>Whose apologetics are acceptable for preventing "people from leaving the
>faith?"
>Discipleship requires a childlike faith not apologetics.
>
I nearly became an atheist because of what Geology says about the flood. I
am sure that we can agree that what is taught by young-earth creationists
about geology is not satisfactory. But child like faith is what saves us.
I don't see child-like faith required for believing the events of the OT
like the Exodus or David being King etc. Must I have child-like faith that
no observational evidence can disprove anything in the scripture? I would
contend that the Young-earth creationists ARE displaying a child-like faith.
They allow no scientific fact to interfere with what they believe the Bible
says. I fear that my more liberal minded brothers in the Lord, will not let
any Biblical "fact" get in the way of what they believe the Bible says.
While what is rejects by each group is different the methodologies are
identical. If a fact becomes problematical, believe it out of existence and
all will be well.
>I believe this is part of the problem, in order for there to be
>harmonization both faith and science would need to agree on "truth and
>falsity." They cannot because they originate from different sources.
>Science is based on the rules of western thought and experience (a human
>source). Our Christian faith is based on our acceptance of the truth of
>God's revelation, via The Holy Spirit on us using scripture, church
>tradition, and our personal experiences.
>
>Truth is based on God. Science knows nothing of truth; at best it can only
>verify or deny a hypothesis. I believe the best that human thought (unaided
>by the Spirit) can do is summarized by Pilate when he asked "what is truth?"
>
I see one of two problems here. Either we reject observation and say that
science is not true or we reject the historicity of the Scripture. If we
take the former tack then we have a problem. Saying that Science knows
nothing about truth is a rejection of observational data. Our problem
becomes that we obtain ALL of our information about the Bible, about our
Lord, his death and resurrection via sensory data, observational data, which
we read from the pages of our Bibles. If we can not trust observational
data, how can I trust that I am observing what the Bible says?
If we take the latter option, that the historicity of the Scriptures is not
there, then I could paraphrase Pilate? What is history? Was there a
resurrection?
The only solution I see is to unite both truths into ONE truth.
>I don't accept that either our concept of history or our understanding of
>how the cosmos works are applicable to the message God was addressing to us
>in the scriptural account. Just as we must take a leap of faith in applying
>the rules of logic and science, so we must take a leap of faith if we are
>going to believe God's message to us.
So let me ask a question. If God was not addressing the history of the
cosmos, or the workings of it in Scripture, then I would assume that you
would find it either false or unknowable the statement "In the Beginning God
created the Heavens and the Earth". If God is not addressing history, then
that is decidedly NOT a historical statement. If you believe that that is a
historical statement, please explain to me why this is historical when the
next verse isn't. What is the Hermeneutical difference?
>
>>Ask yourself this: If every event in the Bible had been historically
>>disproved except the resurrection, would you believe the resurrection?
>
>It is only because I believe in the resurrection of God's Messiah, that I
>accept the rest.
>
We agree here, with only one possible exception. I see little reason to
believe that a God who raised a man from the dead, can't tell us a true
history of what he did. We may not always understand what He was trying to
say but he must tell the truth.
>>Now ask: How much inaccuracy and false history are you willing to put up
with
>>to remain a believer? Can 90% of the events be historically false? 80%,
>>60%...??? Historical veracity is important to the claim of divine
>inspiration.
>
>I may not be able to harmonize 100% of it, but I still believe my Father.
>
Coming out of my near brush with atheism, I must ask, Why would you believe
Him if lots and lots of what He supposedly tells us is untrue? When a
fellow lies to me, like a car salesman did several years ago, I don't go
back to him to buy my next car. I bet you don't either.
The Scripture says that "All Scripture is God-breathed." 2 Tim 3:16. if God
left his fingerprints on the Scripture, then HE is responsible for its
truthfulness where it touches upon history. Does the scripture touch upon
history when it says, "IN the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth?"
>Historical veracity is important for my accepting a historian interpretation
>of the events of the Battle of New Oleans, but not my belief in the
>resurrection, creation, or anything else in scripture. My faith in
>Scriptural statements are based on my belief that God is trustworthy. Not
>on the interpretations of a historian, geologist, or archeologist.
I agree with you. I have seen geologists sell some really bad oil
prospects. They are not to be trusted. :-) But as above, why do you think
God is trustworthy when he told a Middle Eastern mystic a tall tale about a
Flood which couldn't happen physically?
And if God did not inspire the early chapters of Genesis, and it is merely
mid-east cosmology, then why wouldn't God have communicated that this should
be removed? Does the inclusion of uninspired mid-east cosmology and its
lack of removal at a later date imply that God is unable to communicate with
mankind?
>
>
>>Before you say that I am requiring every event (even the poetry) to be true,
>>I am not. There is a certain level of problematical events I am willing to
>>accept, but my limit is not very high. If I beleive that the historical
>>inaccuracy of the Bible was as bad as the book of Mormon, I would not be a
>>Christian.
>
>So you want to pick and choose, that's convenient!
Merely trying to avoid that old red herring that usually comes my way.
Poetry is poetry. It is not history and was not meant to be history. But
Genesis 2-11 is written in a similar style to Genesis 12-50. People
generally beleive 12-50 is historical but often reject 2-11.
>In the end, dichotomy is all we have. Our choice is either "curse God and
>die" or "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ."
Believe, me I know this choice. Four years ago it stared me straight in the
face. I had to choose.
>Evidence doesn't make anything "true". You have taken a leap into believing
>you can interpreted truth and then verify it. Truth can only be found in
>faith in our God, the God of Truth and Love.
We have a major viewpoint differnce here. Simply believing in that which
does not have evidence (which the resurrection does have) can allow one to
believe anything. Believeing without evidence is why we have so many cults.
It is why Ron L. Hubbard was able to win his bar-bet to found a new
religion. People were willing to believe him without any evidence.
Remember, Jesus offered Thomas his hands as evidence. John says that "which
we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and
our hands have touched--this we proclaim concerning the Word of life." NIV
This is the recitation of physical evidence. Even John did not have a
simply believe approach to things.
>I hope what I have written is understandable, I usually prefer to mull over
>my writing for atleast a week before I release it, I'm sorry I don't have
>the time to do that now.
I am enjoying our debate very much. And your points are well taken.
In Christ,
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm