The Gospel Debate (1) Rightly Dividing Figs

Here's the comical way we began. What are some questions or comments you would have so far? We invite your response. In a few days John will respond.

JOHN:
Check out II Kings 20:1-7.

Perhaps we need to alert the R&D dept. of some drug company. There may be something to this fig thing!

ROB:
i love figs---i'm glad it seems to be the fruit of choice in the Bible. see Hab. 3:17-19

But now you drew me in----do you believe this story actually happened? do you believe this happened literally? yeah or nay?

JOHN:
Hey, unless there's a good reason to doubt it, I have no trouble accepting it's veracity. I like the approach of John Bright, the biblical historian who wrote A History of Israel...you accept the biblical narrative as archeological evidence, and put it alongside of other evidence to come to conclusions about what occurred.
Of course, you understand that it doesn't really matter to me whether it actually happened or not...what's important here is that God mercifully heals, that God's healing can be in, with and through natural or medical remedies, and that for "his own sake" and "his servant David's sake," he chooses to save his people--and not because of anything people choose to do!

ROB:
agreed----that would be the over-arching emphasis---a healing God who loves to display his glory in that way.

Here's a question that rings in my ears though on reflection of some of the things you said about the authority of Scripture. You seem very uncomfortable with saying definitively whether or not there are such things as "hell" "heaven" (or paradise--to quote Jesus), or calling acts of the sin nature as "sins"---things that the Bible seems so clear on.

Here's my deal. I realize that the Bible needs to be interpreted in it's context---but that it is also "God breathed (2 Tim. 3:16)." You seem to read the Bible with the idea that you can't trust it. Before you say anything hard and fast about a doctrine--you seem compelled to qualify it with statements like "well....it's a 2000 year old document...written to a specific people that we really don't know that much about...written by a person with an intended message we can't say for sure about." I know that might seem charicature--but I know you to be too gracious to be upset by that. Tell me if I'm wrong in this.

You mentioned yesterday you don't interpret Scripture by Scripture---how do you interpret Scripture? And furthermore---why do you have such a hard time believing the Bible means what it says it means? What is inspired and what is not inspired? What can we trust, and what can we not trust? For example, if the Holy Spirit inspires men "moved by the Holy Spirit" to write that Christ was "born of a virgin" and then entrusts the meaning behind that with the Apostles--how can it "ultimately not matter?" so long as you affirm Christ's divinity? It seems to me that you approach the Bible looking for the broadest possible stroke.

If you believe that God became a human embryo and floated in amniotic fluid, was 100% God and 100% Man in the incarnation, was resurrected from the dead----why do you feel like this God has left us with an inaccurate and untrustworthy document--a document we are far too removed from to say anything definitive on?

It was good to hear your thoughts on these things--and you are a good listener---something I'm sure your wife and children appreciate. Again, these questions are far removed from "figs".....