<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Lost Credibility</title>
	<atom:link href="http://micah.cowan.name/2007/01/12/religion/lost-credibility/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://micah.cowan.name/2007/01/12/religion/lost-credibility/</link>
	<description>The random ramblings of Micah Cowan. Programmer, musician, typesetting enthusiast, gamer…</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 04 Dec 2011 12:15:36 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Micah</title>
		<link>http://micah.cowan.name/2007/01/12/religion/lost-credibility/#comment-143352</link>
		<dc:creator>Micah</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Oct 2010 17:50:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://micah.cowan.name/2007/01/12/religion/lost-credibility/#comment-143352</guid>
		<description>Hi Mark, good to see you again, and thanks for the comment.

Actually, though, if you take a closer look at my post, you&#039;ll see that I&#039;m actually using the James vs Ephesians example as an &quot;apparent contradiction&quot; that isn&#039;t really one, so you and I are on full agreement there.

So, I&#039;d be much more interested in getting answers to the other problem passages I mentioned, the ones I indicated are real problems some of them are logical problems (such as the issues with Jairus&#039; daughter and the centurion&#039;s servant), but of course the  &quot;Paul&#039;s sexism&quot; section is more of a problem with our Spirit-inspired leadership&#039;s character, and the ideas promoted by what is supposed to be God&#039;s own words spoken through Paul; though of course, God&#039;s own character as demonstrated abundantly throughout the Bible, and particular in the Old Testament, is often much worse than this indirect example from Paul, and I rather wish I&#039;d focused on that instead; maybe I&#039;ll write a separate post about that sometime.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Mark, good to see you again, and thanks for the comment.</p>
<p>Actually, though, if you take a closer look at my post, you&#8217;ll see that I&#8217;m actually using the James vs Ephesians example as an &#8220;apparent contradiction&#8221; that isn&#8217;t really one, so you and I are on full agreement there.</p>
<p>So, I&#8217;d be much more interested in getting answers to the other problem passages I mentioned, the ones I indicated are real problems some of them are logical problems (such as the issues with Jairus&#8217; daughter and the centurion&#8217;s servant), but of course the  &#8220;Paul&#8217;s sexism&#8221; section is more of a problem with our Spirit-inspired leadership&#8217;s character, and the ideas promoted by what is supposed to be God&#8217;s own words spoken through Paul; though of course, God&#8217;s own character as demonstrated abundantly throughout the Bible, and particular in the Old Testament, is often much worse than this indirect example from Paul, and I rather wish I&#8217;d focused on that instead; maybe I&#8217;ll write a separate post about that sometime.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mark cribari</title>
		<link>http://micah.cowan.name/2007/01/12/religion/lost-credibility/#comment-143341</link>
		<dc:creator>mark cribari</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Oct 2010 11:02:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://micah.cowan.name/2007/01/12/religion/lost-credibility/#comment-143341</guid>
		<description>Although there are logical answers to every &quot;problem passage&quot; of Scripture ever known, documented, and/or questioned, I won&#039;t pretend to know all those answers personally. There are, however, wiser men of God who have taken the time to do their homework and worth checking out (e.g. Charlie Campbell who wrote http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=108&amp;Itemid=1 and Dr. Norman Geisler who wrote http://www.normangeisler.net/exposition-and-evaluation-of-mcgowen-on-inspiration-scripture.html ). So before I take a stab at this apparent contradiction between Ephesians 2 to James 2, I think that it&#039;s important to understand that the ultimate Author of Scripture has revealed some truths that cannot be denied, only challenged and rejected by choice.

1) According to 1st Corinthians 1:18-29, the gospel message is nothing more than a bad joke to those who are already spiritually dead and will eventually die physically but currently think that they are wise. They have fooled themselves. This is only one of many passages that show that the God of the Bible is in the business of humbling man.

2) Later in chapter 2 of the same letter (See 2:6-14), we have another problem. Only the Spirit of God can reveal the truths He inspired in the word of God according to verses 10 &amp; 13 but the &quot;natural man&quot; won&#039;t get it.

3) There&#039;s a warning not to lie to ourselves about what we think we know for sure in chapter 3 of the same letter (See 3:18-20)

4) These passages compliment Psalm 14:1a since foolishness in Scripture is always a choice found in the heart, not the mind (See Proverbs)

5) If the God of the Bible is the only true &amp; living God in existence (as Scripture claims), then the proud person (1 Ptr 5:5b, James 4:6) will stay blind because they have rejected the evidence (Romans 1:18-22)

Now, a true contradiction would be where two ideas cannot be reconciled because they couldn&#039;t both be true at the same time in the same way but that&#039;s not what we find in Ephesians 2 and James 2. Paul is talking about the root of salvation and James is talking about the fruit of salvation. Once you realize that they are totally different in their emphasis, then the meat just falls off the bone. Paul&#039;s driving idea is that God is the source of salvation in phrases like &quot;He made alive&quot; (vs 1 &amp; 5) and &quot;He might show the exceeding riches of His grace&quot; (v7) and finally all of verse 10. Verses 8-9 should not be taken out of context to contrast the phrases about &quot;works&quot; in James. The only thing they have in common is the ending of v10 &quot;that we should walk in them&quot; referring to good works. They are the rational result of salvation that James expects to see in the life of a born-again believer and his drive is borderline sarcasm (See 2:14-16, 19-20). His whole point is that dead faith can&#039;t save anyone and he uses Abraham and Rahab to prove his case. Remember verse 14? &quot;if someone says he has faith but...&quot; The thrust of this passage is that those who trust God at His word should have actions (or a lifestyle) that follow and what trips up most people is when they read the words &quot;justified by works&quot; in verses 21, 24 &amp; 25. A greater problem exists than just a failure to understand the context. This misunderstanding gives people the wrong idea that they &quot;have to&quot; live a moral life to please God instead of the more biblical truth that people &quot;want to&quot; live a life pleasing to God in response to His grace or better yet, unmerited favor. We are only justified before God to the extent that our faith has been varified by conduct and conversation. That&#039;s why it&#039;s not enough to &#039;say&#039; I believe (v14) if my life hasn&#039;t changed at all. So this doesn&#039;t count as a blatant contradiction; only a misunderstanding of Scripture and the different points made by Paul and James.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Although there are logical answers to every &#8220;problem passage&#8221; of Scripture ever known, documented, and/or questioned, I won&#8217;t pretend to know all those answers personally. There are, however, wiser men of God who have taken the time to do their homework and worth checking out (e.g. Charlie Campbell who wrote <a href="http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=108&amp;Itemid=1" rel="nofollow">http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=108&amp;Itemid=1</a> and Dr. Norman Geisler who wrote <a href="http://www.normangeisler.net/exposition-and-evaluation-of-mcgowen-on-inspiration-scripture.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.normangeisler.net/exposition-and-evaluation-of-mcgowen-on-inspiration-scripture.html</a> ). So before I take a stab at this apparent contradiction between Ephesians 2 to James 2, I think that it&#8217;s important to understand that the ultimate Author of Scripture has revealed some truths that cannot be denied, only challenged and rejected by choice.</p>
<p>1) According to 1st Corinthians 1:18-29, the gospel message is nothing more than a bad joke to those who are already spiritually dead and will eventually die physically but currently think that they are wise. They have fooled themselves. This is only one of many passages that show that the God of the Bible is in the business of humbling man.</p>
<p>2) Later in chapter 2 of the same letter (See 2:6-14), we have another problem. Only the Spirit of God can reveal the truths He inspired in the word of God according to verses 10 &amp; 13 but the &#8220;natural man&#8221; won&#8217;t get it.</p>
<p>3) There&#8217;s a warning not to lie to ourselves about what we think we know for sure in chapter 3 of the same letter (See 3:18-20)</p>
<p>4) These passages compliment Psalm 14:1a since foolishness in Scripture is always a choice found in the heart, not the mind (See Proverbs)</p>
<p>5) If the God of the Bible is the only true &amp; living God in existence (as Scripture claims), then the proud person (1 Ptr 5:5b, James 4:6) will stay blind because they have rejected the evidence (Romans 1:18-22)</p>
<p>Now, a true contradiction would be where two ideas cannot be reconciled because they couldn&#8217;t both be true at the same time in the same way but that&#8217;s not what we find in Ephesians 2 and James 2. Paul is talking about the root of salvation and James is talking about the fruit of salvation. Once you realize that they are totally different in their emphasis, then the meat just falls off the bone. Paul&#8217;s driving idea is that God is the source of salvation in phrases like &#8220;He made alive&#8221; (vs 1 &amp; 5) and &#8220;He might show the exceeding riches of His grace&#8221; (v7) and finally all of verse 10. Verses 8-9 should not be taken out of context to contrast the phrases about &#8220;works&#8221; in James. The only thing they have in common is the ending of v10 &#8220;that we should walk in them&#8221; referring to good works. They are the rational result of salvation that James expects to see in the life of a born-again believer and his drive is borderline sarcasm (See 2:14-16, 19-20). His whole point is that dead faith can&#8217;t save anyone and he uses Abraham and Rahab to prove his case. Remember verse 14? &#8220;if someone says he has faith but&#8230;&#8221; The thrust of this passage is that those who trust God at His word should have actions (or a lifestyle) that follow and what trips up most people is when they read the words &#8220;justified by works&#8221; in verses 21, 24 &amp; 25. A greater problem exists than just a failure to understand the context. This misunderstanding gives people the wrong idea that they &#8220;have to&#8221; live a moral life to please God instead of the more biblical truth that people &#8220;want to&#8221; live a life pleasing to God in response to His grace or better yet, unmerited favor. We are only justified before God to the extent that our faith has been varified by conduct and conversation. That&#8217;s why it&#8217;s not enough to &#8216;say&#8217; I believe (v14) if my life hasn&#8217;t changed at all. So this doesn&#8217;t count as a blatant contradiction; only a misunderstanding of Scripture and the different points made by Paul and James.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Errancy</title>
		<link>http://micah.cowan.name/2007/01/12/religion/lost-credibility/#comment-115604</link>
		<dc:creator>Errancy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Apr 2009 08:48:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://micah.cowan.name/2007/01/12/religion/lost-credibility/#comment-115604</guid>
		<description>To clarify: I became a Christian through a process of examining Christian theology and the philosophical and historical apologetic arguments for it. Having been convinced, I joined the Church, where I picked up the further belief in biblical inerrancy. After further study, I rejected inerrancy, but because that wasn&#039;t part of the reason that I became a Christian that loss didn&#039;t cause a crisis of faith.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To clarify: I became a Christian through a process of examining Christian theology and the philosophical and historical apologetic arguments for it. Having been convinced, I joined the Church, where I picked up the further belief in biblical inerrancy. After further study, I rejected inerrancy, but because that wasn&#8217;t part of the reason that I became a Christian that loss didn&#8217;t cause a crisis of faith.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Micah</title>
		<link>http://micah.cowan.name/2007/01/12/religion/lost-credibility/#comment-108303</link>
		<dc:creator>Micah</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Feb 2009 15:50:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://micah.cowan.name/2007/01/12/religion/lost-credibility/#comment-108303</guid>
		<description>Really? I&#039;d never heard of anyone who believed that the Bible was without error, and yet not the inspired Word of God (or did you mean something else by &quot;magic book&quot;?).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Really? I&#8217;d never heard of anyone who believed that the Bible was without error, and yet not the inspired Word of God (or did you mean something else by &#8220;magic book&#8221;?).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Errancy</title>
		<link>http://micah.cowan.name/2007/01/12/religion/lost-credibility/#comment-108281</link>
		<dc:creator>Errancy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Feb 2009 11:07:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://micah.cowan.name/2007/01/12/religion/lost-credibility/#comment-108281</guid>
		<description>Fascinating reading. My belief in biblical inerrancy broke down in pretty much the same way as yours: the gradual accumulation of improbable readings of passages finally became too much, and I realised that it was simpler to say that the Bible contains errors. My faith wasn&#039;t based on the Bible being a magic book, though, so this didn&#039;t have quite the same impact on me as it had on you.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Fascinating reading. My belief in biblical inerrancy broke down in pretty much the same way as yours: the gradual accumulation of improbable readings of passages finally became too much, and I realised that it was simpler to say that the Bible contains errors. My faith wasn&#8217;t based on the Bible being a magic book, though, so this didn&#8217;t have quite the same impact on me as it had on you.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John W. Loftus</title>
		<link>http://micah.cowan.name/2007/01/12/religion/lost-credibility/#comment-10544</link>
		<dc:creator>John W. Loftus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 May 2007 19:38:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://micah.cowan.name/2007/01/12/religion/lost-credibility/#comment-10544</guid>
		<description>Thanks for sharing this. Check out my blog as well. We all share similar stories when leaving the fold.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for sharing this. Check out my blog as well. We all share similar stories when leaving the fold.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: AgnosticAtheist</title>
		<link>http://micah.cowan.name/2007/01/12/religion/lost-credibility/#comment-10467</link>
		<dc:creator>AgnosticAtheist</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 May 2007 04:36:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://micah.cowan.name/2007/01/12/religion/lost-credibility/#comment-10467</guid>
		<description>Micah,

Great post.  I went through a very similar deconversion experience.  My faith was based on the Bible and not experience.  Hence, when the Bible fell apart for me, so did my faith.

I&#039;ve enjoyed reading this site: http://literalbible.blogspot.com for Bible verses I somehow ignored in my days as a Christian.

Check out our site sometime http://www.agnosticatheism.com .  Many of the contributors there have recently went through your journey and some are even on the fence.

aA</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Micah,</p>
<p>Great post.  I went through a very similar deconversion experience.  My faith was based on the Bible and not experience.  Hence, when the Bible fell apart for me, so did my faith.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve enjoyed reading this site: <a href="http://literalbible.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">http://literalbible.blogspot.com</a> for Bible verses I somehow ignored in my days as a Christian.</p>
<p>Check out our site sometime <a href="http://www.agnosticatheism.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.agnosticatheism.com</a> .  Many of the contributors there have recently went through your journey and some are even on the fence.</p>
<p>aA</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Micah</title>
		<link>http://micah.cowan.name/2007/01/12/religion/lost-credibility/#comment-656</link>
		<dc:creator>Micah</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Jan 2007 00:08:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://micah.cowan.name/2007/01/12/religion/lost-credibility/#comment-656</guid>
		<description>This article has also been posted at &lt;a href=&quot;http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2007/01/lost-credibility.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;exchristians.net&lt;/a&gt;, and has a separate trail of comments there.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This article has also been posted at <a href="http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2007/01/lost-credibility.html" rel="nofollow">exchristians.net</a>, and has a separate trail of comments there.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

