Ask an Evangelical III

[GhostWriter16]

OK, so I finally did start my Ask an Evangelical III thread, here it is. Its in the Tavern for traffic, but remember its a question and answer thread. Its not a thread for bashing my beliefs.

Here are some ground rules to keep the thread orderly and to avoid overly stressing me out:

1. Evangelicalism is pretty concisely defined in this article on wikipedia. If you disagree with "orthodox" Evangelical beliefs on some minor point, but still more or less identify with the movement, you can answer questions provided you make clear on what areas you disagree with standard Evangelical belief when appropriate (If you are asked a question about X and most Evangelicals believe Y but you believe Z, make clear that what you believe is different than what most Evangelicals believe.) If there its controversial among Evangelicals, I would also ask that you state that Evangelicals disagree on it.

2. If you disagree with Evangelicalism on any serious points, I would ask that you not answer questions on the thread, although absolutely anyone is welcome to ask questions on the thread. Exception, if you happen to know (Know, not just think) the answer from an Evangelical perspective, you may answer from that perspective. Considering what I know of Plotinus he can probably answer practically any question I can, and many more, in spite of not being Evangelical

3. If you are an Evangelical who's going to be around regularly and wants to help me maintain the thread, please PM me so I can put you in the OP as "Other contributers." You don't have to do this to answer questions, but if there's anyone who wants to help out regularly I'd like to know.

4. This is a rule that probably hasn't been in place on any other "Ask a..." thread, but I really need it for my own ability to answer the questions. A lot of you guys have asked some really great questions last time, but there were frequently several questions at once, all of which would have taken a long time to answer, from several different people. This made it difficult to follow the thread. Therefore, I'm going to ask that if you want to ask a complex question that is going to take a long time to answer, to limit questions to one at a time. It will be easier for me to follow this way. You can ask again as soon as I, or someone else, answers your question. I just want this so I can get to everyone's questions in a timely manner and not have to be accused of dodging difficult questions, because really, I do want to answer your questions, but I get bogged down when I get a bunch of questions from a bunch of people and each question will take at least 10 minutes to answer. If I don't answer your question for 3-4 days, feel free to PM me and ask me when the heck I'll be getting to your question A question like "What do you think the Bible teaches on..." would be an example of a complicated question, it requires a lot of cross-referencing and even though the internet allows research to be done quickly, it still commonly takes up to even a half hour to adequetely answer certain questions.

5. If your questions are fairly simple and you think I could answer them within a couple minutes time, please limit questions to 3-4 at a time. These would be questions that you would not think that I would have to research much to find the answers. There's no hard and fast rules, and I'm not going to report anyone for asking too many questions but I may not be able to get to them all. If you ask one question, or a couple easy ones, I'll make sure I get to them. If you ask several hard ones at one time, or a large number of simpler ones, I might forget about them because I simply can't answer everything the second its posted, and even though I do have quite a bit of time for the next three weeks, its not limitless

6. Please try not to ask questions you know the answer to. If you think you know but aren't sure its fine, but don't ask any questions you already know the answer to, especially if its in order to bait me and insult or mock the answer. The #1 most prevalent example here is gay marriage. Most of you already know I disagree with it. If you don't already know, now you do, and I specifically do not want this particular topic brought up, because I remember it bogging down an earlier thread so much a moderator had to step in. This applies ESPECIALLY to political topics. In fact, unless the political topic is somehow related to my faith, stay away from politics please. This is a thread about my faith.

7. Similarly, this isn't a thread for scientific debate. I know most of you guys think a literal interpretation of Genesis is compatable with science. I'm not banning discussing it, but please don't obsess over the topic or argue science here. A question ("How does such and such work") is fine, but I'm specifically asking we don't DEBATE those topics.

8. On other religious topics I am willing to debate some, but this thread is mostly for Q + A. You can ask questions to clarify the answer or to explain how a different part of the Bible fits or something (For instance, if I interpret one text a certain way and you don't see how a different text fits, feel free to ask) but if a back and forth argument goes for more than 3-4 posts, I'd ask you to take it to PM. Unless I specifically state otherwise, I'm willing to discuss it, but don't want it to bog the thread.

Without further ago, begin

 

[emzie]

Why did god give me a brain that won't reject the false age he designed into the world? Why am I going to hell for this?

 

[JollyRoger]

When there is a conflict between the words of Jesus and other parts of the Bible, what should I believe?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Why did god give me a brain that won't reject the false age he designed into the world? Why am I going to hell for this?

I don't really know the answer to the first question, other than that he didn't design the false age of the world. He created a world we can live in, without going through all the suffering and death a "Natural" process would have required.

As for your second question, you aren't. If you are going to Hell, its becasue you have committed personal sin (1 John 1:10.) Now, this would be enough, Biblically speaking, but I'd also add that you can be forgiven of your sin without believing in a Young Earth. I've seen certain people say otherwise (Although I'm not 100% sure if they were talking about all OECs or just Theistic Evolutionists, YECs commonly make the error of assuming they're all exactly the same) but I just don't see any Biblical reason that taking all of Genesis 100% literally is essential for Salvation anymore than taking Revelation 20 (1,000 year reign of Jesus Christ) is essential for Salvation. The latter is slightly less obvious to an Evangelical (Since Genesis actually appears to be written as a historical narrative) but what is obvious has nothing to do what one needs to be saved.

Sola Scriptura says that everything we need for Salvation is in the Bible (Notably, Sola Scriptura isn't even explicitly stated, although I think Sola Scriptura or at least a very, very strong Prima Scriptura is implied) and there's nothing that says "You have to have a literal view of Genesis to be saved." Its tricky because it doesn't always use "Will be saved" or a similar phrase to describe becomming saved, Jesus for instance just talks about being his disciple but I believe its the same thing, but there's absolutely no good reason to say that literal view of Genesis is needed for Salvation, unless you think making ANY errors in interpretation are essential to Salvation.

To be saved, you have to repent and put your faith and trust in Jesus Christ. I could make a complicated argument full of dozens of Scriptures to back this up if anyone actually did challenge it, but I'm not going to do that right this minute, since nobody has, and even if they did, its 12:30 in my time zone

Nevertheless, as we grow in our faith we will begin to more greatly appreciate the value of the God-breathed word given to us (2 Timothy 3:16.) I think this SHOULD ultimately lead to a literal interpretation, but since we're all flawed, it might not. Nevertheless, its not essential to believe in a Young Earth to become saved.

When there is a conflict between the words of Jesus and other parts of the Bible, what should I believe?

You already know the answer to this, and this is the sort of question that I'd rather avoid. You obviously know an Evangelical would reject contradictions in the Bible. Now, if you showed me two texts where Jesus says one thing and someone else seems to say something different and asked how to reconcile them, that would be a fair question, although it would certainly count as a complicated question.

But what you are saying is basically saying "I know you claim this book has no contradictions but I found a contradiction so should I believe Jesus or his disciples even though I am not going to tell you what it is." At least tell me what the perceived contradiction is so I can try to address it. I really don't think you'll find any.

Nevertheless, I'll address a few possible and general contradictions you may have in mind.

Some people think Jesus and Paul contradict each other. Those people generally think that Paul also contradicts pretty much every other New Testament writer. Here's the thing:

Both Faith and works have a role in Salvation. Those who tell you works have no role in Salvation whatsoever are wrong.

However, Paul clearly explains that faith comes first. This is very encouraging to a new believer, who cannot always manage to eliminate their entire sinful lifestyle immediately (Well, nobody can COMPLETELY eliminate it, but to some people a new believer might look a lot like an unbeliever in many ways.)

The other writers are a bit less clear, but they still require faith. Jesus says "He who believes is not condemned." He also talks about the high cost of being a disciple. But again, faith comes first. Otherwise, you wouldn't become a disciple in the first place.

James is also a commonly perceived conflict with Paul. Again, James doesn't contradict Paul at all. In fact, if you parse the text where James says "Abraham's faith was completed by his works" he is preaching the exact same gospel as Paul, faith comes first, and works come as evidence of faith. He says "A man is justified by works and not faith alone." I'm not 100% sure if he means "Justification" the same way modern theologians use it or if what he's talking about is what modern theologians call "Sanctification" which is the necessary result of Salvation; being made Holy before Jesus Christ. I think the latter is more probable based on the rest of the text (Faith "Being completed by works" sounds like we are justified by faith but can only be sanctified through works) but it would be true anyway. I'm not sure to what extent James makes a careful distinction. It doesn't matter though, he's right regardless, works are part of the Salvation process, they aren't part of "Getting saved" but are 100% part of "Being saved."

 

[JollyRoger]

How do you know its not essential to believe in a Young Earth to become saved?

 

[GhostWriter16]

How do you know its not essential to believe in a Young Earth to become saved?

How do I know that Genesis is in fact a lie designed to get me damned for believing in it?

Answer: First of all God doesn't lie, but secondly the New Testament writers address it as a literal text. The first part of that is pretty foundational to ANY form of Christianity, while the latter part might be less important to a non-Evangelical (And thus they might take it as metaphorical.)

As for why its not essential, because I see no Biblical implication that it is. While the Bible is clear that you are supposed to believe everything in it is true (2 Timothy 3:16) I don't really see that as a prerequesite for being saved. In fact, I would encourage anyone to find even ONE TEXT that implies this. You might be able to see it, although very vaguely, implied in Revelation talking about itself (Meaning, the Book of Revelation) but that's about it.

Jesus talks about belief being essential for Salvation (John 3:18). James talks about works having a part (James 2:21). Paul says its "Not by the works of the Law" (Ephesians 2:9, note that he may be talking about the JEWISH law, which isn't needed at all, but even if he's talking about normal good works, we still aren't saved BY them) and Peter may be implying Baptism has a part, although I think that's open to criticism (Acts 2:38, and that's a topic I'm just starting to study now.) Even selling possessions is apparently able to be read into the text (Eisegesis) as a prerequesite for Salvation. I don't see how you can even get being a Young Earther as part of how to get saved. Its there as history, and we don't get saved by being history buffs (And I'm not talking about the poster)

 

[JollyRoger]

So you can be selective on what to believe in the Bible and still be saved?

 

[GhostWriter16]

So you can be selective on what to believe in the Bible and still be saved?

Actually, yes. I think the position is very hard to defend, but yes, it is possible.

I think a person who believes the whole Bible is true, even with the obvious caveat that they don't know everything in it, is more likely to be saved simply because they are exhibiting more faith and they are usually more commited (While there are exceptions to everything, a general trend I've seen is that almost nobody rejects only a small part of the Bible like a beginning of Genesis, if they are willing to reject a little they'll reject practically everything that doesn't "Seem right" to them.) But there's nothing in the Bible that says "You have to believe every Word of this in order to be saved."

There are certain parts of the Bible that it seems clear that you DO have to believe in order to be saved. You have to believe Jesus died for your sins and was literally resurrected from the dead (Romans 10:9). This would discount people like Rob Bell, because they don't believe Jesus ACTUALLY died for your sins, but only as an example. Romans 10:9 flat out rejects these people as being saved. You have to believe in only one God (James 2:19 tells us this because it implies by "You believe God is one" that this is not enough, implying that you still do have to do this, plus have works.) I think I could make the case from Matthew 28:19-20 that you do have to believe the Trinity, since disciples have to be baptized in the name of the Trinity. I would not totally conclude from this that a young believer might not get this wrong though. I think you'd pretty much have to believe Jesus miracles were real, since John 21 says "These things were written that you might believe that Jesus is the Son." To believe that Jesus is the Son, but reject that he did anything miraculous would seem to me to be an intolerably low level of faith. And not only do you have to believe those things, but place your faith in them. That's where it gets tough.

That is not to say, however, that you can believe those "Minimums" and reject everything else in defiance or disbelief and still be saved. We are commanded to build upon our faith (Hebrews 6) so while a young Christian might have less faith in certain parts of the Bible (Or they might not, I guess it depends on if they are ACTUALLY little children or only little children in the faith) we do have to build on that faith, and God will build our faith if we are really in Him.

Oh, and before the inevitable "Can you be saved but believe in Evolution" I believe the answer is "Yes" provided that you do believe God created the Earth. That does not, however, believe that the belief is orthodox or in line with Biblical exegesis.

 

[JollyRoger]

Why should the scripture you cited be believed while others are not as critical? Is it possible that you are selecting the wrong verses to believe?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Why should the scripture you cited be believed while others are not as critical? Is it possible that you are selecting the wrong verses to believe?

They should all be believed, although not all Scriptures are equally critical. To give an example of an obviously less critical scripture, Daniel had no clue what the heck he was talking about when he wrote about the four beasts he saw in a vision, and John had no clue what he was talking about when he wrote about the beasts in HIS vision either. Yet both are in Heaven with Jesus Christ today.

These Scriptures are still important, but more complex, so understanding is obviously more difficult. A spiritual "Infant" as Paul describes in his letters wouldn't understand them. Yet they are still referred to as "Brothers."

All of Paul's epistles are complex as well, as the Apostle Peter points out (2 Peter 3:16) and people "Twist them." Obviously, the more complex, and thus advanced, a passage is, the easier it is to twist.

However, all Scripture IS important (2 Timothy 3:16.)

Here's the thing though, I cited verses that said believing certain things are ESSENTIAL FOR SALVATION. Since I believe all of it anyways, I also believe the texts that say "You have to believe such and such in order to be saved" or strongly imply such.

Its not something I worry about usually since I believe the whole Bible, and would encourage anyone I evangelize to believe the whole Bible, but I don't really think you can make the case that you have to believe every word IN ORDER TO BE SAVED. At least, you can't and still hold to Sola Scriptura. Plotinus convinced me of that point when he explained to me that Sola Scriptura is "Everything that is needed for Salvation is in the Bible." Since there is nowhere in the Bible that says "You must believe every word in the Bible in order to be saved" either you don't actually HAVE to believe every word, or Sola Scriptura itself is false, which means you'd also have to believe traditions in order to be saved, which is 100% false.

 

[JollyRoger]

Why are we to assume that Daniel and John are clueless, but Paul is not?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Why are we to assume that Daniel and John are clueless, but Paul is not?

They aren't clueless in the sense that they were wrong. I meant literally that they had no idea what they were talking about. Meaning if you asked them "That beast you say you saw, what did it represent?" They'd probably have no idea.

If you asked Paul what he meant when he explained the gospel, he'd certainly have an idea.

Why, you ask? Daniel and John recorded God-given visions, but God didn't give them an interpretation. Paul wasn't recording a vision, he was explaining the gospel, as he received it he passed it down to others. The gospel isn't an allegory of any kind, Paul was literally saying "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart God raised him from the dead, you will be saved" (Although in context, this does not contradict Jesus' gospel which requires discipleship and dedication.)

 

[JollyRoger]

So since Daniel and John were more purely God-driven and Paul was possibly being corrupted by human pride, isn't it possible that Daniel and John are closer to hitting God's intended message than Paul?

 

[GhostWriter16]

So since Daniel and John were more purely God-driven and Paul was possibly being corrupted by human pride, isn't it possible that Daniel and John are closer to hitting God's intended message than Paul?

Nope, they both equally did so, since all Scripture is god-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16.)

I know that's a bit of a cheap shot, but you already know the answer. So far only one person has asked a question other than you, which is fine, but at this point you are just basically trying to bait me, which I asked you guys NOT to do. If you want to learn, ask questions conductive to learning. If you are interested in Christianity, especially if you have interest in potentially accepting it, ask questions about it. If you just want to waste me time, don't.

Consider this a warning to you and everyone. Future questions that are clearly intended to be both baiting and that you obviously know the answers to will be reported.

 

[JollyRoger]

If all scripture is God-breathed, how do Evangelicals resolve contradictions?

As for your indication that you may report posts, I have been careful to remain within Tavern rules and each of my questions presents a serious point to address.

 

[GhostWriter16]

If all scripture is God-breathed, how do Evangelicals resolve contradictions?

As I said, the Evangelical response to this would be "What contradictions." Please explain what contradictions you are referring to (And in the same spirit of "One difficult question at a time" I'd ask you not simply list the Skeptic's Annotated Bible, because there's no way I'll be addressing 400 texts at one time. If you have one or a small number you'd especially like resolved, feel free to post them and I'll try.

As for your indication that you may report posts, I have been careful to remain within Tavern rules and each of my questions presents a serious point to address.

Just make sure you check the thread rules as well. "Don't ask any questions that you absolutely know the answer to" is there. I think I've already said a thousand times that the Bible is equally inspired, and that if you want me to try to resolve "Contradictions" you have to first tell me what Scriptures you think contradict each other.

 

[JollyRoger]

As I said, the Evangelical response to this would be "What contradictions." Please explain what contradictions you are referring to (And in the same spirit of "One difficult question at a time" I'd ask you not simply list the Skeptic's Annotated Bible, because there's no way I'll be addressing 400 texts at one time. If you have one or a small number you'd especially like resolved, feel free to post them and I'll try.

Well, lets start with Sodom. Genesis and Jeremiah seem to have a much different take on what caused God's wrath. Which do Evangelicals take as more authoritative?

Just make sure you check the thread rules as well. "Don't ask any questions that you absolutely know the answer to" is there. I think I've already said a thousand times that the Bible is equally inspired, and that if you want me to try to resolve "Contradictions" you have to first tell me what Scriptures you think contradict each other.

I do not consider thread rules nor Red Diamonds as binding in the Tavern.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Well, lets start with Sodom. Genesis and Jeremiah seem to have a much different take on what caused God's wrath. Which do Evangelicals take as more authoritative?

By "Jeremiah" do you mean "Ezekial" (Since the passage that was in your sig for awhile was in Ezekial.)

I don't see any contradiction if that's the case. Ezekial specifies it was because of "Lack of Charity." I'd consider trying to gang rape a guest to be an example of "Lack of charity" and an extreme one at that. That being said, it was probably part of their general character as well. That Genesis doesn't specify doesn't mean its disagreeing.

I do not consider thread rules nor Red Diamonds as binding in the Tavern.

Too bad.

 

[JollyRoger]

By "Jeremiah" do you mean "Ezekial" (Since the passage that was in your sig for awhile was in Ezekial.)

I don't see any contradiction if that's the case. Ezekial specifies it was because of "Lack of Charity." I'd consider trying to gang rape a guest to be an example of "Lack of charity" and an extreme one at that. That being said, it was probably part of their general character as well. That Genesis doesn't specify doesn't mean its disagreeing.

You're right - it was Ezekial - but is was more specific than lack of charity. Why, in the many times I have heard about Sodom in an Evangelical church, only the Genesis take is taught?

 

[GhostWriter16]

You're right - it was Ezekial - but is was more specific than lack of charity. Why, in the many times I have heard about Sodom in an Evangelical church, only the Genesis take is taught?

Probably because its more obvious. I sometimes have to remind people though

You having it there actually was what got me to look up that verse. Apparently not a whole lot of Evangelicals know about it. As for why, I don't know.

Its a valid criticism though.

That doesn't necessarily mean one or the other is wrong though. In fact, I don't even think Genesis says WHY, it just shows a series of events and God says he's done with them. He doesn't actually say why, although its certainly implied.

The "Implication" normally seen is homosexual sex. In spite of the modern meaning of "Sodomy" coming from there, I think its possible to argue that it was more than just homosexuality.

1. "All the town" went to rape the Angelic beings. While all does not always mean "All" in the absolute sense, it certainly means a majority (Often when "All" is meant in the literal sense additional emphasis is given, such as Romans 3:10 "There is noone righteous, no not one") and a majority of people don't naturally struggle with homosexuality. Thus the people were so lustful that even heterosexuals wanted to participate.

2. They were going to commit rape. So this isn't consensual gay sex. Its rape.

There's plenty of Biblical support for homosexuality being a sin without using this text. That they were destroyed for "A lack of charity", which might have meant in the normal sense in addition to the clear lack of hospitality demonstrated in the Genesis passage itself, does not present a problem for me. I see no good reason to ignore the Ezekial passage. Its just not necessary, and telling people Sodom was for a lack of charity doesn't change the other parts of the Bible that condemn homosexuality.