Does the Bible contradict itself? - Reader Poll (and discussion)

[St. SteVen]

The Calvinists would say that Eternally Grateful is applying the effects of the Atonement to the Elect, as heretofore the "Elect" in the Bible referred to the Jewish people. (Or at least the faithful among them.)

That claim has obvious problems. IMHO

[

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Came across a great apparent contradiction in today's devotional reading.

In Deuteronomy 4 it states in v26 that you will soon "utterly perish." In the very next verse it states, "only a few of you will be left among the nations." So, which is it?

1. Utterly perish (not a few left)
2. A few left (not utterly perish)

Actually if you look. The word “utterly” is added. In the greek. It is to perish, an imperfect verb, which means it is not a perfect perish. Not everyone will be left.



As you see, I have the word utterly highlighted. When it pulls the word up. It is the word used for perish, not utterly. And the word is in imperfect tense. Now to me, to “utterly perish (to be wiped out) this would be in the perfect tense. Not imperfect) I also think we have witnessed this three times in scripture

1. Assyria and the northern kingdom
2. babylon and the southern kingdom
3. Rome in the time of christ.

in all three cases, we could say they “utterly perished) according to Deut 4

as for the next verse, it fits perfectly. They will not perish (perfect tense) completely, There will be a few left.

you see, sometimes we just need to go to the greek or Hebrew and see what is being said.

So again, another supposed contradiction which is no contradiction at all

 

[St. SteVen]

There's a couple of gotchas there that keep the theologians busy, and both are tied to ambiguities in Greek grammar and how to translate the Greek genitive case.

1. Does "The righteousness of God" refer to God's own righteousness (subjective genitive) in providing a means of salvation for all, or does it refer to the status of "righteous" reckoned to believers (genitive of origin), or to an actual "righteousness" (through regeneration, also a genitive of origin) given to believers (if "righteousness" is indeed a commodity that can be given and received)? Is the use different in verses 21 and 22?

2. Take a good look at footnote [h] in verse 22. Should "pistis Christou" be translated as an objective genitive (faith IN Jesus Christ as in this translation) or as a subjective genitive (the faith OF Jesus Christ per the KJV or Jesus Christ's faithfulness in obediently going to the cross per footnote [h])? The NIV translator's choice determines and is determined by their theology.

It usually helps me to plug a definition into a verse text to see if it works.
- apart from the law God's own righteousness has been made known
- apart from the law the righteousness reckoned to believers has been made known
- apart from the law God's imputed righteousness has been made known

Romans 3:21-22 NIV
But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known,
to which the Law and the Prophets testify.
22 This righteousness is given through faith in[h] Jesus Christ to all who believe.

[

 

[Eternally Grateful]

The Calvinists would say that Eternally Grateful is applying the effects of the Atonement to the Elect, as heretofore the "Elect" in the Bible referred to the Jewish people. (Or at least the faithful among them.)

Well they would be wrong

David was saved by faith, the same faith abraham had. Not because he obeyed the law. He said so himself when he claimed sacrifice and burnt offering you did not desire.

David knew the blood of bull and goats could not save.

So in the end, since all jews did not believe, the same standard would be applied.

he who believes is not condemned, he who does not believe is condemned already

 

[Eternally Grateful]

There's a couple of gotchas there that keep the theologians busy, and both are tied to ambiguities in Greek grammar and how to translate the Greek genitive case.

1. Does "The righteousness of God" refer to God's own righteousness (subjective genitive) in providing a means of salvation for all, or does it refer to the status of "righteous" reckoned to believers (genitive of origin), or to an actual "righteousness" (through regeneration, also a genitive of origin) given to believers (if "righteousness" is indeed a commodity that can be given and received)? Is the use different in verses 21 and 22?

2. Take a good look at footnote [h] in verse 22. Should "pistis Christou" be translated as an objective genitive (faith IN Jesus Christ as in this translation) or as a subjective genitive (the faith OF Jesus Christ per the KJV or Jesus Christ's faithfulness in obediently going to the cross per footnote [h])? The NIV translator's choice determines and is determined by their theology.

The best way to look at it is to look up the word.

abraham believes and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.

To impute or to reckon is to apply to a person something the person can not do.

Abraham was not righteous, But his faith was accredited to him as if he was actually righteous.

how could this happen? He who knew no sin was made sin.. so we may be made the righteousness of God in him

its a prety easy concept for us to understand. Sadly, people make it hard

 

[Eternally Grateful]

It usually helps me to plug a definition into a verse text to see if it works.
- apart from the law God's own righteousness has been made known
- apart from the law the righteousness reckoned to believers has been made known
- apart from the law God's imputed righteousness has been made known

Romans 3:21-22 NIV
But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known,
to which the Law and the Prophets testify.
22 This righteousness is given through faith in[h] Jesus Christ to all who believe.

[

Yes in faith. To all who believe.

to those who do not believe, this righteousness will not be given.

 

[Lambano]

That claim has obvious problems. IMHO

[

Since when has that ever stopped anybody from reading their own theology back into the Bible?

 

[BarneyFife]

@St. SteVen

If I want to have a theological discussion involving weoponized terms such as "Spirit of prophecy," "613," and "under the law," etc. (which I'm well able to do, btw), I'd prefer to do so in a thread devoted to such things, with enemies, so to speak.

So, I forfeit.

 

[BarneyFife]

Oh, good. So, the effects of Jesus's atonement can be applied to those who do not have faith in him?

You'd better believe it.

What do you think defers the penalty of death from instantly occurring when people think, say, and do evil?

This is called common grace, and it is not without a price (the death of Christ). Sin is always worthy of death.

The Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world. As heretical as it sounds, not even Satan and the fallen angels can carry on their probation (because, let's be honest—that's what it is) without the atoning blood of Christ.

We'll never fully appreciate all that the blessed Calvary event affords for the security and happiness of the universe.

:)

 

[RedFan]

Ahh, so me going and plucking a few grains of wheat is work.

You fallen into the same trap the jews did when they made this external book and tried to make other things a sin. It is these things which Jesus continually on purpose broke so they could accuse him. You know. Like moving a chair in your house and causing grooves in the dirt..

They were not Gods law. They were laws of men.

Well, perhaps, but I should point out that Jesus did not argue with the Pharisees about whether it was "work." He had a very different argument against Sabbath grain picking.

 

[St. SteVen]

Since when has that ever stopped anybody from reading their own theology back into the Bible?

We all have our own pair of reading glasses.

[

 

[St. SteVen]

Well, perhaps, but I should point out that Jesus did not argue with the Pharisees about whether it was "work." He had a very different argument against Sabbath grain picking.

And on the subject of work he was very clear.

John 5:16-18 NIV
So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began to persecute him.
17 In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.”
18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath,
but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

[

 

[St. SteVen]

Well, perhaps, but I should point out that Jesus did not argue with the Pharisees about whether it was "work." He had a very different argument against Sabbath grain picking.

I wouldn't even call it an argument AGAINST Sabbath grain picking.
- He implicated himself with his David AND his companions comment.
- He confirmed that eating the Temple bread was unlawful.
- He said priests violate the Sabbath by working.

[

 

[BarneyFife]

I wouldn't even call it an argument AGAINST Sabbath grain picking.
- He implicated himself with his David AND his companions comment.
- He confirmed that eating the Temple bread was unlawful.
- He said priests violate the Sabbath by working.

[

Careful. You're venturing dangerously close to making an argument for the validity of "the spirit of the law."

 

[Wick Stick]

You said the law remains for the jew

if this is true. They are all condemned to hell. Because no one, (including a jew) could be justified by the law. So they are all cursed by the law.

Yes, the Law remains for the Jew if he sware to it. No, he isn't justified by the Law.

But he is redeemed from the curse of the Law because Jesus redeemed him, taking the curse and putting it to death on the cross. It's literally 2 verses later...

Galatians 3:11-13
But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

 

[Wick Stick]

- He confirmed that eating the Temple bread was unlawful.

Eating the shewbread is only unlawful if one is NOT a priest. But David was a priest. So was Jesus. Just not a LEVITICAL one.

- He said priests violate the Sabbath by working.

The OT says the same, but in the very next breath it says that they are held blameless for it.

 

[St. SteVen]

Eating the shewbread is only unlawful if one is NOT a priest. But David was a priest. So was Jesus. Just not a LEVITICAL one.

The OT says the same, but in the very next breath it says that they are held blameless for it.

Yes. A very interesting exchange recorded in the gospel account.
Appears to me that the "David and his companions" comment was a self-incriminating example.
The Pharisees had only seen the disciples picking grain. (not Jesus)
And the inference was, if you didn't have a problem with David, you shouldn't have a problem with us.

And the punchline was over the top. Jesus declared himself Lord of the Sabbath.
Would have liked to see the look on the faces of the Pharisees when he made that declaration.

[

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Well, perhaps, but I should point out that Jesus did not argue with the Pharisees about whether it was "work." He had a very different argument against Sabbath grain picking.

But he did not say it was.

Your going on a thought that it was a command, and hence we have a contradiction.

There is no contradiction. Unless you can show in the law where it says do not do this.

again, The pharisees made a whole book of rules. and called them From God. Jesus spent his ministry purposely breaking these rules.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

And on the subject of work he was very clear.

John 5:16-18 NIV
So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began to persecute him.
17 In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.”
18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath,
but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

[

But he was not breaking the sabbath, Again, He was breaking their man made rules..

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Yes, the Law remains for the Jew if he sware to it. No, he isn't justified by the Law.

But he is redeemed from the curse of the Law because Jesus redeemed him, taking the curse and putting it to death on the cross. It's literally 2 verses later...

Galatians 3:11-13
But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

then the jew is no longer under law. he is under grace.