You are suggesting that the single language became many over a long period of time through the scattering of people rather God doing so in an instant?
7Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.” 8So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. 9That is why it was called Babel —because there the Lord confused the language of the whole world. From there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth.
No, I'm suggesting that the process of languages getting confused is a normal process (probably a type of "language entropy", if you will), that naturally happens over time, and it happened quickly at the Tower of Babel, just like wine ages over time, but Jesus managed it quickly. These are both miracles of time (and material in the water-to-wine case). The miracle of Pentecost is a reversing of the effects at Babel, with the intent that we can re-unify under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Such reunification combined with language reconciliation seem to be the opposite of the Tower of Babel story.
It is true - even if one saw what looked like a miracle, scepticism would still be the right attitude. It would have been good to have been there and been an eye witness.
Skepticism of miracles has its place, but it can be abused, with
very serious repercussions:
24 But when the Pharisees heard [it], they said, This [fellow] doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils. ... 31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy [against] the [Holy] Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. 32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the [world] to come. [Mat 12:24, 31-32 KJV]
I sense some of this attitude in you, that you are ok with Jesus when He meets with your approval, but are not willing to let the Holy Spirit tell you the truth about what His sacrifice meant for you (and in rejecting it, it won't mean that for you!). I pray you won't continue in such a state.
That is the import of John 3:14-16.
Indeed, and the efficacy was apparent only in those who looked. THE BRAZEN SNAKE WAS NOT "FOR" THOSE WHO DIDN'T LOOK ON IT. If you don't want to perish, you better look to the one that has been lifted up for you not to perish.
This conflict you see (and that is so hotly debated between different groups of Christians) might easily be viewed as one of those language dispersal acts, similar to Babel. Consider that after God brought the believers together with a unity of languages, they seemed unwilling to then go out to the nations (Gentiles). The effectiveness of the church was possibly being stifled. In that case God used persecution (as He often seems to do) to spread the believers out to the surrounding areas (see Acts 8:3-4), like Samaria (to reach the Samaritans), toward Gaza (to reach the Ethiopians through the eunuch), to places like Joppa (to reach the Gentile Cornelius), etc.
It's a shame, I do admit, that Christians are not always willing to discomfit themselves to break away from a fellowship they like to start one that might be beneficial to others, but is it possible that God allows such disagreements to occur in order to accomplish His desire to reach more people?
If so, wouldn't the miscommunication of such an issue as you bring up be a reasonable way for some believers to break away from some others in order to reach out for new converts?
And isn't it so very like the Tower of Babel story that some Christians would say that Christ only died for for those that believe, while others say Christ's death only benefits those that believe? And then they divide over it? But not to ill of the church, rather to benefit. I'm not advocating disunity here. But I can see that in the church, just like in Babel, it might be necessary to move people along to where they need to be.
If someone has died for me then I'm a extremely interested to know why. If someone has died for some but excluded others then I wonder about the exclusion - especially when it's got nothing to do with being good or bad.
What about if someone died for you, but you don't receive any benefit for it? Would that bother you? What if you don't receive any benefit from it because you refuse to do so after being told about it? Would that bother you? And what if, after you had refused to receive any benefit from it, someone told you it wasn't for you after all. Would that bother you less, or more, than someone who says Jesus only died for some, and we don't know who they are, so please come and make sure you are one that He died for?
Which language works better for you? If Pentecost gives us any clue, there may be various ways to say the same thing, and some people will hear it one way ("in their own tongue") and others another way. But despite that, there were still some that rejected the gospel they heard in their own tongues. Don't be like them.
I think those that say Christ did not die for all are eviscerating what I perceive as the power of the Gospel (assuming its truth).
What if they did not say it, but still believed it? Many Calvinists don't promote the preaching of that doctrine (in fact the Westminster Confession discourages it) to unbelievers. Yet, it is easily found in this day of information exchange--they aren't trying to hide it.
I'd say such a church was not truly Christian.
What, then, is your solution for those of us that are saying it the "correct" way? What action should we take to force the "incorrect" believers into submission? And what if the "incorrect" believers are in the majority? would they not then be able to force the "correct" believers out? Then what kind of unity would the church have? A unity in error? Disagreement is not the same as disunity.
I don't see much unity in the Church. I could be wrong.
I think you
are wrong. And you and your thread are the best example I can offer. There are believers on both sides of the fence responding to your thread, that are telling you that while the issue is one we care deeply about, and argue fiercely about, it is not one we think is bad enough for us to break away from each other over (well, most of us).
Instead, you, one that is NOT united with believers, are trying to tell us that we NEED to divide over this. Are you not, then, an agent of disunity while you say you are questioning the unity of the church? If you want to argue about this, come into the church and argue. Don't throw stones at us from outside.
