I should have replied earlier but it slipped my mind....
seekandlisten wrote:
[quote:o63hynn9]ivdavid wrote:
[quote:o63hynn9]seekandlisten wrote:
'God' tells us, according to scripture, to recognize that which is in front of us and the rest will be revealed yet I see so many 'believers' discard observable evidence in favor of their beliefs based on what they call 'faith'.
I'd like it if you could give me an example to help my understanding.[/quote:o63hynn9]
I'm assuming here that you want an example of what 'observable evidence' is discarded in favor of 'religious beliefs', correct me if I'm wrong at what you are looking for here. What I meant is things like evolution vs literal 6-day creation, old age earth vs young age earth, noah's flood, the bible is infallible as the literal word of God, and so on. For instance when one chooses to believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old and ignore all physical evidence against it they aren't believing in 'truth' they are believing in their own opinion, I would assume you would classify this with 'blind faith' correct?[/quote:o63hynn9]
Well, if that's what you're talking about, you needn't take pains to dig up the account of creation or the flood or any such thing. Take the crux of Christianity - the two foundational pillars of truth -
1) Jesus Christ is the Son of God who came in the flesh as full man and full God to die for our sins.
2) Jesus Christ rose from death on the third day - resurrected unto glory as Lord and King of all creation
If we Christians are called Christians for believing in the above statements, which are so obviously against 'observable evidence', then I'm sure we can believe anything else God says - be it floods or six-day creations etc.
What you've got to understand is that Christians too know what is at stake in our professing of our beliefs. And more than that - we are to preach this message to others too. We know how it will be received and yet we do it because we
know that it is the absolute truth. Take for example these passages in the Bible that reflect the same awareness -
1Co 1:22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
1Co 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
(read this entire chapter if possible)
Note, though apostle Paul knows that this is foolishness, he persists with the proclamation of the Gospel.
Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Rom 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
And the stark reality of what it means if all this were false is also perceived - but not feared for we have absolute faith ( and personally experienced 'evidence') that all this is indeed true. (It just wasn't meant to be provable to others - each has to find the proof himself by believing)
1Co 15:12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
1Co 15:13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
1Co 15:14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
(Read this chapter too if possible)
1Co 15:19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
So, if there is to be any issue about faith, it should not be over creation and flood - instead over Jesus Christ. If Christ is believed to be true, then everything else is believed on His merit because He says so.
I'd perhaps reply in a later post on how I deal with some of these 'observable evidences'... But for now I'd just explain why I believe that the Bible is infallible -
1) The main reason is that - The Bible tells me so.
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
I know this seems like absurd logical reasoning but this is the way I see it -
This above verse was written by apostle Paul where he was referring to the Old Testament Scriptures. In all likelihood, he may not have known at the time that his epistles would become part of the New Testament Scriptures later. But so was the case with many of the Old Testament writings that are now part of Scripture. Their authors would have probably thought they were documenting some history for reference. Or maybe they wrote down what God revealed to them because He asked them to or for their own documentation, not knowing that it would become sacred text later. Some may have written down their creative works as what our poets do - some may have compiled and documented all wise sayings for ease of reference. There could be so many more reasons. When these were recorded, I don't know if all their authors knew that these writings would become Holy Scripture later and yet they did become so. The Holy Spirit inspired people to compile the Old Testament Scripture - similarly the Holy Spirit inspired the compilation of the New Testament Scripture. And the Holy Spirit leads all true believers into the truth that they earnestly seek.
The point i'm making in the above para is that the compilation of the New Testament Scripture is similar to that of the Old Testament Scripture.
Now, I see Jesus referring to Old Testament Scripture often and He doesn't seem to find any fault with any part of it. He brings in new revelation that adds to it and in some places, appeals to what is written in the Scriptures for the people to accept Him as the Messiah. Jesus, being the Son of God, had perfect opportunity to refute or edit the Scriptures if He wanted it to be changed. In fact, He does the opposite - He quotes them without fail. He even quotes Jonah in the belly of the fish making it quite clear that this literally did happen and was not some form of legend or myth. If Jesus considered them literally, I have no reason not to do so. And if this were how the Old Testament Scriptures were considered, this is how the New Testament Scriptures should be considered.
I see no other reason required to doubt the infallibility or the literal interpretation of the Bible. Of course, the interpretation should be done in context and as a whole instead of twisting certain Scriptures to our carnal convenience.
2) The second reason is that all the observable parts of the Bible match with my current experiences. If this is so, then I am willing to believe the validity of all other parts that I can't observe now. Note, this reason is not a reason by itself - it is just the confirmation of the first reason.
I hope I've made some sense here....
. I will hopefully show the very subtle differences that we hold.
