Does your church follow these new rules for successful ministry?

[Izdaari]

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

Mine requires merely not to be in opposition to science. That's because God made the universe, and it makes sense. And He made our minds, and expects to use our intelligence, our powers of observation and reason. So the Bible and science aren't going to be in contradiction: if they appear to be, it's because there's something in science we don't understand yet, or there's something in Scripture we're interpreting incorrectly. (However, miracles do not contradict science: they are God's direct interventions and a-scientific, i.e., science is not equipped to deal with them.)

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

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

Mine requires merely not to be in opposition to science. That's because God made the universe, and it makes sense. And He made our minds, and expects to use our intelligence, our powers of observation and reason. So the Bible and science aren't going to be in contradiction: if they appear to be, it's because there's something in science we don't understand yet, or there's something in Scripture we're interpreting incorrectly. (However, miracles do not contradict science: they are God's direct interventions and a-scientific, i.e., science is not equipped to deal with them.)

Miracles like the six days of creation....when God spoke everything into existence......in six days.....literal days the evening and the morning days?

 

[rsc2a]

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

Mine requires merely not to be in opposition to science. That's because God made the universe, and it makes sense. And He made our minds, and expects to use our intelligence, our powers of observation and reason. So the Bible and science aren't going to be in contradiction: if they appear to be, it's because there's something in science we don't understand yet, or there's something in Scripture we're interpreting incorrectly. (However, miracles do not contradict science: they are God's direct interventions and a-scientific, i.e., science is not equipped to deal with them.)

Miracles like the six days of creation....when God spoke everything into existence......in six days.....literal days the evening and the morning days?

Hey TB -

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

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

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

Mine requires merely not to be in opposition to science. That's because God made the universe, and it makes sense. And He made our minds, and expects to use our intelligence, our powers of observation and reason. So the Bible and science aren't going to be in contradiction: if they appear to be, it's because there's something in science we don't understand yet, or there's something in Scripture we're interpreting incorrectly. (However, miracles do not contradict science: they are God's direct interventions and a-scientific, i.e., science is not equipped to deal with them.)

Miracles like the six days of creation....when God spoke everything into existence......in six days.....literal days the evening and the morning days?

Hey TB -

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

[/quote]

Hey r2d2  -
Genesis 1-11

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

In the beginning God.....just waited for evolution to do its thing!

 

[Reformed Guy]

In the beginning God.....just waited for evolution to do its thing!

It's more like "In the beginning God.....mumbled incoherently."



We have a "Thus saith the Lord", "Glunderplunk."

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=rsc2a]

Hey TB -

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

[/quote]

Hey r2d2  -
Genesis 1-11
[/quote]

Yes...I make an effort to be consistent in my hermeneutics so as not to practice blatant eisegesis. My views on these two differing passages reflect that consistency. I'm asking if you do the same thing...

 

[rsc2a]

In the beginning God.....just waited for evolution to do its thing!

It's more like "In the beginning God.....mumbled incoherently."



We have a "Thus saith the Lord", "Glunderplunk."

Ahhh! Welcome back. Your turn...

...what are your views on John 6:52-58?

 

[Reformed Guy]

In the beginning God.....just waited for evolution to do its thing!

It's more like "In the beginning God.....mumbled incoherently."



We have a "Thus saith the Lord", "Glunderplunk."

Ahhh! Welcome back. Your turn...

...what are your views on John 6:52-58?

My views on John 6:52-58?  That it is scripture given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

 

[Reformed Guy]

In the beginning God.....just waited for evolution to do its thing!

It's more like "In the beginning God.....mumbled incoherently."



We have a "Thus saith the Lord", "Glunderplunk."

Ahhh! Welcome back. Your turn...

...what are your views on John 6:52-58?

And why do you leave out v.51, which explains a lot?

Even if you choose to ignore v.51 in demanding an interpretation, I still don't see it as something to get all torn up about.  It's not more confusing to me than when the Lord says "I am the vine and you are the branches" and "Abide in me and you will  bear much fruit."

I mean, it's not something to dispute because I don't see a watermelon growing out of my foot. 

 

[rsc2a]

In the beginning God.....just waited for evolution to do its thing!

It's more like "In the beginning God.....mumbled incoherently."



We have a "Thus saith the Lord", "Glunderplunk."

Ahhh! Welcome back. Your turn...

...what are your views on John 6:52-58?

And why do you leave out v.51, which explains a lot?

Even if you choose to ignore v.51 in demanding an interpretation, I still don't see it as something to get all torn up about.  It's not more confusing to me than when the Lord says "I am the vine and you are the branches" and "Abide in me and you will  bear much fruit."

I mean, it's not something to dispute because I don't see a watermelon growing out of my foot.

Verse 51 really isn't going to help you out here:

I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.

As to why I "left it out", I was just using the paragraph my translation provided.

You just said it's not confusing....would you like to provide your thoughts on the text then?

 

[Izdaari]

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

Mine requires merely not to be in opposition to science. That's because God made the universe, and it makes sense. And He made our minds, and expects to use our intelligence, our powers of observation and reason. So the Bible and science aren't going to be in contradiction: if they appear to be, it's because there's something in science we don't understand yet, or there's something in Scripture we're interpreting incorrectly. (However, miracles do not contradict science: they are God's direct interventions and a-scientific, i.e., science is not equipped to deal with them.)

Miracles like the six days of creation....when God spoke everything into existence......in six days.....literal days the evening and the morning days?

He could have done it that way. I never doubted that He has the power to. But as I see it, it would be out of character for God to create a universe that appears to all empirical observation to be billions of years old when it's really only thousands. General Revelation, i.e., the evidence of Creation itself, would be intentionally deceptive, a lie... and God is not a liar.

 

[Just John]

Consider this statement by someone I nonetheless have respect for:

"I think the churches that are built under the new rules will implode in the next generation, either numerically or doctrinally."

But when you look at said rules there is virtually nothing wrong with them if in balance. More thought and less impulsive reaction would be more in order resulting in greater credibility IMO. It's just so inculcated in the DNA of some X'ers to automatically say "NO".

...so is your position that my position can only be formed as a result of impulse and little thought? I mean, I couldn't possibly have spent hundreds of hours studying such things as music in the church and how it affects worship, service, doctrine, youth, etc. No, of course not. I haven't spent any time reading the quotes of and watching video by men such as Bill Hybels, Rick Warren, Marc Driscoll, Rob Bell, Andy Stanley, and Marc Beeson. Nope. Just an impulsive and thoughtless opinion thrown out casually on the internet with nothing to back it up....

I'm not saying that everybody has to agree with my opinion, JJ, but nor do I think it is intellectually honest to simply sweep it away with the words 'more thought' and 'impulsive.' It strongly implies that the only possible conclusion thoughtful people can reach is to embrace the contemporary movement, and that position is both inaccurate and unfair.

When one is in the forest they can't always see the trees. It happens to all of us. But like Tarheel, I have been on both sides. Of course the "other side" is often tarred with the worst excesses....Rob Bell doesn't fit well with any others you mentioned. In fact, some have roundly denounced him. Hyles doesn't represent the IFB but certainly the "X factor" whom I carefully directed my comments. There is undoubtedly a mindset that anything "different" or new is bad. Heck, it's the natural essence of being conservative and often a good thing. But you were the one who said the church would implode if they followed those rules. I contend that based on what those rules, and specifically said "in balance" such a statement is knee jerk. If you look back through that list IMO there is only one that could be problematic if not clearly understood and executed:

9. Be practical. What you teach either works or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t, you will lose you audience and eventually your congregation.

In light of my agreement with the other 10 I am inclined to be gracious to the author that it wasn't fleshed out well. We have to teach the right doctrine, whether it's popular or whether the congregation declines.  It sickens me to hear Joel Osteen wuss out on clear cut issues to be popular.

I won't fault you after your years at Hammond Tom. Old ideologies die hard. ;-) For all of us.

 

[Fresh Air]

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

If your point is that because these verses obviously have a spiritualized interpretation so do Genesis 1-3 I would say your point is absurd. I believe in a literal hermeneutic, but even a literal hermeneutic leaves room for metaphor/simile/secondary meanings...when those are either normally understood, explained as such in the text, or understood as such by the context. When you examine John 6 in the context of all of the other 'I am' statements by Christ, and especially in the context of the I Corinthians 11 and Hebrews it becomes clear that He is speaking spiritually. Genesis 1-3, OTOH, are everywhere taken as literal in the entire rest of the Bible. That holds tremendous weight with me, overwhelmingly so, and thus your attempt to throw John 6 into the discussion misses by a mile.

 

[PAYDAY]

http://www.churchleaders.com/mobile/pastors/pastor-articles/162032-discover-the-new-rules-for-ministry-today.html?p=1

Or are you old fashioned?

This article goes to the heart of the tension present in ministry today between the contemporary and traditional models of ministry.

What do you think?

 

[rsc2a]

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

If your point is that because these verses obviously have a spiritualized interpretation so do Genesis 1-3 I would say your point is absurd.

Struggling to have "simple faith in God's Word" with the John passage then? 

[quote author=Tom Brennan]I believe in a literal hermeneutic, but even a literal hermeneutic leaves room for metaphor/simile/secondary meanings...[/quote]

Seems like what I've been saying all along. 

[quote author=Tom Brennan]...when those are either normally understood, explained as such in the text, or understood as such by the context.[/quote]

Hmm....imagine that.

[quote author=Tom Brennan]When you examine John 6 in the context of all of the other 'I am' statements by Christ, and especially in the context of the I Corinthians 11 and Hebrews it becomes clear that He is speaking spiritually.[/quote]

It's evidently not "clear" to an extremely large number of Christians... And, I hope you aren't referring to this part of 1 Cor 11:

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord.

Oh yeah. I'm curious; did the original audience think Jesus was speaking metaphorically?

[quote author=Tom Brennan]Genesis 1-3, OTOH, are everywhere taken as literal in the entire rest of the Bible. That holds tremendous weight with me, overwhelmingly so, and thus your attempt to throw John 6 into the discussion misses by a mile.[/quote]

Please enlighten me as to where. (I'd also point out that Paul seems to take the words of Jesus pretty literally at first glance.)

 

[thethinkingrebel]

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

Mine requires merely not to be in opposition to science. That's because God made the universe, and it makes sense. And He made our minds, and expects to use our intelligence, our powers of observation and reason. So the Bible and science aren't going to be in contradiction: if they appear to be, it's because there's something in science we don't understand yet, or there's something in Scripture we're interpreting incorrectly. (However, miracles do not contradict science: they are God's direct interventions and a-scientific, i.e., science is not equipped to deal with them.)

To what end? What does CERN, or the Hubble space telescope, or the space program have to with salvation via grace through faith?

The Bible and science or often in direct contradiction because the worldview of Science is based on nature and does not allow a "divine foot in the door", science doesn't benefit us in a salvatory way, and is in fact a bane towards faith. People view science as infallible, and if science says God is unnecessary most people will accept it. Our culture is also based upon the scientific worldview and therefore is of no real use to the Christian.

 

[rsc2a]

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

Mine requires merely not to be in opposition to science. That's because God made the universe, and it makes sense. And He made our minds, and expects to use our intelligence, our powers of observation and reason. So the Bible and science aren't going to be in contradiction: if they appear to be, it's because there's something in science we don't understand yet, or there's something in Scripture we're interpreting incorrectly. (However, miracles do not contradict science: they are God's direct interventions and a-scientific, i.e., science is not equipped to deal with them.)

To what end? What does CERN, or the Hubble space telescope, or the space program have to with salvation via grace through faith?

O LORD, our Lord,
how majestic is your name in all the earth!
You have set your glory above the heavens.
Out of the mouth of babies and infants,
you have established strength because of your foes,
to still the enemy and the avenger.
When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars, which you have set in place,
what is man that you are mindful of him,
and the son of man that you care for him? (Psalm 8:1-4 ESV)

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. (Romans 1:19-20 ESV)

Want more?

[quote author=thethinkingrebel]The Bible and science or often in direct contradiction because the worldview of Science...[/quote]

"Science" isn't a worldview.

[quote author=thethinkingrebel]...is based on nature and does not allow a "divine foot in the door", science doesn't benefit us in a salvatory way, and is in fact a bane towards faith.[/quote]

- Science doesn't attempt to explain the supernatural. Once "science" attempts to do this, it is no longer science, but philosophy.
- See above verses.
- Only when you use an odd definition of faith.

[quote author=thethinkingrebel]People view science as infallible, and if science says God is unnecessary most people will accept it. Our culture is also based upon the scientific worldview and therefore is of no real use to the Christian.[/quote]

- People are wrong. By its very principle, science isn't infallible.
- Again...science is not a worldview.
- The last statement reeks of gnosticism.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

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

If your point is that because these verses obviously have a spiritualized interpretation so do Genesis 1-3 I would say your point is absurd. I believe in a literal hermeneutic, but even a literal hermeneutic leaves room for metaphor/simile/secondary meanings...when those are either normally understood, explained as such in the text, or understood as such by the context. When you examine John 6 in the context of all of the other 'I am' statements by Christ, and especially in the context of the I Corinthians 11 and Hebrews it becomes clear that He is speaking spiritually. Genesis 1-3, OTOH, are everywhere taken as literal in the entire rest of the Bible. That holds tremendous weight with me, overwhelmingly so, and thus your attempt to throw John 6 into the discussion misses by a mile.

By a mile?
I'd say a light year or two..... 

 

[rsc2a]

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

If your point is that because these verses obviously have a spiritualized interpretation so do Genesis 1-3 I would say your point is absurd. I believe in a literal hermeneutic, but even a literal hermeneutic leaves room for metaphor/simile/secondary meanings...when those are either normally understood, explained as such in the text, or understood as such by the context. When you examine John 6 in the context of all of the other 'I am' statements by Christ, and especially in the context of the I Corinthians 11 and Hebrews it becomes clear that He is speaking spiritually. Genesis 1-3, OTOH, are everywhere taken as literal in the entire rest of the Bible. That holds tremendous weight with me, overwhelmingly so, and thus your attempt to throw John 6 into the discussion misses by a mile.

By a mile?
I'd say a light year or two..... 

Yet you won't even answer the question...