Does your church follow these new rules for successful ministry?

[Izdaari]

[quote author=Tom Brennan]The mainline denominations imploded b/c of theological liberalism. It is only the Words of God that give life to a church, and when they are abandoned and rejected death always results...

The Word of God ≠ the words of God
[/quote]

Indeed. The first three chapters of John spend a lot of time on making it clear that the Word of God is the 2nd Person of the Trinity, and that Jesus of Nazareth was the incarnation of the Word. Jesus ≠ the Bible.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

[quote author=Tom Brennan]The mainline denominations imploded b/c of theological liberalism. It is only the Words of God that give life to a church, and when they are abandoned and rejected death always results...

The Word of God ≠ the words of God
[/quote]

Thats the tired old liberal line the Bible contains the word of God but isn't the word of God.
I guess you get to decide what is and what isn't the word of the tired, old, powerless liberal god.

Your position is what killed the liberal movement.....talk about beating a dead horse!

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I would say that the IFB movement has or at least is in the process of imploding!
The mainline denominations of the 50s imploded.

The mainline denominations imploded b/c of theological liberalism. It is only the Words of God that give life to a church, and when they are abandoned and rejected death always results. ...and I would caution you to re-think your opinion that the IFB movement is imploding. Sure, there may be an example or two that you are aware of, but the only study I've seen done in any length (as discussed in Paul Chappell's 'Church Still Works') recently found exactly the opposite. Such IFB church growth and stability is largely flying under the radar since the number of our mega-churches has declined while at the same time the number and size of our more average churches is increasing.

Theological liberalism killed the mainline denominations with exactly the so called arguments propagated on this thread.
And, when they removed the. Bible as a Godgiven standard, they removed hell, sin, blood atonement, virgin birth, Divine Creationand other pesky doctrines.
They replaced it with a good works, do good social justice, social gospel.
Which is in essence make people comfortable on their road to hell....which they of course don't believe in.....

 

[Izdaari]

[quote author=Tom Brennan]The mainline denominations imploded b/c of theological liberalism. It is only the Words of God that give life to a church, and when they are abandoned and rejected death always results...

The Word of God  the words of God

Thats the tired old liberal line the Bible contains the word of God but isn't the word of God.
I guess you get to decide what is and what isn't the word of the tired, old, powerless liberal god.

Your position is what killed the liberal movement.....talk about beating a dead horse!
[/quote]

Um, not quite. He didn't say the Bible isn't the word of God. Nor did I. I totally believe it is. But "word" ≠ "words", and "Word" ≠ "word". Fine distinctions maybe, but important ones.

The Bible is God's word to us, i.e., stuff He wants us to know, which He inspired Godly men (and perhaps women -- not all the authors are known) to write down. But it is not the book incarnation of the 2nd Person of the Trinity, nor is it a book of exact word-for-word quotations or dictation from God.

 

[Izdaari]

Theological liberalism killed the mainline denominations with exactly the so called arguments propagated on this thread.
And, when they removed the. Bible as a Godgiven standard, they removed hell, sin, blood atonement, virgin birth, Divine Creationand other pesky doctrines.
They replaced it with a good works, do good social justice, social gospel.
Which is in essence make people comfortable on their road to hell....which they of course don't believe in.....

Um, has anyone ITT argued that position? I don't think so. I may be the most liberal Christian here, and I believe the Bible is our God-given standard. I also believe all the doctrine contained in traditional Christian formulations such as the Apostles and Nicene Creeds. And not only that, so do many, maybe most members of the mainline denominations. The "good works, do good social justice, social gospel" stuff is all well and good, but without the incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection, we might as well be Buddhists.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

[quote author=Tom Brennan]The mainline denominations imploded b/c of theological liberalism. It is only the Words of God that give life to a church, and when they are abandoned and rejected death always results...

The Word of God  the words of God

Thats the tired old liberal line the Bible contains the word of God but isn't the word of God.
I guess you get to decide what is and what isn't the word of the tired, old, powerless liberal god.

Your position is what killed the liberal movement.....talk about beating a dead horse!

Um, not quite. He didn't say the Bible isn't the word of God. Nor did I. I totally believe it is. But "word" ≠ "words", and "Word" ≠ "word". Fine distinctions maybe, but important ones.

The Bible is God's word to us, i.e., stuff He wants us to know, which He inspired Godly men (and perhaps women -- not all the authors are known) to write down. But it is not the book incarnation of the 2nd Person of the Trinity, nor is it a book of exact word-for-word quotations or dictation from God.
[/quote]

Tomato....tomaaaato!

The Bible does use allegory, metaphor and other methods to communicate truth.
However, there is a vast difference in a parable being given and someone saying the first 11 chapters of Genesis are not intended to be taken literally! There is no basis in hermeneutics or fact for that assertion. In fact, theBible in many other places refers to Gods work of creation!

 

[Izdaari]

In fact, theBible in many other places refers to Gods work of creation!

Indeed there are, and I'm a big fan of them! You won't find me ever denying that God created everything! I just don't think He did it as recently as 6000 years ago or in six literal days.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Tom Brennan]The mainline denominations imploded b/c of theological liberalism. It is only the Words of God that give life to a church, and when they are abandoned and rejected death always results...

The Word of God  the words of God

Thats the tired old liberal line the Bible contains the word of God but isn't the word of God.
I guess you get to decide what is and what isn't the word of the tired, old, powerless liberal god.

Your position is what killed the liberal movement.....talk about beating a dead horse!

Um, not quite. He didn't say the Bible isn't the word of God. Nor did I. I totally believe it is. But "word" ≠ "words", and "Word" ≠ "word". Fine distinctions maybe, but important ones.

The Bible is God's word to us, i.e., stuff He wants us to know, which He inspired Godly men (and perhaps women -- not all the authors are known) to write down. But it is not the book incarnation of the 2nd Person of the Trinity, nor is it a book of exact word-for-word quotations or dictation from God.

Tomato....tomaaaato![/quote]

No...claiming that the word of God is the Word of God would be a heresy.

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]The Bible does use allegory, metaphor and other methods to communicate truth.
However, there is a vast difference in a parable being given and someone saying the first 11 chapters of Genesis are not intended to be taken literally! There is no basis in hermeneutics or fact for that assertion. In fact, theBible in many other places refers to Gods work of creation! [/quote]

At the risk of repeating myself...

[quote author=rsc2a]As to why I believe Genesis 1-3 isn't historical narrative, there are a host of reasons:

- the apparent contradictions in the two accounts
- the apparent contradictions in just the first account (assuming a "plain" reading)
- the cultural context in which the text was written
- the obvious symmetry in the text (pointing to a poetical genre)
- the similarities between Genesis 1 and other ANE literature that we readily identify as poetry
- historical interpretations, both Jewish and Christian
- the revelation we have from God's other "testament" about Himself

And I'll ask you the same question I've asked others: what are your views on John 6:52-58?[/quote]

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

In fact, theBible in many other places refers to Gods work of creation!

Indeed there are, and I'm a big fan of them! You won't find me ever denying that God created everything! I just don't think He did it as recently as 6000 years ago or in six literal days.

How exactly did God create the heavens and the earth?
Let me guess, He allowed them to evolve!

How and when did he create man?
Is Adam a historic figure or merely an allegory?

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

[quote author=Tom Brennan]The mainline denominations imploded b/c of theological liberalism. It is only the Words of God that give life to a church, and when they are abandoned and rejected death always results...

The Word of God  the words of God

Thats the tired old liberal line the Bible contains the word of God but isn't the word of God.
I guess you get to decide what is and what isn't the word of the tired, old, powerless liberal god.

Your position is what killed the liberal movement.....talk about beating a dead horse!

Um, not quite. He didn't say the Bible isn't the word of God. Nor did I. I totally believe it is. But "word" ≠ "words", and "Word" ≠ "word". Fine distinctions maybe, but important ones.

The Bible is God's word to us, i.e., stuff He wants us to know, which He inspired Godly men (and perhaps women -- not all the authors are known) to write down. But it is not the book incarnation of the 2nd Person of the Trinity, nor is it a book of exact word-for-word quotations or dictation from God.

Tomato....tomaaaato!

No...claiming that the word of God is the Word of God would be a heresy.

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]The Bible does use allegory, metaphor and other methods to communicate truth.
However, there is a vast difference in a parable being given and someone saying the first 11 chapters of Genesis are not intended to be taken literally! There is no basis in hermeneutics or fact for that assertion. In fact, theBible in many other places refers to Gods work of creation! [/quote]

At the risk of repeating myself...

[quote author=rsc2a]As to why I believe Genesis 1-3 isn't historical narrative, there are a host of reasons:

- the apparent contradictions in the two accounts
- the apparent contradictions in just the first account (assuming a "plain" reading)
- the cultural context in which the text was written
- the obvious symmetry in the text (pointing to a poetical genre)
- the similarities between Genesis 1 and other ANE literature that we readily identify as poetry
- historical interpretations, both Jewish and Christian
- the revelation we have from God's other "testament" about Himself

And I'll ask you the same question I've asked others: what are your views on John 6:52-58?[/quote]
[/quote]

What and huh?
What does John 6 have to do with anything?!

Obviously that liberal god just needs a lot of help to be understood by his creation...er...ah...his products of evolution!

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=rsc2a]

At the risk of repeating myself...

[quote author=rsc2a]As to why I believe Genesis 1-3 isn't historical narrative, there are a host of reasons:

- the apparent contradictions in the two accounts
- the apparent contradictions in just the first account (assuming a "plain" reading)
- the cultural context in which the text was written
- the obvious symmetry in the text (pointing to a poetical genre)
- the similarities between Genesis 1 and other ANE literature that we readily identify as poetry
- historical interpretations, both Jewish and Christian
- the revelation we have from God's other "testament" about Himself

And I'll ask you the same question I've asked others: what are your views on John 6:52-58?

[/quote]

What and huh?
What does John 6 have to do with anything?!

Obviously that liberal god just needs a lot of help to be understood by his creation...er...ah...his products of evolution!
[/quote]

That selected passage has quite a bit to do with it...care to share your views?

 

[Izdaari]

In fact, theBible in many other places refers to Gods work of creation!

Indeed there are, and I'm a big fan of them! You won't find me ever denying that God created everything! I just don't think He did it as recently as 6000 years ago or in six literal days.

How exactly did God create the heavens and the earth?
Let me guess, He allowed them to evolve!

How and when did he create man?
Is Adam a historic figure or merely an allegory?

I don't know exactly how or when. I am sure that neither YEC nor a-theistic evolution is true. That leaves OEC and TE as the remaining possibilities, so it must be one or the other. I don't know which. I think the Framework Interpretation is likely true, and it allows for either.

I don't know for sure if Adam is a historical figure or not, but I'm inclined to think he is. I've seen satellite photos that show the buried riverbeds of the rivers named in the Bible that described Eden's location. That would put Eden underwater in the middle of the Persian Gulf.

 

[Izdaari]

[quote author=rsc2a]

At the risk of repeating myself...

[quote author=rsc2a]As to why I believe Genesis 1-3 isn't historical narrative, there are a host of reasons:

- the apparent contradictions in the two accounts
- the apparent contradictions in just the first account (assuming a "plain" reading)
- the cultural context in which the text was written
- the obvious symmetry in the text (pointing to a poetical genre)
- the similarities between Genesis 1 and other ANE literature that we readily identify as poetry
- historical interpretations, both Jewish and Christian
- the revelation we have from God's other "testament" about Himself

And I'll ask you the same question I've asked others: what are your views on John 6:52-58?

What and huh?
What does John 6 have to do with anything?!

Obviously that liberal god just needs a lot of help to be understood by his creation...er...ah...his products of evolution!
[/quote]

That selected passage has quite a bit to do with it...care to share your views?
[/quote]

For ease of reference:

John 6:52-58

New Living Translation (NLT)

52 Then the people began arguing with each other about what he meant.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

[quote author=rsc2a]

At the risk of repeating myself...

[quote author=rsc2a]As to why I believe Genesis 1-3 isn't historical narrative, there are a host of reasons:

- the apparent contradictions in the two accounts
- the apparent contradictions in just the first account (assuming a "plain" reading)
- the cultural context in which the text was written
- the obvious symmetry in the text (pointing to a poetical genre)
- the similarities between Genesis 1 and other ANE literature that we readily identify as poetry
- historical interpretations, both Jewish and Christian
- the revelation we have from God's other "testament" about Himself

And I'll ask you the same question I've asked others: what are your views on John 6:52-58?

What and huh?
What does John 6 have to do with anything?!

Obviously that liberal god just needs a lot of help to be understood by his creation...er...ah...his products of evolution!
[/quote]

That selected passage has quite a bit to do with it...care to share your views?
[/quote]

No, it doesn't .
But, in it's context, it's not a difficult passage.....unless you have to apply it to the liberal god and his not so mysterious ways....

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

In fact, theBible in many other places refers to Gods work of creation!

Indeed there are, and I'm a big fan of them! You won't find me ever denying that God created everything! I just don't think He did it as recently as 6000 years ago or in six literal days.

How exactly did God create the heavens and the earth?
Let me guess, He allowed them to evolve!

How and when did he create man?
Is Adam a historic figure or merely an allegory?

I don't know exactly how or when. I am sure that neither YEC nor a-theistic evolution is true. That leaves OEC and TE as the remaining possibilities, so it must be one or the other. I don't know which. I think the Framework Interpretation is likely true, and it allows for either.

I don't know for sure if Adam is a historical figure or not, but I'm inclined to think he is. I've seen satellite photos that show the buried riverbeds of the rivers named in the Bible that described Eden's location. That would put Eden underwater in the middle of the Persian Gulf.

So, you don't know how....but you're just sure it isn't the way God clearly states....many times throat scripture...the He spoke the worlds into existence.

And, was Adam the one initial cell that suddenly appeared from who knows....or was Adam one of the further evolved. Species of homo sapien?

 

[Fresh Air]

I don't know exactly how or when. I am sure that neither YEC nor a-theistic evolution is true. That leaves OEC and TE as the remaining possibilities, so it must be one or the other. I don't know which. I think the Framework Interpretation is likely true, and it allows for either.

I don't know for sure if Adam is a historical figure or not, but I'm inclined to think he is.

...may God deliver me from ever falling prey to such intellectual superiority over simple faith in God's Word.

 

[rsc2a]

I don't know exactly how or when. I am sure that neither YEC nor a-theistic evolution is true. That leaves OEC and TE as the remaining possibilities, so it must be one or the other. I don't know which. I think the Framework Interpretation is likely true, and it allows for either.

I don't know for sure if Adam is a historical figure or not, but I'm inclined to think he is.

...may God deliver me from ever falling prey to such intellectual superiority over simple faith in God's Word.

...may God deliver me from ever falling prey to "blind" faith and allow me the grace to worship Him with all of my mind.

 

[rsc2a]

So, Mr Brennan, what are your views on John 6:52-58?

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=rsc2a]...John 6:52-58...[/quote]

*crickets*

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I don't know exactly how or when. I am sure that neither YEC nor a-theistic evolution is true. That leaves OEC and TE as the remaining possibilities, so it must be one or the other. I don't know which. I think the Framework Interpretation is likely true, and it allows for either.

I don't know for sure if Adam is a historical figure or not, but I'm inclined to think he is.
[/
...may God deliver me from ever falling prey to such intellectual superiority over simple faith in God's Word.

...may God deliver me from ever falling prey to "blind" faith and allow me the grace to worship Him with all of my mind.

The liberal god requires not faith, but confirmation by science....which in essence is the liberal god!