Must Christians Believe in Miracles?

2009 June 23
by Christian Beyer

The four Gospel narratives are filled with examples of Jesus performing miraculous acts.  According to Matthew’s version, even his life began supernaturally, in that his conception was not the result of a sexual union.

For most Christians, the picture of Jesus working miracles seems to be exactly what one would expect of a divine being -the Son of God. These supernatural acts “prove” that Jesus was no mere man. For many others, though, these miracle accounts are not easily swallowed and deter them from accepting much, if not all, of the Gospels as truth.  Probably the most famous of these skeptics was Thomas Jefferson, who went through the bible with scissors and glue, removing all the supernatural accounts. His truncated version, the “Jefferson Bible” is more like a collections of Jesus’ sayings than the story of his life, death and resurrection.

I talked with a friend not long ago, an ex-Roman Catholic, now an Evangelical Protestant, who said that the idea of the ‘virgin birth’ was very important to him, as this underscored the idea of Jesus as God.  Without the virgin birth Jesus would be just another man.  But is that a fair assumption to make? Do we need miracles to sell ourselves on the idea that Jesus is in some way ‘other’ than us – that he is divine?

If miracles are the (super)natural by-product of divinity, then Jesus’ life must have been full of them.  This is suggested in the various apocryphal Infancy Gospels. There the boy Jesus is said to have made clay birds fly and he magically kills a naughty playmate (who he later brings back to life).  No serious scholars give these folk stories much credence, although bestselling horror writer Ann Rice has written a novel based upon them.  There is something appealing as well as appalling to these tales. (I have a theory that they were the inspiration for  that old Twilight Zone episode where the young Billy Mumy uses his awesome supernatural powers to terrorize his family and neighbors.)

Recently our church considered the story in Mark’s Gospel where Jesus stilled the stormy Sea of Galilee.  While asleep in the boat, a squall rose up and his disciples, who were for the most part experienced fisherman, began to panic and they awakened Jesus.  But why?  Did they expect Jesus to provide them with nautical advice?  He may have been a carpenter, but Jesus was certainly no sailor.  Did they expect him to magically calm the storm, as he does before scolding them for their hysteria? Their reaction to this event would seem to suggest otherwise.

Was it the purpose of this miracle account to prove that Jesus was God, or at least in touch with supernatural power? Is that the purpose of all of Jesus’ miracles? Because if we look at them in that way, adding them to the pile of evidence needed to make a “case for Christ”, then we may risk losing other, deeper meanings hidden within the stories.

Perhaps, as our pastor suggested, the main thrust of this story is to portray Jesus as a powerful presence that can calm the storms that rage within us.  Rather than joining us in our stress and hysteria (which we have invited others to do) Jesus projects calmness upon what we often perceive to be the ‘perfect storm’.

Isn’t this usually what happens when we call upon Jesus for help? Really, how often is it the case where he has literally changed our circumstances, fixed our external problems or calmed the storms we are caught in? Isn’t it more likely that he help will help us to find the strength we need to deal with our crises? Jesus gives us a glimpse of things from his infinite perspective, a glimpse that tends to diminish our own earthly struggles.

Do we need to believe in miracles in order to be in communion with God?  Are miracles necessary proof that there is a God?  Conversely, does a disbelief in miracles, an ‘inability’ to see them, indicate a lack of faith? When we question the historicity of Jesus’ miracles, are we diminishing his divinity?  What kind of faith is it that must depend upon evidence of miracles in order to survive?

I don’t know.  Personally, I don’t think it is necessary for me to believe that the  miracles actually  occurred to hear what God is telling me,  something that when put into practice, underscores the divinity of Jesus.  Something that Thomas Jefferson might have missed.

66 Responses leave one →
  1. 2009 June 23
    literalbible permalink

    The reason it is important for a Christian to believe in the miracles of Christ is because they are recorded in the Bible. A Christian must believe that the Bible is the literal, true Word of God. Therefore, if the miracles of Christ are recorded in the Scriptures, then they really happend. To deny them, or to not believe in them, is to say that part of the Bible isn’t good enough. To say that part of the Bible isn’t good enough is to say that God isn’t able to provide perfectly for His children. Sorry, this is the rushed version; I’m getting ready to leave. I’d love to talk more though! literalbible.wordpress.com

  2. 2009 June 23

    Hey “literalbible”.Welcome.

    I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that, what with your screen name and all, that I couldn’t disagree with you more. But if you check out anything els on this blog, that shouldn’t surprise you either. :)

    Needless to say, I do not believe the Bible to be the ‘literal, true Word of God’. Unless of course what you mean by literal takes in all the literary forms that literature can take; poetry, allegory, metaphor, simile, exaggeration etc.

    That in no way says that I think the Bible is not ‘good enough’. As good enough as what? It is what it is and in that regards must be taken as it is. An excellent and often sacred means (but by no means the only means) of learning about God, how he relates to us and how some of us have related to him. A book of collected literary works that helps me work out my relationship with God. Something that is very important in my life but not something I would expect to be important in the life of an Innuit or Mongolian.

    So, you do feel that it is necessary to accept all scriptures as historically and literally true. Does that mean that if one has not done so that they cannot also accept Christ as lord?

    After you are done rushing around come on back to keep the discussion going.

  3. 2009 June 23
    Jane permalink

    I have been thinking about this a lot lately and am undecided.

    If I were to not believe the stories about Jesus walking on water or coming back to life and etc to be literal then it would just be a wonderful story that teaches morals like those of Aesop’s. Jesus would only be a superbly noble and wise man whether fictional or of enhanced reality and so it wouldn’t make sense to worship or pray to him as we don’t worship or pray to Aesop or Socrates right?

    So how else without miracles would you prove that you weren’t just a wise, honorable man but divine?

    But maybe the real question is, do you really believe in an afterlife? If not, believing whether Jesus was divine or not doesn’t matter since “no souls would need to be saved from going to hell.” But such a thing is impossible to prove.

  4. 2009 June 23

    Hey, Jane. Welcome.

    But Aesop didn’t go to the cross. And he didn’t talk of the Kingdom of God and the bodily resurrection, two things I firmly believe in. But…I don’t believe in hell. I still need Jesus to save me, from myself, if nothing else.

    How do YOU know that Jesus is divine? I mean you personally. From the biblical stories? From church doctrine? Is it faith in the bible or is it faith, trust in Christ, that compels you to pray? And how does that faith come about? By reading? Or is it some how experiential – something that is mystically played out and proven in your life?

    Thanks for your thoughts. Please keep coming by.

  5. 2009 June 23
    Jane permalink

    I wasn’t asking you in particular if you believed in an afterlife, I read your creed. =)

    It was more of an open general question I was asking.

    Well, I said in my first sentence that I’m undecided so I don’t know if I believe Jesus was divine or in an afterlife.

    • 2009 June 23

      Sorry, I read your questions incorrectly.

      I think you raise another good question here; was Jesus’ divinity something that occurred here in this realm, from the moment he was born, or was it something revealed after his death, with his resurrection?

  6. 2009 June 23

    Jesus said “If you love me, you will do the works I did, and greater works you shall do.”

    • 2009 June 23

      Hi, Jeremiah 17.

      I was thinking along those same lines. In the book of Acts the apostles perform miracles just as Jesus did, suggesting that this is what he meant. But what of in the mean time? Where are the miracles? True, they might exist, but few and far between. Do not that many love him?

      Or was Jesus talking of other works?

  7. 2009 June 23
    logiopath permalink

    Maybe miracles could happen–but who would receive the attention? God or the “vessel”?

    • 2009 June 23

      Oh, I don’t doubt that they could or did happen. I mean we are talking about God, right? Anything is possible.

      But is it essential to believe that they did happen? Is this another litmus test of Christian faith?

      In the case of Christ- doctrinally speaking, is there a distinction between God and the vessel?

  8. 2009 June 23

    Do we need to believe in miracles in order to be in communion with God? Are miracles necessary proof that there is a God? Conversely, does a disbelief in miracles, an ‘inability’ to see them, indicate a lack of faith? When we question the historicity of Jesus’ miracles, are we diminishing his divinity? What kind of faith is it that must depend upon evidence of miracles in order to survive?

    and

    was Jesus’ divinity something that occurred here in this realm, from the moment he was born, or was it something revealed after his death, with his resurrection?

    Short answer – our belief in God or the divinity of Christ or in miracles is irrelevant to their truth. Truth is truth and miracles are miracles whether we believe or not. Christ was in the beginning (i.e., John 1:1) and was therefore fully divine in eternity past, present and future. Anything else denies His nature and detracts from the essentials of the Christian faith.

  9. 2009 June 24

    ‘Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.’ ~ John 20:30-31

    Chris – So are you basically saying John had no idea what he was saying when He wrote His account of the Gospel of Jesus Christ???

    You may not believe that all scripture is to be taken literally – but quite clearly (well to me at least) many parts of it CAN be and in fact should be. What is the point of having a Holy Scripture you cannot take at face value? (the lowest common denominator)

    (and i do not by any means believe it can or should ONLY be taken at face value).

    Christ should be taken at His Word – and therefore so should those disciples who performed miracles in His Name.

    To in any way suggest otherwise does rather seem to be diminuishing Scripture and Faith in many people’s eyes – if not your own?

    We cannot all be blessed with the same ‘level’ of insight – can we?

    <B

    • 2009 June 24

      Do you think that the Bible is infallible and inerrant and intended to be taken literally and only at face value as the Word of God? Because you would think that God would have been just a tad more clear on the issues, wouldn’t he? Seeing as how he has the insight that we lack.

      • 2009 June 24
        literalbible permalink

        Well, God moves in mysterious ways, yes? But yes, the Bible should be taken as literal, word-for-word. Now, a lot of people would say “Well, the Bible’s been changed and edited and etc.” But if God can create the world in six days, then He can certainly preserve His word. I can’t say why God spoke in the way He did, but He did say that He will work all things to the good of those who love Him. So, though we suffer all this persecution because of the Word, there is a reason for it. I just don’t know the reason. :)

  10. 2009 June 24

    It is our unbelief that they do not happen, though I’ve been blessed, no flesh shall glory. And….it says He will pour out His spirit in the last days. Anything else is an excuse, in my opinion.

  11. 2009 June 24

    So that settles it, guys? The descriptions of miracles are placed in scripture to help you believe in Jesus.

    and (Jesus)was therefore fully divine in eternity past, present and future.

    This is something that not everyone sees the same way. Certainly the early church wasn’t in total agreement on this point. But even so, what does it mean? Fully divine. He also was fully man. Could he turn it on and off like a switch? Was he incognito until the wedding at Canaan?

    Love, do you think John the apostle actually wrote that gospel? Because that understanding is not one that I have so it makes your question a little trickier to answer.

    • 2009 June 25

      Chris – John 21:24 does show that John himself may not have written the entire exact version personally that is ascribed to his name, but it is the Gospel ACCORDING to John and i don’t believe it significantly alters the original intent of my question that John (and/or his ‘biographer’) said what was written about Jesus for the purpose of allowing those who will to ‘believe’ IN Him as the son of God.

      is the Bible to be considered as ‘less’ Divinely inspired and accurate because it is written by one who believes in Christ and has had contact with His Apostles as opposed to the Apostles themselves?

      Or has been transcribed by those who believe in Christ?

      or is read by those who are far less ‘in Christ’ – much more ‘removed’ from Him and His Spirit?

      <B

      • 2009 June 26

        Love, I used to have this view of the Bible. I don’t think it is all quite that simple anymore. My point was that this Gospel was written many years after the fact, that it does not always agree with the synnoptic Gospels and that it was written for a specific audience at a specific time and there were concerns and issues facing them that we are not facing today. We can learn much from it. Was it written for us as much as the people of the time? I don’t know.

      • 2009 June 28

        Surprising as it might seem that is very close to my personal view also!

        i do however try to hold an ‘overriding’ awareness inside my own being that the Bible IS perfect, just my limited understanding sometimes can see ‘apparent’ contradictions that i don’t fully understand the meanings behind just yet, but hope to one day as i grow in knowledge, wisdom and faith.

        I give God the benefit of any of my ‘doubts’.

        <B

  12. 2009 June 24
    literalbible permalink

    Dear all:

    I’ve written a post on my blog about why we should take the Bible absolutely literal, so I’ll just let you read that instead of devoting a whole spiel to it here. :)
    http://literbible.wordpress.com

    Dear Christian (the author) ;) :

    You said: “A book of collected literary works that helps me work out my relationship with God. Something that is very important in my life but not something I would expect to be important in the life of an Innuit or Mongolian.”

    I encourage you to go to http://www.persecution.com. It is the official website of the Voice of the Martyrs. There are people in all over the world who have died, have been evicted from their homes, or have been arrested and tortured for the Bible.

    You’re right in that the Bible isn’t the only way God can reveal Himself, however, it is the only way by which we can learn His nature and His Gospel. For example, you can come to the conclusion that God created the world by looking around creation. However, you wouldn’t know that God created man in His own image; you also wouldn’t know that man sinned against God and was cursed because of it. You can’t learn about Christ any other way except from the Scriptures, and Jesus said “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.” (John 14:6). If you can’t come to the Father except through Christ, and you can’t learn about Christ except through the Scriptures, then it stands to reason that you can’t truly know the Father without the Scriptures.

    Well, that’s all I have right now…I think. :) . Man, I just missed one night and this has become the most popular blog on WordPress! ;)

    • 2009 June 24

      Hardly that.. But I do enjoy the new participants in the conversation. Keeps me thinking. ;)

      I appreciate that the martyrs have (and continue to) paid the ultimate price for their faith. But did they die for the Bible or did they die for Christ? History is full of the stories of people who believed that they killed for Christ (what a horrible idea) when in reality they killed because of warped interpretations of the Bible.

      It’s one thing to hold the Bible up as something that is ‘perfect’ – infallible and historically factual – but quite another when the people who are doing so cannot agree on their interpretations of this perfect text. This has been the bane of religious existence for thousands of years and the whole world, all of God’s children, have suffered tremendously for it.

      This doesn’t mean that there are not clearly displayed and unequivocal truths that the Bible presents us with: love God and love each other – unconditionally. How this plays out in our lives is often a matter of our own personal understanding of and relationship with God. For many of us this is through and with Jesus of Nazareth.

      But should women teach and have bare heads? Should we condone warfare and genocide because God apparently has? Should we insist upon capital punishment because it is Biblical? Should we ignore scientific evidence that appears to contradict Biblical narrative? These are not silly or extreme cases, these issues are debated daily among those who call themselves Christian yet seem to have different ideas of how that label should be defined.

  13. 2009 June 24

    But if God can create the world in six days, then He can certainly preserve His word.

    We might want to explore this in another forum (perhaps your blog) as we have done so ad infinitum here. Suffice it to say that I don’t believe in a six day creation nor a global flood. If we read the Genesis accounts as allegories we can see where they are complimentary to science and can in fact magnify the glory of God. IMHO.

  14. 2009 June 24
    logiopath permalink

    To literal Bible:

    Do you eat pork, shrimp, or crab? Do you eat tangelos, pluots, or nectarines? Is your lawn composed of grass that is blended from more than one species? How about a suit blended from cotton and wool?

    If you answered yes to any of these questions, then you really do not take the Bible literally, because these are unclean foods, blended seeds, and mixed cloth–all of which are prohibited by Scripture–and therefore against the literal words.

  15. 2009 June 24
    logiopath permalink

    To Chris:

    Let’s begin by defining miracle.

    • 2009 June 24

      I would say that one definition would be anything that cannot be explained naturally. (Like the non-catastrophic stopping of the Earth’s rotation or healing a lame or blind person or walking on water or someone rising from the dead and passing through walls. ) Of course, this definition makes things like the Big Bang and gravity miracles as well.

      Another definition might be something that can be explained naturally but it’s timing is so incredible that it strongly points to a supernatural agent in the mix.(Such as Jonah being swallowed by a whale or an ‘evil’ city being struck by a meteor or buried by volcanic debris or a storm dying down after someone has ordered it to do so)

      Even a virgin birth has been explained in natural scientific terms although the odds of it happen are so astronomical….

      But my point is not to ask whether or not miracles are possible. If we believe that there is such a thing as God, well then of course, they are possible. My question is three parts;

      1. Whether or not it is intrinsic to the Christian faith that we believe that any or all of the miracles accounted for in the Bible actually occurred?

      2.) Are the miracles necessary proof for Jesus’ divinity?

      3.) Is it possible that those who answered yes to the first two questions might not see other deeper meanings to the stories. (Or conversely, that those Christians who ignore these stories because they are incredible miss the deeper meanings as well.)

      I mean, the walking on water…the stilling of the storm….they are such perfect similes for Jesus’ ability to help us in our current struggles, they are almost like his parables.

  16. 2009 June 24
    logiopath permalink

    To Literal:

    What I am trying to say is that it is nearly impossible to take Scripture in a literal sense. One ends up looking like the Pharisees.

    On the other hand, mane Seventh Day Adventists try and take Scripture literally, and worship on Saturdays, etc.

    So, what do you mean by taking the Bible literally?

    What do you do with laws such as a woman living in a separate house during her monthly period, or Levites not drinking wine when they enter the tabernacle?

    In other words, just to live life, the letter of Scripture cannot be kept word-for-word.

    So what do you mean by your assertions?

  17. 2009 June 24
    literalbible permalink

    Dear logiopath:

    You’re right, the Bible does talk about (and prohibit) a lot of things that I do. However, that is the Old Covenant, crafted between God and the Israelites before Jesus came. It was set in place so that the Israelites would be set apart for God. But when Jesus came, He established the New Covenant, the covenant of blood. Because Jesus was the perfect sacrifice, I’m no longer restrained to every single word of the Old Testament Law. For example, Peter was struggling with whether or not to eat “unclean” foods. But he had a vision in which God told him that he had been washed pure by the blood of Jesus; his salvation was through faith and grace, not by works, therefore, he was no longer held in slavery to the Law. The Law was the method through which the Jews could be temporarily reconciled to God (they had to keep on sacrificing), but now Jesus is the perfect fulfillment of the Law. Salvation is not through works of the Law, but through faith in Jesus Christ. I hope that made sense. :)

    • 2009 June 24

      Sure did.

      I’m no longer restrained to every single word of the Old Testament Law.

      But where do you draw the line?

  18. 2009 June 24
    logiopath permalink

    I still see an inconsistency, Literal, between the Peter thing (and Paul’s declaration of being “freed from the law).

    I mean, it seems you are saying that you hold literal to those parts that suit your viewpoint, and reject those things that do not. It sounds convenient to throw out OT dietary prohibitions, and to say “things have changed . . .”

    If you were being logically consistent, you would not say these things–it sounds like when you are on the defensive, you say “All means All . . .” but when pressed to practical applications you say “All means what fits my confessional practice.”

    Look, I’ve been through the fundemental thing for years. I’ve been Baptist, Charismatic, A of G–and I’ve been to colleges owned by Lutherans, Pentecostals, and Calvary Chapel. All of these, except the Lutherans, accept the Bible at face value, but interpret it through their local flavors, so to speak. Therefore, I have to say that the Lutherans are the most consistent, because at least they admit that they simply do not know.

    Anyway, what do you do with obvious contradictions? For example, the books of Chronicles and the books of Kings have several contradictory accounts (like those of David and Goliath). And speaking of Kings and Chronicles, do you really think that it is necessary to say a court scribe needs to be “inspired”? Or what about those parts of Scripture that give wrong accounts of history?

    As far as miracles, one has to look at the practicioner. For example, in the OT, Elisha’s miracles are all practicle–such as fixing bad soup or making an axe head float (or mauling teenage punks by sending a pack of bears).

    Jesus’s miracles are also practical–healing the blind and deaf, restoring the lame.

    Today, miracle folks seem more interested in doing things to make people $$$$ rich or to help them be healed from cancer–all of this seems to give way more attention to the “prophet” than to help a person or give glory to God. I would only accept a “miracle” if I saw a verified medical condition–then saw another one declaring a person to be completely healed, and that the disease did not return.

    I know of one fellow, who had a horrible form of cancer. Through medicine and prayer, he was truly and completely healed. Yes, this was miraculous, but it was not a flashy show, but a process that almost took this person’s life.

    I have also personally prayed for a person, and thought I witnessed an instant healing. But that person still went to the hospital and had treatment.

    Is this necessary for faith? It depends on the person. The Pharisees saw the same miracles as those who believed in Jesus, and they were made more angry–it didn’t contribute to their faith at all.

    • 2009 June 24

      I once attended a large outdoor Christian rock festival in western Pennsylvania- Creation Fest. Around 80,000 people on their feet, hands up, singing, swaying, eyes closed – you get the picture.

      Right around sundown the Newsboys were on stage. They’re one of the few Christian bands that I rather like – more original material, not so repetitious. They were playing “He Reigns”. The chorus goes something like; “…and all God’s people singing Glory, Glory, He Reigns”. The band had stopped playing and in the gathering twilight you could hear the amazing sound of 80,000 people singing that verse, a cappella, and very softly. My eyes were closed and I felt my wife nudging me, telling me to look at something.

      Coming in from the western horizon, just after the sun had set, and above the stage, was an extraordinary bright light. As it grew brighter I thought it might be an airliner, then maybe a helicopter. It came right at us and as it got closer it split into three or four distinct lights.

      When it finally passed above us we could all see that it was a cluster of huge meteors. They seemed to move very slowly and they left a very visible trail of yellow sparks and sun-lit orange smoke as they receded into the east. It was amazing. I got the distinct impression that God was in some way pleased with 80,000 of us at that moment and wanted us to know it.

      The next day I read how a communications satellite had, as predicted, broken up in the atmosphere before plunging into the Atlantic. So, no miracle. Right?

      Wrong. No one will ever convince me that this was mere coincidence. But there is no way I could ever ‘prove’ otherwise or likely convince a skeptic. If I insisted that these types of miracles were common and necessary parts of a Christian’s life, well I would likely have few people interested in hearing any more about my faith. These are secondary issues. Uncommon icing on the spiritual cake.

  19. 2009 June 24
    logiopath permalink

    You’re more spiritual than I–really.

    I wouldn’t spend the $$$$ to go to one of those rallies, in fact I find them offensive.

    • 2009 June 24

      Well, I’m not a great fan of them anymore. I wouldn’t say that they are offensive (although some elements of them, particularly some of the wares that are being hawked and some of the ‘motivational’ speakers might be). It’s just not my bag anymore – too crowded, too loud, too much white skin. And right, too much money.

  20. 2009 June 24
    logiopath permalink

    Thank you–my theory is confirmed.

    I just never got myself around pop-culture Christian stuff.

    I participated in a Harvest Crusade as an usher. I was literally sickened by the stuff of the event.

  21. 2009 June 24
    logiopath permalink

    Maybe I’m just a naysayer.

  22. 2009 June 25
    literalbible permalink

    Okay, I’ll try to answer both of you about the Old Covenant and New Covenant idea.

    In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus more clearly defines the Law as something more than physical obedience; it also has to do with the heart. In Matthew 5:21-22, Jesus tells us that the commandment “You shall not committ murder” isn’t only talking about the actual act of murder. He says “But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court…” So the Law doesn’t just deal with physical actions, it deals with the heart.

    Well, we know that we corrupt and fallen hearts. “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23) If our hearts aren’t perfect, then we cannot keep the Law; we might be able to actually not committ murder, but we will surely get angry. That is why the Old Covenant was only temporary; it didn’t have the power to change a person’s heart. In Galations 3 (probably my second favorite Bible passage), Paul says “However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, ‘He who practices them shall live by them.’” The whole purpose of the Old Covenant was to show that men could not do anything to appease the wrath of God for their sins; it was preparing the way for Christ. Again in Galatians 3: “Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.”

    This doesn’t mean, though, that Christ abolished the Old Covenant; He redefined it, He fulfilled it. Jesus fulfilled what the Old Covenant Law lacked; He was able to change the hearts of people. By dying on the cross, Jesus became the sacrifice that the Old Law had required, and since He is the Son of God and seated at the right hand of God, He is able to continue interceding on our behalf. (Hebrews 7:25) Now we can come to God through faith in Jesus Christ without fear of the Law, because Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law for us. What we could never have done, Jesus did for us. I’ve heard it said that after you’re saved, God looks at you through Jesus Christ, just like one would look through a magnifying glass. He no longer sees your miserable sinfullness, instead He sees the perfection of Jesus Christ, whose blood washes away the most evil stains.

    Where do I draw the line? Well, I live by the example of Jesus. The Law is still in effect, but it is a matter of the heart, and where I failed, Jesus has prevailed. For example, I can still get angry. But thanks be to God, for my salvation is not in my own hands. Jesus has bought me, and He will not forsake me. Paul says this in Galatians 3:3. Since the Law was, and is, a heart matter, the whole idea of not eating certain foods and wearing certain types of clothing can be seen. It was designed to keep God’s people focused on Him, to keep them clean. God required these things to show us (and them) that we cannot rescue ourselves. The Israelites failed time and time and time again because they didn’t recognize that the Law was designed to point out their sin, not to make them righteous; it was designed so that they would draw closer to God, not lean on themselves.

    I know that was a bit preachy, but it’s an important topic. I hope that I was clear and that, perhaps, you understand just a bit better than before. Grace and peace from God through Jesus our Lord!

    • 2009 June 25

      the Law as something more than physical obedience; it also has to do with the heart

      That is why the Old Covenant was only temporary; it didn’t have the power to change a person’s heart.

      The whole purpose of the Old Covenant was to show that men could not do anything to appease the wrath of God for their sins; it was preparing the way for Christ.

      OK. I would suggest that what we are calling the Law has absolutely nothing to do with physical obedience as a first cause. It is only about that heart. One’s heart must be ‘circumcised’ – cut to the core – order for us to live out the “law” that is made up of two essential parts – love God and love others.

      I think the ‘laws’ that we often think of as the ‘Law’ – the Mosaic laws – are there so that a society – the Israelites – would seek mercy, love justice and be humble before God (and others). They are not meant to be taken as personal instruction. As individuals we don’t need laws to know that murder, rape and theft are wrong. Some of us, with particularly wounded hearts, need to be deterred from doing wrong so we have laws. If we all had hearts like Christ there would be no need for any ‘law’.

      You are right. It is entirely a ‘heart matter’.

  23. 2009 June 25
    literalbible permalink

    Dear Christian:

    “If I insisted that these types of miracles were common and necessary parts of a Christian’s life, well I would likely have few people interested in hearing any more about my faith. These are secondary issues. Uncommon icing on the spiritual cake.”

    You’re right, this isn’t essential to the whole proceess of salvation, but I wouldn’t say that it is a secondary issue. The real issue we’re dealing with is whether what the Bible says really, truly happened. If one part didn’t really happen, then wouldn’t it be possible if others didn’t? If God didn’t really create the world in six days, then did Jesus really rise from the dead? We have to believe that all parts of the Bible are true literally. I’m currently debating with atheists and all kinds of other people on a site called Goodreads (www.goodreads.com), and they jump all over people who say these kinds of things. Like I said, if parts of the Bible aren’t true, then how do we know that any part of the Bible is true?

    • 2009 June 25

      We have to believe that all parts of the Bible are true literally. I’m currently debating with atheists and all kinds of other people on a site called Goodreads (www.goodreads.com), and they jump all over people who say these kinds of things. )

      Exactly. The atheist who sees the Bible as a collection of fairy tales does so for the same reason that the fundamentalist does not; both insist that it all must be taken at face value. They both say that if one part is factually suspect then all parts must be. And as Logio points out below, this is not logically defensible.

      Try to tell an atheist that a scripture they find to be factually incredible should be read metaphorically and you will often hear the same response a fundamentalist would give; “You are picking and choosing what you want to believe in.” Both mindsets insist that we live in an all or nothing world – you are either for us or against – black and white – right and wrong -good or evil. But the problem with that is that we don’t live in that type of world. God must understand this. Why else would scripture (especially Jesus parables) be so…indefinite?

  24. 2009 June 25
    logiopath permalink

    Okay–a huge logical gap exists between six day creation and the resurrection.

    In A. D. 60, many people who could attest to the reports of Jesus’s resurrection were still alive–including those who may have seen Him after the resurrection. Therefore, reports about the resurrection, although without direct eyewitnesses, can be verified from those who saw Jesus afterwards.

    Six day creation cannot be verified in the same way.

    Therefore, negating six day creation does not negate the resurrection. These are different kinds of writing that were composed at least 4,000 years apart.

    Each reported event stands or falls on its own merit. The fall, and the victory for a critic, happens when things are defended as a whole.

  25. 2009 June 25
    literalbible permalink

    Dear logiopath:

    Every event in Scripture is important to the history of redemption. God had to create man in order to save man. Man had to sin in order for God to save man. Christ had to come to earth and die and rise again for God to save man. Each of these, and more, is an important link in the chain of redemptive history.

    Let us say, for instance, that God didn’t really create the world in six days, like He said He did in Scripture. Well, He also said that He would redeem His people and crush Satan once and for all. Let’s then fast foward. God has sent His Son. Or is it really His Son? How do we know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God? Because it was revealed in Scripture according to the will of God. But if some parts of Scripture are true and some are just exaggeration, how do we know what is true and what isn’t? Now let’s say that the flood never really happened. How do we know that Jesus rose from the dead (a crucial doctrine of Christianity)? Because it is recorded in the Scriptures. But if some parts of Scripture are an exaggeration, how do we know which parts are true?

    I’m playing the Devil’s advocate because I want you to see that atheistic apologists will pounce on you for saying things like that. If one part of the Bible is true, how do you know that the rest isn’t fictional as well?

    You’re right to a certain degree that the events stand on their own, but Scripture is one story about the glory of God and His redemption of His people. It’s like looking at a war. Each battle in a war can stand on it’s own, but that one battle of a bigger story. The battle of Midway was important, but it was only a part of the larger battle. The battle of Iwo Jima was important, but only one part in the larger war. Each even in Scripture does have individual merit, but it is more importantly part of a bigger picture, the history of redemption for the glory of God.

  26. 2009 June 25

    It seems once again we have moved a little east (or west) of the actual question that Chris is asking.

    1. Whether or not it is intrinsic to the Christian faith that we believe that any or all of the miracles accounted for in the Bible actually occurred?

    Of course the only answer to that question is YES! Why? Because the “Christian faith” is (among other things), based on the fact that Jesus is the CHRIST. To the Jews this performance of miracles was the most important proof requirement of all. They not only fulfilled the Prophecies of the Christ, but also gave Jesus the credibility in a time when there was a lot of Messianic controversy among and between the various Jewish sects. We for sure wouldn’t be the Christians as we are known today. Which might better really… Who knows? ;-)

    In other words, Jesus would have no Divine identity or credibility without the miracles prophesied in the OT. But as far as The Christ is concerned, Jesus told Peter that the only way he knew that Jesus was the Christ was because the Holy Spirit revealed it to him, as it is for us also. So, in that respect we do not need the miracles to believe in Jesus but I feel if we believe in Jesus because the Spirit drew us to His truth, then the miracles are a strong part of how the Holy Spirit confirms to our spirit that Jesus is the Christ.

    • 2009 June 25

      Jesus told Peter that the only way he knew that Jesus was the Christ was because the Holy Spirit revealed it to him, as it is for us also.

      Yes. And that is what I am driving at here. I also think it is very possible for someone to believe in all the miracles, right up to and including the Resurrection, and yet still not understand that Jesus is the Christ. That perhaps there is a bit too much emphasis on the magic and not the practice of the faith. The real practice, that is worked out where people come together, and not usually in Church.

      I also think that there are people who fully recognize Jesus as divine and live their lives as his disciples (not just converts to the faith) and consider stories like the one above to be myth, yet like most myths, containing deeper wisdom than they could have learned in a more academic or instructional form.

      • 2009 June 25
        literalbible permalink

        We’re still shying away from the real issue. I understand the question, “Do you have to believe in miracles if you’re a Christian.” However, what does that question imply? “Do you have to believe everything that is in the Bible to be a Christian?” As a true follower of Jesus Christ, you cannot pick and choose which parts of the Bible you want to believe. Every word in Scripture is God-breathed and has a purpose. That purpose is to add to the history of redemption for the glory of God. The Old Testament is full of failures on the part of the Israelites. Why did they fail so many times, even when the Spirit of God dwelled among them? Because they failed to understand that salvation comes through faith in Jesus by grace alone; they were trying to earn their salvation. Then Jesus came to do what we could not: fulfill the laws of God. Jesus lived perfectly in order that He might be able to take our place, to take our punishment. As netprophet said, one way He showed people that He really was the Son of God was through miracles. Now let me ask you this: do you believe in the resurrection? If so, you already believe in miracles. The resurrection is a miracle, just as conversion is, and as Christians we must believe in miracles. Without miracles, we would still be under the wrath of God.

  27. 2009 June 25
    logiopath permalink

    Literalbible,

    Trust me, you have no need to use that condescending tone with me, I am not a 10 year old child in Sunday School or VBS.

    Your arguments are filled with presuppositions and pat answers. I am sure you have the right kind of zeal, but I sugget you come up with a better system of logic, or an atheist will blast your arguments to bits.

    Okay, so let’s break down what you have said.

    You wrote, “Every event in Scripture is important to the history of redemption.”

    So, Moses circumcising his sons is a part of the history of redemption? Or David killing Uriah?

    Man was a necessary creation? How so? Poor God was so lonely that He had to make man, who had to fall, so he could be saved?

    If God is supreme, and complete in Himself, then man did not need to be created. All of this is unnecessary in light of God’s being–unless you are a hyper-Calvinist and you believe in an inevitable route to the course of creation.

    You bring up the term “redemptive history.” What do you mean? If you mean what Barth meant, than it does not have to match real history. If you mean the actions of God to redeem humanity, then the only necessary event was the cross. All of the other stuff about Israel, etc., was not necessary.

    Does the Bible have to be correct for redemption?
    I don’t know. I used to see all of this as a whole, but no longer. The Bible has many different kinds of literature, from History to myth to drama to philosophical dialectics. We act as if we hold Scripture’s feet to a hotter fire because of the location of a particular text. However, if we saw many of these texts outside of Scripture, we would be more likely to see these are they are–and that Scripture is a a collection in which the editors of Israel and the leaders of the early church chose the books. In fact, for most of church history, disagreements have happened in which the canon is not agreed upon (for example, Luther rejected the book of James and Revelation).

    So? Be careful before you say what applies to the story of salvation, and do some more reading before you try and take on atheists. They will filet your logic. If you think I’m cruel, you should try our buddy Jason.

    Logio

  28. 2009 June 25
    logiopath permalink

    Forgive my harsh tone, Literal.

    • 2009 June 25
      literalbible permalink

      Hey, no harm, no foul, right? Don’t worry about it. Compared to some of the stuff people have said to me, that was pretty angelic! ;)

  29. 2009 June 25
    logiopath permalink

    Okay

  30. 2009 June 25

    Let me try this again.
    The Holy Spirit does not draw us to any religion including the Christian faith, He draws us to Christ.
    Remember the Centurion? He came to Jesus because he heard that Jesus was a man sent by God and he believed (drawn by the Spirit) that Jesus could heal his child. “Just say the word and my daughter will be healed.” He wasn’t a Christian and he wasn’t a religious man. He heard, he believed and he sought out the God he knew existed. He got his miracle because of his faith not his religion… does this make more sense? You don’t have to believe in religion or miracles, only in God and His Christ.

    • 2009 June 25

      Nicely put. I always feel that this aspect of the centurion is overlooked. Jesus said that no one had greater faith, yet he was a pagan. Like you said, not a Jew or of the small sect of Jews who followed Jesus.

      Does everyone who is drawn to Christ (or drawn to God through Christ) recognize him as Jesus of Nazareth? Can they encounter Christ without ever having been exposed to the Judeo-Christian scriptures? To think otherwise, when it is never even expressly stated, certainly seems like we are limiting God, no less than a disbelief in every miracle is limiting to God.

      But it seems that the underlying issue in this immediate discussion is not a belief or disbelief in miracles (because as literabible said, the resurrection certainly is a miracle) but whether we believe in the infallibility and innerancy of the Bible. L B (literalbible) seems to be saying that if you do not accept all scriptural accounts as being absolutely factual then you may as well disregard scripture entirely. That in some way this is a litmus test for the faith.

      Of course this something that I have been arguing against on this blog for some time now. Not that I am interested in discouraging literalists in their faith, as I am not questioning their faith. But I find that this overt and explicit assertion that many Christians make has the effect of turning many people away from the faith (all due credit to the Holy Spirit’s efforts aside). This insistence creates an unnecessary cognitive dissonance with many. It did me, even after I had converted.

      But now I do not feel compelled to take the Bible literally – I understand that it is not one book but many books. I don’t read Tom Sawyer in the same way that I read Joan of Arc, even though both have the same author. The Bible may have one inspiration, God, but it does not have one author, and it was written at many different times and it incorporates many different literary styles. So yes, it is up to US, with the help of God’s spirit, along with our brains and our experiences to interpret scripture. Or let others, no more perfect, interpret it for us, which is what most Christians seem to advocate.

      Then again I know of blind and deaf people who have never ‘heard’ or read the Word who are truly filled with God’s spirit. Perhaps they had an edge?

      • 2009 June 25
        literalbible permalink

        Dear Christian:

        You said that by asserting the literalness of the Bible I am, in effect, turning many people away. Does that make the truth any different? Didn’t Jesus say that the way to the Father was narrow and only a few people would find it? The object of teh Christian is not to win over anyone; that is God’s ability alone, therefore it is His responsibility alone. However, we have been commissioned by our Lord Jesus Christ to preach the Gospel, every part of the Gospel. If we say that when the Bible says God created the world in six days it didn’t mean a literal six days, aren’t we in effect taking away from the Word of God? If the Bible was inspired by God (as you said) then does it matter who copied down the words? For example, if I want to dictate a letter to someone, does it matter who the person copying my words is? No, because the letter’s content still comes from me. So even though the Scriptures may not have been written by the hand of God, they are none the less the Word of God. We cannot win anyone over, truly, even if we say “You can earn your salvation, all you need to do is drop a dollar in the offering plate every Sunday.” Of course that doesn’t do anything, because it isn’t the Gospel of God. In order for men to be saved, genuinely saved, they must be preached the gospel of Jesus Christ which is the power of God unto salvation. The Gospel is that God created the world in six days, literally six days, and He created man in His own image (an actual man). However, man sinned against God in the Garden of Eden (which really did exist) and man, because of his sin, was cast out of the Garden of Eden and cursed for his disobedience. But God, in His infinite grace and mercy, sent His son, Jesus Christ who was born in Bethlehem, spent time in Egypt, and was raised in Nazareth, to live a perfect life (to fulfill the Law), to die a sacrificial death (as payment for sin), and to rise to life three days later (to conquer Satan and death). Our only response should be to repent of our sins and believe in Jesus Christ, whose blood is sufficient to make us adopted sons and daughters of God.

    • 2009 June 25
      literalbible permalink

      Dear netprophet:

      I don’t want you to believe in any religion; that’s not what I’m trying to say. You’re right in that faith in Christ is all you need. I completely agree with you. A Christian is just a follower of Christ; at least, that is how I define the word. Christianity is simply the doctrines of the faith, like the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, Original Sin, etc. etc.

  31. 2009 June 25
    logiopath permalink

    Hmm.

    Maybe Barth is correct–that Word does not consist of the words of Scripture.

  32. 2009 June 25

    There is no way possible to address many of the points brought up here because there are too many!

    My view is that the bible is the inspired word of God. And I do think that believing in miracles is essential. The apostle Paul tells us that if we deny the resurrection then our faith is made void and we are still in our sins. What is the ressurection? It is a miracle.

    Now, as for the miracles of Jesus, I do think that they are slightly different. The bible gives us a few reasons why miracles were present in the life of Jesus. First the overarching mission of Jesus was to come and destroy the work of the devil (1 John 3:8). I believe this means the work of redemption but also in healing the sick because sickness is a result of the fall and a result of evil.

    Secondly, the miracles established Him as one who was sent from God. Going all the way back to the old testament, the test for judging a prophet to see if he was from God was to examine his character and then to see if his prophecies came true (a miracle that could not be caused by human hands). If the prophecies came true, then the people knew he was sent from God. The same way with Jesus. It is not enough to walk around saying ‘I am the way the truth and the light’ or to tell people that the only way to God is if they accept your teaching without some proof. Without proof, you are blowing hot air. The miracles established Him as a true messenger of God. With this established, His teachings could then be seen as true.

    John Locke even addressed this point in his essay ‘the reasonableness of Christianity.’ I would encourage you to read it because it makes a very good case for why we should believe in the moral message of Jesus. His basic point is because we see him as one truly sent from God evident by the miracles that were performed. No mere human could do these. He would have to be from God.

    One last bit of food for thought. If miracles are not an essential belief, then why do you even believe in Jesus? What separates Him from other ‘good teachers’ through history like Buddha, Confucius, or even Muhammad: none of which performed any miracles. If miracles truly aren’t that big of a deal then why not follow one of them?

    • 2009 June 26

      Welcome Jheffley. Good points.

      So, without the miracles, there is no reason to consider the words, life or death of Jesus? (Keep in mind that I do believe in the resurrection and do not discount the other recorded miracles) Cannot Jesus’ message, his Good News, stand alone?

      As for Buddha, Confucius, Mohammed – I don’t follow them because I follow Christ. I do think that one could follow them AND follow Christ as well. But again, I do believe in the Resurrection, although I do not know precisely what that is or what that means, only that it is God’s promise of unbridled grace. It does give Jesus a little bit more oomph! As for some of the other miracles (particularly the virgin birth) I don’t buy them. And they are hardly conclusive prophetic fulfillments (especially the virgin birth). As far as prophetic prediction goes, much those were coupled with warnings – “Do this or face that”. They didn’t exactly predict winning lottery numbers. ;)

  33. 2009 June 25

    The Gospel is that God created the world in six days, literally six days,

    Really? That’s the “Good News”? Because the Jews already had that part down pat. It seems to me that the Good News that Jesus came to proclaim is found more commonly in the words of the prophets, not in Genesis. In fact, Genesis seemed to emphasis more of God’s ‘bad news’ – the Fall, the Flood, S & G etc.

    • 2009 June 26
      literalbible permalink

      Um, Christian, you took my words out of context. :) Of course the Good News isn’t just that God created the world, but that is a part of it. You can’t just say that Jesus died on a cross and rose again. He had to die for something, right? Just don’t take me out of context again! ;)

      • 2009 June 26

        Sorry that you feel that way L.B. I am not disregarding the second or third parts of what said, but…

        I don’t think that the particular details of how God created the universe is part of the Good News. Suffice it to say that he did create everything and that is good news but it does not matter whether it took 6 days or 600 billion.

        Jesus did die for something. Was he the sacrificial substitute for us? The payment required to make us right with God? I don’t see it that way. This idea of Penal Substitionary Atonement has the stamp of mankind on it, not God’s. WE cannot suffer the idea that God’s grace is just that – grace. No payment necessary.

  34. 2009 June 25

    BTW,Gentlemen (and the occasional lady), if I haven’t told you, I really appreciate this conversation. I want to thank you all for your thoughts. This is the only reason why I do this blogging thing. These kinds of controversial yet civil engagements are not easy to find in my neck of the wood (although I still have Jack and Bev, since Bruce deserted me). Please, let’s keep the ball rolling. Even though we might disagree – no especially because we disagree – I find myself learning. (Even from Logio)

  35. 2009 June 25

    Thanks Chris. I enjoy and learn from these discussions also. I believe you are right that the good news is that Jesus is the Christ and His kingdom is at hand. At least He said that an awful lot of times. Also I believe that the Word of God is not the Bible but Jesus himself… the word made flesh. The “Word” of God after all is what created all things. In the beginning was the Word. There are just too many references to Jesus being the Word of which the Bible speaks and the Holy Spirit is our guide through the written word not the Church or the Pastor. Jesus and His comment that He is the truth, life and the way says it all there is no need for debate over the Bible and I think it is made too much of, and even worshipped, by many Christians. Indeed they use it as a sword but not against Satan, but against non believers or those who don’t believe as they do. It is refreshing to be able to voice our opinions without condemnation. :-)

  36. 2009 June 25
    logiopath permalink

    Deserted you?

    Sheesh. Maybe I deserted Doc, but you?

    P. S. All Doc had to do was give me a $14,000 raise, and match 4% of my 403B, and I may have stayed.

  37. 2009 June 29

    Love:

    I do however try to hold an ‘overriding’ awareness inside my own being that the Bible IS perfect

    Sure. But perfect in what way? Are you a literalist like LB? That’s cool, but if so, then there is no dog in this hunt for the two of us.

    But if you believe that some of scripture is metaphor then you have already conceded that it is possible that others are as well. The slippery slope that fundamentalists fear.

    Scripture can be ‘perfect’ without being factual. Just like perfect ‘love’. ;)

  38. 2009 July 2
    literalbible permalink

    Dear Christian:

    I’ll start with the Penal Substitution. The reason why God had to send Christ to the Cross was because He demanded a punishment for sin. God is perfectly loving, and He is also perfectly just. God is the creator, ruler, and sustainer of the universe; the King of the Universe, if you will. When humans sin, they rebel, they disobey the King of the Universe. The reason for salvation is to glorify God; if it were for any other reason, then salvation wouldn’t be through the grace of God alone. The same reason for salvation is the reason for condemnation; to the glory of God. Just as God recieves glory from the salvation of men according to His will, so does He recieve glory from punishing sinners and sin. However, even in salvation, the justice of God demands an answer for sin; that answer is the blood of Jesus. This doesn’t nullify free grace, though. Since Jesus Christ was God, then God in fact was paying the debt of sin (“For the wages of sin is death but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Romans 6:23). So God is still giving us a free gift in that we didn’t have to pay what was justly our due; God, through Christ, did it for us. But I want to know Christian, you said that Jesus died for something, but not for sin. So what did He die for?

    Now the Creation and Gospel. The reason why these are interconnected is because we must see why sin is such a big deal to God. You can’t start out saying that Jesus died on the cross, right? You have to say what He died for, that is, our sin. But then what is the importance of sin? We have to see the glory of God, the majesty of God as creator, ruler, and sustainer in order to get a complete, a right view of sin. That is why I start with Creation. That is why I say that God created the world and everything in it, including man, whom He created in His own image. From there we say that man was at one time perfect, but then he rebelled against God, he sinned against God and God cursed him to mortality and removed him from Paradise. Then we can see just how serious God takes sin; not only were Adam and Eve evicted from the Garden, but they were also condemned to die, they had to work the ground to grow crops, and then we have the pains of childbirth (and then the first prophecy of Christ, might I add). Then we go to Christ, and the free grace of God who, while we were yet sinners, gave us His Son. Christ came to earth, was tempted by Satan himself and yet never sinned. He died on the cross to pay the price for our sin, and on the third day He rose from the dead to crush Satan and death under His heel. So repent and believe in the good news of Jesus Christ, through whose blood alone sinners can be saved.

    I’m not saying that you’re wrong, just to be clear. But there’s more to the Gospel than the death of Jesus (even though that is, perhaps, the most important part).

    Dear netprophet:

    You’re right in that Jesus is the living Word of God. But how did you learn about Jesus? It may have been through direct divine revelation, like Paul, but more likely it was through the Bible. Jesus is the Living Word, but the Bible is the Written Word. And what word does Jesus bring us? That God has grace to give to sinners such as you and I, right? That’s the same message of the Bible, the whole Bible! All the Scriptures are about is the history and unfolding of the redemptive plan! I’m not trying the say that the Bible is Jesus or that Jesus is the Bible. However, they both have the same Word of God.

  39. 2009 July 4
    literalbible permalink

    Dear Christian:

    You said “As for Buddha, Confucius, Mohammed – I don’t follow them because I follow Christ. I do think that one could follow them AND follow Christ as well.”

    This statement is a denial of Jesus Christ. Jesus said in John 14:6 that He was the only way, the only truth, and the only life; no one comes to the Father except through Christ. Saying that you can follow Buddha and Christ is like saying that you can worship both God and Zeus. You cannot be a Christian and say that you can follow anyone else except for Jesus Christ.

    • 2009 July 4

      LB – are you an U.S. American? If so, do you not also ‘follow’ Thomas Jefferson and James Madison?

      Or do you believe that JFK could not have been a good president because he was a “papist”? Are Roman Catholics off the narrow path? Seventh Day Adventists? Pentecostals? Are they all following the same Christ?

      Did Martin Luther King Jr follow Jesus? Did he not also follow the lead of Gandhi?

      Conversely,I could say that you cannot ‘be a Christian’ and be a capitalist, as Jesus’ teachings certainly were socialist in nature. Or have you given all you have to the poor? Do we rationalize how much we should do for the ‘least of these’? Maybe one cannot be a soldier or a policemen, wielding a ’sword’ and still be a Christian. Indeed, Jesus’ way is narrow.

      I do not have the answer to those questions, and am more concerned with working out my ‘own’ personal salvation while also very much interested in the ’salvation’ of my community, culture and country. Absolute theological statements, by their very nature, are usually misleading and often just plain wrong.

      There is a lot of wisdom in the teachings of Buddha and Mohammed. One can follow their teachings, as long as they do not conflict with the Gospel, and still follow the way of Jesus. I am again reminded of the centurion of great faith; there was no mention of him forsaking his oath to Caesar. Unless we are going to read that into the story, which would not be taking scriptures very literally, would it?

  40. 2009 July 19
    Alex permalink

    Christian

    – For an altogether different twist on this, check out this article: http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/2009/07/11/miracles-and-creation/

Leave a Reply

Note: You can use basic XHTML in your comments. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS