Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

n/a
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 218

Posted 7/24/2002 7:07 PM (GMT -6)

If someone told you "if you don't believe one thing in the bible what makes you think you can believe any of it?" would you agree? Does this all or nothing statement carry any truth?

Anybody?

Blessings,
Faithful

"To conceptualize God differently from another model is not to reduce God to one's own idea of what God should be."

~Major J. Jones

Edited by - faithfullservent on 07/25/2002 12:09:33 AM

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 7/24/2002 8:52 PM (GMT -6)

1) I greatly respect a guy named "John the Silver Tounged" (St. John Chrysostom, bishop of Constantenople in the 300s or 400s) who said of the inconsistencies in scripture (Like did Jesus go up the hill or come down, to preach the Beatitudes?) that they lent GREATER credability that everything wasn't being "fixed."

2) Let me pitch a question back at you. What do you believe FIRST?

markus
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 100

Posted 7/24/2002 10:48 PM (GMT -6)

God tells us not to lean on our own understanding.

I prefer to think of the so-called inconsistencies in the Bible as unexplained or unresolved mysteries.

Rather than thinking should I believe everything, I prefer to think why should I expect to understand everything immediately?

I do not feel the Bible should be read in isolation from prayer. It is through prayer that the Bible talks to you and tells you what you need to know right now.

Why worry about the rest of it whilst concentrating on the parts that are relevant to you for today?

I prefer to wonder at what consistency and evidence there IS in the Bible rather than look for apparent hairline cracks.

And we should remember, the Bible is a spiritual book written for your spiritual guidance. It is not a scientific manual or chronological historical analysis of the material world.

There are certainly differences between various translations and versions, but I see superficial mystery rather than reason to doubt the credibility of the whole Book.

But ultimately, faith is towards God, not towards the Bible itself. God offers the Spirit of Truth through prayer. God is the object of your faith, the Bible is your handbook that tells you more about the nature of your God, how you were saved in spite of yourself, and how you should try to live your life.

There will always be those happy to confuse and distract you away from what is actually very simple.

As (o) says, ask your friend, "who should I believe first, you or the Bible?"

MArkus

n/a
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 218

Posted 7/24/2002 11:45 PM (GMT -6)

If you don't believe one thing in the bible, what makes you think you can believe any of it?"

This saying that if I deny one thing in the bible, can I still (rationally) believe in the rest, or, is this "all or nothing" statement the only option?

(o) said:What do you believe FIRST?

Open Theism, Evolution (4.5 billion year old earth, Punctuated Equilibrium, 14 billion year old universe, etc...), crucifixion, Resurrection, etc...

I have more beliefs, but I can't think of them right now because I am very tired.

Blessings,
Faithful

"To conceptualize God differently from another model is not to reduce God to one's own idea of what God should be."

~Major J. Jones

Edited by - faithfullservent on 07/25/2002 04:45:45 AM

Edited by - faithfullservent on 07/25/2002 04:47:10 AM

Alan Rhoda
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680

Posted 7/25/2002 3:00 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
If someone told you "if you don't believe one thing in the bible what makes you think you can believe any of it?" would you agree? Does this all or nothing statement carry any truth?

I don't think this follows at all. One could have good reasons for believing that the Bible is generally accurate and reliable, especially on the important issues concerning God, salvation, etc., and reject some of the particular stories or details as being literal truth without any becoming unreasonable.

The all-or-nothing claim makes no more sense than arguing that if someone is EVER mistaken about anything, then we shouldn't trust them at all about anything.

God bless,
Alan

Lege, lege, lege, ora, labora, et relege.

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 7/25/2002 3:11 PM (GMT -6)

Oooops, I've been mis-uoted and mis-understood. (but maybe not by all)

quote:
As (o) says, ask your friend, "who should I believe first, you or the Bible?"

I asked: "What do you believe FIRST?" Taht's different than pitting oneself against the scriptures, Markus.

faithfullservant seems to have understood, and answered: "Open Theism, Evolution (4.5 billion year old earth, Punctuated Equilibrium, 14 billion year old universe, etc...), crucifixion, Resurrection, etc..."

OK. Then I'd follow up by asking faithfullservant to put THOSE in order. Is Open Theism your first belief, and Evolution your second, and the crucifixion and Resurrection somewhere down the line. I bet not.

But what my point was -- and its just mine...you can ignore it -- my point was that in some things we have to have a first line of belief. The Resurrection (at least in Eastern icons) is OUR resurrection WITH Christ. (His divine nature didn't need resurrecting; it was OUR human nature that he took... and raised.) I'm not sayint that this one has to be first; I'm just using it as an example. But if it is taken first, then the incarnation of humanity and our salvation BECOMES THE FOCAL POINT FOR VIEWING EVERYTHING ELSE.

What is the "focal point" for viewing everything else, faithfullservant?

Seems to me that "Open Theism" is way on down the list.

......................

(for the boys down at the Sidetrack Tap...)

markus
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 100

Posted 7/25/2002 7:35 PM (GMT -6)

I am sorry for my misunderstanding, (o) - It never occurred to me that one might decide what one believes oneself first - and then consider the truth of the rest of the Bible.....

That to me is a "self" centred approach that typically leads to picking bits out of the Bible that fit one's own view and twisting or discarding other bits that appear to disagree with "my" view. This can easily end up cementing us into our own mould and inhibiting any further spiritual growth into matters that previously we maybe were not ready for. If you become limited to the milk of your own belief, how can you be led onto the meat?

Personally, I feel if one is going to believe that the Bible is inspired by God then one's approach should be God centred and should start with the assumption that it is all the truth and that anything which is unclear or seemingly contradictory should be classed as something that has not yet been unfolded for my understanding. In this way, one is always open-minded to fresh and deeper inspiration - which may also lead to reversal of previous belief. I am sure there are many people both great and small that have been adamant and persuasive in their beliefs at one time - only to find themselves in an opposite camp some years later.

Whatever we do not understand from the Bible is no cause to doubt that it has some relevance or meaning that we have not realised yet.

...I was actually more concerned by the comment "If someone told you..." rather than the quoted statement itself!

Apologies once again.

Markus

Edited by - markus on 07/26/2002 12:49:09 AM

markus
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 100

Posted 7/25/2002 7:52 PM (GMT -6)

I am sorry for my misunderstanding, (o) - It never occurred to me that one might decide what one believes oneself first - and then consider the truth of the rest of the Bible.....

That to me is a "self" centred approach that typically leads to picking bits out of the Bible that fit one's own view and twisting or discarding other bits that appear to disagree with "my" view. This can easily end up cementing us into our own mould and inhibiting any further spiritual growth into matters that previously we maybe were not ready for. If you become limited to the milk of your own belief, how can you be led onto the meat?

Personally, I feel if one is going to believe that the Bible is inspired by God then one's approach should be God centred and should start with the assumption that it is all the truth and that anything which is unclear or seemingly contradictory should be classed as something that has not yet been unfolded for my understanding. In this way, one is always open-minded to fresh and deeper inspiration - which may also lead to reversal of previous belief. I am sure there are many people both great and small that have been adamant and persuasive in their beliefs at one time - only to find themselves in an opposite camp some years later.

Whatever we do not understand from the Bible is no cause to doubt that it has some relevance or meaning that we have not realised yet.

...I was actually reacting to the comment "If someone told you..." rather than the quoted statement itself - so it seems I also misread the main point of the original posting

Apologies to everyone, I retire in disgrace!

Markus

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 7/26/2002 2:11 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
If someone told you "if you don't believe one thing in the bible what makes you think you can believe any of it?" would you agree? Does this all or nothing statement carry any truth?

Faithful-

With Alan, I’d say the reasoning here is not sound. Besides the fact that we don’t relate to what others tell us on this all or nothing basis, we also don’t read other books (or newspapers, or anything else) on this all or nothing basis. So, ignoring for the moment that we’re talking about a sacred text, it’s simply not true that people interpret life this way at all. Why advise people to not believe anything the Bible says unless everything the says is believed?

The above paragraph only points out the bad reasoning behind Faithful’s friend’s question. It doesn’t imply that I do or do not believe everything the Bible says. So then, secondly, I’d also answer by asking what is meant by “not believing something in the Bible.” If the something is what the Bible intends to reveal to us about God or us, then I’d answer by simply saying there’s nothing in the Bible I don’t believe. But if the something is expanded to include word spelling, grammatical mistakes, the literalness of what should be taken figuratively, then I’d answer that there’s no reason to think one cannot disagree with a lot of what’s in the Bible along these lines and still believe everything the Bible communicates to us.

Take Paul’s view for example (2Ti 3.16): “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that….” God inspired the Bible (OK, here the Old Testament) for THESE purposes. Everybody agrees there are mistakes and errors in the Bible (e.g., grammatical mistakes). The question then becomes what sorts of error are consistent with the Bible’s being a trustworthy guide in the specific areas God intended it to be. Ahhh, but this is a different subject altogether!

Blessings,
Tom

"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 7/26/2002 4:53 AM (GMT -6)

Brief aside for Markus only. Bro, you are getting ever further a field -- further from my meaning.

I don't know how you got such an individualistic thing from what I wrote. (I'll agree with what you said; but it does not apply to what I was saying.)

The terms that I arrived at were "focal point for viewing" -- they were made up on the fly but serve nicely. I then chose, just as an example, the Resurrection. But to try and keep this quick, I'll go right to the big two: the Incarnation and the Trinity.

The junk-strewn path of theological history is littered with abandoned (one hopes) carcases of "deductions" where something really important got messed up by working from something minor that soneone thought they understood. (It is true that theology is all interconnected. But it often is treated as if it were a lot of individual scattered elements.) Long ago someone messed up the Incarnation (Christology: Christ is one person in two natures, unconfused and undivided...). Working from one issue a new/false scheme was divised. Any number of "trinitarian deductions" have been concocted.

Clearing the table..............................
Were someone to feel caught by such a ridiculous (I agree with Tom) challenge, one way out of it is to begin picking up off the floor (if the statement rattled you enough to knock things off the shelf) and putting them back up where they belong.

I JUST ASKED which things would you/anyone pick up first.

(I didn't say anything like what Markus took it to mean.)

Edited by - (o) on 07/26/2002 09:55:00 AM

markus
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 100

Posted 7/26/2002 6:37 AM (GMT -6)

I do not feel it is such a ridiculous challenge at all - in fact I think it is quite pertinent, especially as the bible IS a sacred text.

If someone is to rely on the Bible to support their beliefs and arguments, then they are relying on the Bible representing God's word. However, if the same person then denies the validity of a certain part of the Bible, how can they justify relying on the rest?

For example, if someone is happy to accept female priests in church, one could argue they are ignoring Paul's teaching - and if they have deliberately chosen to put Paul's prohibition on one side on the grounds that, for example, it is no longer valid, how can they then use the rest of Paul's teachings as representative of God's word? Once one applies one's own interpretation to one part of the Bible, or chooses to disbelieve something told there- then it IS difficult to hold up the remainder as God's Holy Word to humankind. If one selectively denies through disbelief some parts of the Bible, one is automatically personally selectively accepting the rest.

But, as has been said previously, we need to be clear what we mean by believing. For example, the genealogies of Jesus appear to vary, as do the names of the 12 disciples. But do we believe on these grounds that Jesus was not who He says He was, and that the disciples were not genuine? - or do we say there is some confusion here that certainly has an answer without disturbing the core belief?

I do not think that questions relating to whether a particular story is literal or symbolic amounts to a situation of belief or otherwise, adn in most cases the lesson to be absorbed is the same, anyway.

Understanding what is meant by various verses is a different matter - and here, of course, there are many variations! - but understanding things differently is a vastly different situation to not believing something (in my opinion).

The above is entirely my own view and is not intended to offend or challenge anyone else. It is just what I feel, that's all!

Markus

PS for (o) - my last post was also my general comment on the topic - not just a comment on your own statement, so if it deviates from your own line of thought, don't be disconcerted - I often tend to wander in my thoughts without due care over what others may think - I'm sorry. I think I see what you are getting at, but there is much posted by you clever guys that is really way over my limitations - I only hope that I have not offended you by assuming to have understood something that was beyond my reach

.

Edited by - markus on 07/26/2002 1:11:38 PM

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 7/29/2002 6:10 AM (GMT -6)

IF you disbelieve anything in the Bible, can you believe the rest?

1) It may depend on WHY you believe ANYTHING in the Bible. The all-or-nothing argument only works if the reason you believe ANYTHING is because you accept the authority of EVERYTHING.

2) It may depend on what you mean by "disbelieve." To reject Genesis 1 as literal is NOT to disbelieve it. It is to believe it non-literally. This is how I "beleive" in the cosmic monsters, hostile waters, and other things in Scripture.

Doc

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

markus
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 100

Posted 7/29/2002 8:53 PM (GMT -6)

I think a way to define what we mean by "believing" in this issue is that it refers to something we would be ready to omit from the Bible without feeling anything had been changed or lost from it.

In this way anything connected with variations in understanding, or whether to be understood literally or not would still remain.

I do not feel one can remove anything from the Bible on the grounds that you do not believe it to be true and still believe in the remainder representing the whole.

However, this becomes a bit sticky when one remembers that different Bibles contain different books - just which Bible are we talking about!!!!

And it is here that I think it is maybe OK to extend the argument in another direction by asking does the Bible contain everything? I personally don't think it contains anywhere near everything - and that is one good reason why one should always test one's thoughts and feelings through prayer. I actually think more of God's word is written inside us than in any one book.

Markus

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:05 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual