teach both, so I think we need to accept that both are true in some way. Since the issue involves an omniscient, omnipotent God who is outside of time and knows the future perfectly, it becomes very difficult for us to wrap our heads around.Just a few brief comments:1) the Bible teaches BOTH that "whosoever will may come" to Christ, AND that those who come to Christ have been "chosen before the foundation of the world".2) Calvin himself said something like, "Christ's death is SUFFICIENT to save all, but is EFFICIENT to save only the elect.". He saw both sides of the issue, too.3) The Bible is clear that salvation is a gift completely from God, not due to our own works, deeds, or actions (Eph 2:8-9; Titus 3:5).4) We are not saved BY faith, but THROUGH faith. The "power" for salvation is not in faith, but in Christ's work. We are saved BY Jesus' substitutionary death on our behalf. Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

Paboss, do you think the original readers would have perceived contradictions in the Bible?It seems to me that most of the supposed contradictions in the Bible are of our own making, due to reading anachronistically. If we apply 21st century western standards to first century (or earlier) middle-eastern writings, we will misread them.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

Re the apparent contradiction between Calvinism and Arminianism: Maybe not. If my physics book says that photons are both particles and waves, is it contradicting itself? Or is this really true, and our limited perspective is misleading us?

Here's my try at a brief explanation of the apparent contradiction between God's sovereign choice and our free will: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.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.Both God's choice and our free will are taught in the Bible. Both are suggested in one verse, in fact:

quote:

---

John 6:37 All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.

---

Again, I see this apparent contradiction between God's choice and our free will as analogous to wave-particle duality. We tend to think that waves and particles are completely different from one another, and that an electron or photon cannot be both at the same time. But the data shows us otherwise. We need to be honest with the data, even though it may not make sense to our intuition and may seem to be an apparent contradiction. 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.

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)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).

Percy and Ringo,You are asking good questions about biblical authority, inerrancy, etc. These are excellent questions for the "The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy" section of the "Science" forums. But I believe they are out of place in the "Bible Study" forums, where we discuss "What does the Bible really mean?" I suggest that, in this forum, we just "agree to disagree" about inerrancy, and discuss meaning. Whether or not we accept inerrancy, we can still all discuss what the Bible is trying to say and what it means.I believe inerrancy is somewhat of an epistemological question. These are important questions, but they can hinder us from making progress about meaning. In science, for example, we can ask important epistemological questions, such as "why should I trust experiment?" or "why should I believe that nature is repeatable?". We cannot PROVE that experiment is trustworthy or that nature is repeatable. But if we allow this to stop us, we will never discuss the RESULTS of the scientific experiments or what they mean. Likewise here. Neither Faith nor I can PROVE to a skeptic that the Bible is inerrant. But we shouldn't need to do so in this forum. We should still be able to discuss what the Bible MEANS.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

I believe that Is 7:14 is a good example of a "multiple fulfillment" of prophecy; in this case, it is a "double fulfillment".The first fulfillment was in Isaiah's day, within just a few years of the prophecy being given. (This is clear from Is 7:16ff.) The second fulfillment was with Jesus, a few centuries later.So was the first fulfillment also a virgin birth? The first fulfillment is explained in different ways, but I believe it refers to a woman who was a virgin at the time of the PROPHECY, but not at the time of the child's BIRTH. I believe the woman got married and had a child in the normal way. This is probably the birth described in Is. 8:3.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

And likewise, we Christians believe the major tenets of our faith because of evidence.But evidence is a funny thing. One person can see evidence as strong and compelling, while another can see the same evidence as weak and arbitrary. Witness anthropogenic global warming, for example. Most scientists are convinced by the evidence that it is real. But a vocal segment of the populace rejects this evidence and its conclusions.

I think GDR is correct here. You are treating "evidence" in a Boolean fashion, and further are giving "evidence" a very restrictive definition. But in reality, there are different types of evidence and different strengths of evidence.A written record such as the gospels is indeed "evidence". At the very least, it is evidence of what someone wrote at a specific time in history. Most of us would agree that it is also evidence of what the writer and his followers believed. Whether or not the gospels are evidence of actual history is a separate question which must be evaluated on separate criteria.Making a blanket, black-and-white statement that the gospels are not "evidence" does not help the discussion, in my opinion.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.