Why do YOU believe the Bible? - Page 4

nathan_slatter · #31 03-21-2007, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Felicity

God is bigger than we can comprehend. He's past finding out.

I enjoy "thinking" about and discussing scripture and ideas too, but ultimately there simply are not always answers to all the questions. And because there aren't answers to all the questions does not negate or destroy or otherwise negatively affect authentic faith.

We have a responsibility to search the Scripture. That's why the Bereans were commended.

Exactly...

Felicity · #32 03-21-2007, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nathan_slatter

Exactly...

Felicity · #33 03-21-2007, 10:49 AM

By the way, welcome to AFF Nathan.

nathan_slatter · #34 03-21-2007, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Felicity

By the way, welcome to AFF Nathan.

Thanks.

ReformedDave · #35 03-21-2007, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crakjak

You asked "Why do YOU believe the Bible?" My beginning to believe the Bible was because my parents were believers. I am now 56 years old and have moved beyond what my parents believed, however the Bible is still the foundation of my faith. THE BOOK is tried and tested in my life to be trustworthy, my faith will not necessary convince another. That is God's responsibility not mine. My job is to live my faith.

To convince a Buddhist of the truth of the Bible there would have to be work of the Holy Spirit. The Father would have to be calling them to truth at that particular time, otherwise my words would be "pearls before swine" as it were.

My point is that the majority of Christians do not have a reasonable reason to be a Christian. If I used the same criteria on something else it would be deemed irrational. Knowledge has been divorced from faith and it has become something Scripture never meant it to be. I have not heard one apologetic answer, as Peter commands, and I could easily come to the conclusion that you have no cogent reasons to offer for the truth claims of Christianity.

mizpeh · #36 03-21-2007, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReformedDave

The majority of responses that I've received have been simply experiential and thereby unverifiable. If proof for your God is only in the 'experience' why should I or anyone else believe in that kind of a God? I've had my own experiences and mine are better than yours. You base your life and eternity, if there is one, on a feeling that you interpret as 'truth'.....Scary. If we did that in other aspects of life we'd call that insane.

I read Evidence That Demands a Verdict years ago and all the historical proof verifies my faith in God intellectually but it is not the same as having a relationship with God.

If I told you God healed me of a deadly disease and I have the MRI reports, the doctor's notes, etc would that be enough for you to believe?

crakjak · #37 03-21-2007, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReformedDave

The majority of responses that I've received have been simply experiential and thereby unverifiable. If proof for your God is only in the 'experience' why should I or anyone else believe in that kind of a God? I've had my own experiences and mine are better than yours. You base your life and eternity, if there is one, on a feeling that you interpret as 'truth'.....Scary. If we did that in other aspects of life we'd call that insane.

Man has been trying to answer these questions for century's, and in this the 21st century even theologians do not agree. So if we had to be perfect in our understanding God would have established truth in a way that there would be no misunderstanding. GOD IS INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS, MAN SEEKS AN END.

Therefore I believe because of tradition and experience, I am in the process of working out my salvation with fear and trembling. I continually pray to know God as He really is, He is real and present. Beyond my faith and experience I must honestly and without fear say "I don't know."

OGIA · #38 03-21-2007, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReformedDave

My point is that the majority of Christians do not have a reasonable reason to be a Christian. If I used the same criteria on something else it would be deemed irrational. Knowledge has been divorced from faith and it has become something Scripture never meant it to be. I have not heard one apologetic answer, as Peter commands, and I could easily come to the conclusion that you have no cogent reasons to offer for the truth claims of Christianity.

RD, Christianity is what it is because of one man. That man has been proven with pretty good certainty to have existed. That man died, was buried and was resurrected. We have quite authentic documents to support that. Other than that, what do you want? Christianity does not rest on my proving to you the existence of God or the vailidity of His word. Those are YOUR demands. I don't agree that faith depends on knowledge, other than the knowledge about the man I just wrote about.

Now, your thread is about the Bible. I believe the Bible because I think it has been proven to be authentic, as authentic (or moreso) than any other ancient document. Out of that document, I have experienced the words on the pages.

mizpeh · #39 03-21-2007, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReformedDave

My point is that the majority of Christians do not have a reasonable reason to be a Christian. If I used the same criteria on something else it would be deemed irrational. Knowledge has been divorced from faith and it has become something Scripture never meant it to be. I have not heard one apologetic answer, as Peter commands, and I could easily come to the conclusion that you have no cogent reasons to offer for the truth claims of Christianity.

Is faith reasonable?

BTW, what do you think Peter would tell someone if they asked him the reason for the hope that is in him?

Would he say the resurrection of Christ? But would that be proof enough for some? Would an eyewitness report be enough? Obviously not for the council that beat him for preaching in the name of Christ.

When Paul said that Christ had been evidently crucified before the Galatians, what do you think he meant by that? Maybe that God confirmed His word that Paul spoke with signs and wonders which gave veracity to Paul's words. Are signs and wonders enough?

ReformedDave · #40 03-21-2007, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mizpeh

I read Evidence That Demands a Verdict years ago and all the historical proof verifies my faith in God intellectually but it is not the same as having a relationship with God.

If I told you God healed me of a deadly disease and I have the MRI reports, the doctor's notes, etc would that be enough for you to believe?

First, you make the a false dichotomy of separating 'head' from 'heart'. The gospels encompasses both. You can't truly serve a God you know nothing about. That's pure recklessness and folly. BTW, while I appreciate Josh MacDowell for many things apologetics is not one of them. Any college philosophy prof could tear it a part.

As far a miracles, that would not convince me at all. All religions have them.