Tue, Mar 28th - 4:29PM

So I think you all missed the point. I was arguing against relative truth and for the absolute truth that Jesus is God's son who came to die for our sins. As Mel was saying truth can't be relative. It must be absolute.

Mon, Mar 27th - 5:16PM

Fri, Mar 24th - 6:48PM

If everything is true, then nothing is true.

Thu, Mar 16th - 5:40PM

Samuel Questions, Part 1

Problem: In 1 Samuel 2:30 God sends a prophet to Eli. God tells Eli that even though he promised Aaron that his family would be God's eternal priesthood, God is not going to keep that promise. Eli's sons have been so evil that God will not let them stay in a position of power. God predicts the destruction of Eli's line. In chapter 4 Eli and his sons die. Later in 1 Kings 2, Solomon removes Abiathar, Eli's descendent, from his position in the priesthood "thus fulfilling the word of the Lord that he had spoken concerning the house of Eli in Shiloh."

Possible Explanation: God never says that this promise is not conditional. The original promise to Aaron is not recorded in Scripture. We have no way of knowing the conditions of this promise, so it is entirely possible God promised the priesthood to Aaron's family on the condition that they would honor God.

New Problem: If the promise was conditional, why doesn't the text say so? The Bible is God's word to us, His revelation. We are supposed to understand the character of God from this book. So why does it leave this passage so that it appears that God is breaking His promise? Even if there is an explanation, why does the Bible leave the reader with the impression that God has lied. I mean, if I were writting a story to clarify God's character, I would make it very clear that God is holy and blameless. I certainly would not leave any ambigious passages like this one for people to question. So why is it like this?

New Possible Explanation: The Bible leaves the interpretation of this passage open to the reader. There are several possibilities for this. First, we are to look at the Bible as a whole. There are other passages that establish God's holiness and faithfulness to His people. This passage may be left open because readers who have read to whole text should already know that God is faithful and holy and that He would never lie. Second, the Bible is not the only way God reveals himself to us. We experience God through the Holy Spirit within us and in the community of the Church. It is also possible that this ambiguity is allowed because people who have a relationship with God would know from personal experience and from the experiences of others that God is faithful and holy. Both of these explanations are centered around faith. The Bible does not explicitly explain that God does not break his promises because we are to have faith in our God. We are to trust him because we know him and because we know what his entire word says about him.

Tue, Mar 14th - 3:04PM

My I & II Samuel class has been raising some challenging theological questions lately. God appears to do some questionable things in I Samuel. He breaks a promise in 1 Samuel 2:30. He lies to Samuel about Saul in 1 Samuel 9:16. He tells Samuel that Saul will deliver Israel from the Philistines which he never does. He seems to condemn Saul for something that he later rewards David for doing (see I Sam. 13 and 2 Sam. 6-7). I believe there are answers to all these questions, but I am wondering what you all think. When I have time, which I don't really right now, I will post more detailed explanations of the issues and my understanding of them. But for right now I would appreciate it if any of you would share any thoughts you have on the subject.