Biblical truth and a spirit of unbelief

[Dorothy Mae]

I understand what you're saying. Even the demons know the scriptures are true. (James 2:19) so salvation by Jesus Christ is more than just belief, it is a humbling repentance and an acceptance of and surrendering to Him as Lord as He ransoms you out of the kingdom of the world by the blood of the cross.

Only God knows our hearts and who has surrendered their life to Jesus. But what does it say about our faith if we disbelieve whatever scripture runs contrary to our modern "enlightened" worldviews? What kind of fruit is that? If we disbelieve the very judgment cast upon this world (the Flood) that Jesus and Peter invoke as a warning for His return?
Is God's judgment upon the world real or not? At some point we have to make up our minds.

Nice post. I would have to say though that in some, it’s easy to see their heart, that it’s committed to Christ. In some it’s easy to see it isn’t. In some it’s difficult without observing them more than life allows. But I do admit it probably takes a certain level of discernment. Some are clearly more easily fooled than others.

 

[Derek1234]

For one example, many professing believers deny the covenant God made with Noah in Genesis 9. Because they don't believe in the worldwide Flood even after Peter's direct warning of the scoffing and mocking spirit that will show up to deny it.

But we can move forward to the time of Moses and find the same denial. Virtually all of mainstream "science" is in one accord that the Biblical Exodus is total fiction, and that the Israelite people were not even in the Egyptian region at the time. We can say the same about the Conquest period where the Bible accounts Joshua leading Israel into Canaan to take the land. According to mainstream archeology, this is all complete fiction.

The same professing believers who discard Genesis, also necessarily discard these for the same reason. "Science says..."

So this brings us back to the choice you have to make. You can either believe in the covenantal history of the Bible (like Jesus and the apostles clearly did), or you can believe the wisdom of the world which confidently claims that most of the Bible has been proven to be an invented fable.

what do you think "science" is? You appear to be talking about history. Science is the systematic study of the natural world through observation and experiment, intentionally modelled to give falsifiable propositions. What is falsifiable in your example above?

 

[Halbhh]

I understand what you're saying. Even the demons know the scriptures are true. (James 2:19) so salvation by Jesus Christ is more than just belief, it is a humbling repentance and an acceptance of and surrendering to Him as Lord as He ransoms you out of the kingdom of the world by the blood of the cross.

Only God knows our hearts and who has surrendered their life to Jesus. But what does it say about our faith if we disbelieve whatever scripture runs contrary to our modern "enlightened" worldviews? What kind of fruit is that? If we disbelieve the very judgment cast upon this world (the Flood) that Jesus and Peter invoke as a warning for His return?
Is God's judgment upon the world real or not? At some point we have to make up our minds.

Quite right.

And, we need to remember that Romans 14:1 isn't just a suggestion to us -- it's an instruction to us, that we are to follow.

Romans 14:1 Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on his opinions.

So, for example, while I could argue with an individual about the precise (and less important) physical details of the flood, it would usually be wrong to do that(!). (it's ok to have a friendly discussion, but not to argue on this)

Because, when we talk with people with less faith (or shaky faith, like a seeker, or an 'atheist' that is somehow interested enough to argue on it) than us, we are not to argue with them about disputable matters -- like the Flood.

This isn't a suggestion.

It's not a once and done instruction from the past. It's a direct instruction to you and to me.

 

[lifepsyop]

Quite right.

And, we need to remember that Romans 14:1 isn't just a suggestion to us -- it's an instruction to us, that we are to follow.

Romans 14:1 Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on his opinions.

So, for example, while I could argue with an individual about the precise (and less important) physical details of the flood, it would usually be wrong to do that(!). (it's ok to have a friendly discussion, but not to argue on this)

Because, when we talk with people with less faith (or shaky faith, like a seeker, or an 'atheist' that is somehow interested enough to argue on it) than us, we are not to argue with them about disputable matters -- like the Flood.

This isn't a suggestion.

It's not a once and done instruction from the past. It's a direct instruction to you and to me.

Where did any of the prophets, disciples, or Jesus dispute the Flood? They all upheld the Flood as a dire warning of God's judgment. Why should we say the Flood is disputable, when the apostle Peter himself specifically warned it would be the mockers and scoffers that would show up disputing it?

And when the question of the Flood does arise, we have the choice to stand on the Word... with Jesus Christ, the prophets and apostles.. or we can stand with the modern councils of the world which deny it, as they deny nearly all of Biblical history.

 

[Derek1234]

so

Where did any of the prophets, disciples, or Jesus dispute the Flood? They all upheld the Flood as a dire warning of God's judgment. Why should we say the Flood is disputable, when the apostle Peter himself specifically warned it would be the mockers and scoffers that would show up disputing it?

And when the question of the Flood does arise, we have the choice to stand on the Word... with Jesus Christ, the prophets and apostles.. or we can stand with the modern councils of the world which deny it, as they deny nearly all of Biblical history.

So, reconcile that with Rom 14v1 and give us your top tips.

 

[lifepsyop]

so

So, reconcile that with Rom 14v1 and give us your top tips.

What good is it to convince the weak in faith that the scriptures of their faith are false?

Hebrews 5:11-14

Events such as the Creation, the Fall of man, the Flood, the Tower of Babel, Sodom and Gomorrah, the Exodus, the 40 Years in the Wilderness, the Conquest of Canaan, the time of the Judges, the rise and fall of the Davidic Kingdom, the times of Exile... these are not advanced doctrinal issues or esoteric aspects of the Word... they are the most basic foundation stones that the faith was built on... meaningful and climactic events that even young Bible-reading children are likely able to grasp. And the milk of the Word describing the basic identity of God and His history and relationship with His children, and their prophetic future with Him.

I don't feel I am judging anyone unfairly in the faith for simply affirming that the scriptures are essentially true (i.e. things that are said to have happened, happened.), and if you don't believe them, then you don't believe them.

Jesus and the apostles obviously upheld Biblical history as real and actual. Peter actually went so far as to write a specific dire warning to the church about those who would deny that the world had been judged by God through the flood. Why did he do this?

That's why there is always this choice of who to believe about earth history: Jesus and the apostles, or the modern world's academic institutions. You have to choose one because they are clearly and totally incompatible with each other. Modern "Science" ( which is essentially neo-Epicurean philosophy drawn from the ancient world, at least in the matters of cosmogony and earth history) is clearly something fundamentally different than Biblical history in every way.

 

[Derek1234]

What good is it to convince the weak in faith that the scriptures of their faith are false?

Hebrews 5:11-14

Events such as the Creation, the Fall of man, the Flood, the Tower of Babel, Sodom and Gomorrah, the Exodus, the 40 Years in the Wilderness, the Conquest of Canaan, the time of the Judges, the rise and fall of the Davidic Kingdom, the times of Exile... these are not advanced doctrinal issues or esoteric aspects of the Word... they are the most basic foundation stones that the faith was built on... meaningful and climactic events that even young Bible-reading children are likely able to grasp. And the milk of the Word describing the basic identity of God and His history and relationship with His children, and their prophetic future with Him.

I don't feel I am judging anyone unfairly in the faith for simply affirming that the scriptures are essentially true (i.e. things that are said to have happened, happened.), and if you don't believe them, then you don't believe them.

Jesus and the apostles obviously upheld Biblical history as real and actual. Peter actually went so far as to write a specific dire warning to the church about those who would deny that the world had been judged by God through the flood. Why did he do this?

That's why there is always this choice of who to believe about earth history: Jesus and the apostles, or the modern world's academic institutions. You have to choose one because they are clearly and totally incompatible with each other. Modern "Science" ( which is essentially neo-Epicurean philosophy drawn from the ancient world, at least in the matters of cosmogony and earth history) is clearly something fundamentally different than Biblical history in every way.

But there is a difference between Truth and interpretation. We all know who is the Truth. As to Biblical truth ... well, you're clearly very committed to your interpretation. I get it. You believe in a six day creation, and don't believe the Bible permits any other interpretation. I believe that, while God is perfectly capable of making a universe in (what we call) six days, He didn't. Unless for some reason, that I can't understand, God was willing to make a universe where visible signs strongly suggested a very old earth and accept that this would mislead so many people, I think He chose a much longer time frame. What is time to God? What is a day to Him?

I happen to believe in the historicity of many of the things you list above, but it's misleading to bracket the creation story with most of the other things you mention. Creation was the only event that mankind was not present for, and his ability accurately to record it therefore limited. Why should God not relate it to the author in a way that makes sense to the author, and clearly demonstrates God is the author of a perfect creation?

 

[Job 33:6]

But there is a difference between Truth and interpretation. We all know who is the Truth. As to Biblical truth ... well, you're clearly very committed to your interpretation. I get it. You believe in a six day creation, and don't believe the Bible permits any other interpretation. I believe that, while God is perfectly capable of making a universe in (what we call) six days, He didn't. Unless for some reason, that I can't understand, God was willing to make a universe where visible signs strongly suggested a very old earth and accept that this would mislead so many people, I think He chose a much longer time frame. What is time to God? What is a day to Him?

I happen to believe in the historicity of many of the things you list above, but it's misleading to bracket the creation story with most of the other things you mention. Creation was the only event that mankind was not present for, and his ability accurately to record it therefore limited. Why should God not relate it to the author in a way that makes sense to the author, and clearly demonstrates God is the author of a perfect creation?

You seem to be under the impression that this is a two way conversation, rather than just a one way lecture. Your responses are meaningless to those who disregard physical reality in favor of personal interpretations of scripture.

 

[lifepsyop]

Unless for some reason, that I can't understand, God was willing to make a universe where visible signs strongly suggested a very old earth and accept that this would mislead so many people

It only misleads those who are fixated on a naturalistic interpretation of reality.

Through naturalistic blinders, even 6-Day Creation would look misleading since objects are becoming fully formed with the 'appearance of age'. (e.g. the first man Adam)... But this wouldn't be God's fault for misleading anyone by creating a fully formed man... it would be your fault for unnecessarily forcing a naturalistic interpretation on the data.

We've been so indoctrinated into the philosophy of Evolution that we cannot conceive of a thing coming into being apart from that metaphysical framework, of gradual progression and transformation from yet more and more primordial forms. You can go back centuries to the 'enlightenment' thinkers like Erasmus Darwin and see that Cosmic/Planetary/Biological Evolution was a philosophy they were enamored with long before any sort of rigorous scientific inquiries were underway.

I happen to believe in the historicity of many of the things you list above, but it's misleading to bracket the creation story with most of the other things you mention. Creation was the only event that mankind was not present for, and his ability accurately to record it therefore limited.

Do you believe in the worldwide judgment of the flood in Noah's day? (That which Jesus referenced as a dire warning regarding future judgment.)

Why should God not relate it to the author in a way that makes sense to the author, and clearly demonstrates God is the author of a perfect creation?

The ancient world was quite familiar with evolutionary ideas. Enlightenment thinkers of the 17th and 18th centuries actually drew upon the philosophy of the Epicureans which believed the universe was only blind matter organizing itself in the void. If theistic evolution was true, then there's no reason God couldn't have described his creation as a gradually unfolding vine, or any of the ways the ancient greeks hypothesized, or the hindus before them, to reflect such long ages of progression and gradual transformation.

Evolution is one of the most ancient creation mythologies in human history.

 

[Derek1234]

It only misleads those who are fixated on a naturalistic interpretation of reality.

Through naturalistic blinders, even 6-Day Creation would look misleading since objects are becoming fully formed with the 'appearance of age'. (e.g. the first man Adam)... But this wouldn't be God's fault for misleading anyone by creating a fully formed man... it would be your fault for unnecessarily forcing a naturalistic interpretation on the data.

We've been so indoctrinated into the philosophy of Evolution that we cannot conceive of a thing coming into being apart from that metaphysical framework, of gradual progression and transformation from yet more and more primordial forms. You can go back centuries to the 'enlightenment' thinkers like Erasmus Darwin and see that Cosmic/Planetary/Biological Evolution was a philosophy they were enamored with long before any sort of rigorous scientific inquiries were underway.




Do you believe in the worldwide judgment of the flood in Noah's day? (That which Jesus referenced as a dire warning regarding future judgment.)



The ancient world was quite familiar with evolutionary ideas. Enlightenment thinkers of the 17th and 18th centuries actually drew upon the philosophy of the Epicureans which believed the universe was only blind matter organizing itself in the void. If theistic evolution was true, then there's no reason God couldn't have described his creation as a gradually unfolding vine, or any of the ways the ancient greeks hypothesized, or the hindus before them, to reflect such long ages of progression and gradual transformation.

Evolution is one of the most ancient creation mythologies in human history.

I agree with KomatiiteBIF. You seem convinced of your own correctness, and uninterested in debate. Fine. Take care.

 

[lifepsyop]

You seem to be under the impression that this is a two way conversation, rather than just a one way lecture. Your responses are meaningless to those who disregard physical reality in favor of personal interpretations of scripture.

I don't think being in agreement with Jesus, the prophets, and the apostles constitutes my own personal interpretation of scripture, though I do personally choose to believe them and put my faith in their words.

You can call your worldview "physical reality" all you want. Every side of a debate will say the same. At the end of the day we are all making major assumptions (such as uniformitarianism) about how we view reality, assumptions that follow our philosophical presuppositions.

Evolutionists like to believe and proclaim that they are simply following the data, purely objectively, with no guiding cosmogonic philosophy.