Does your church follow these new rules for successful ministry?

[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..... 

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

Start a thread that will allow discussion on John 6 that is relevant to the point of discussion!

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]Start a thread that will allow discussion on John 6 that is relevant to the point of discussion!
[/quote]

It's pretty clear why you are avoiding this and saying it doesn't relate, so let's do this:

So Jesus said to them,

 

[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?

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...

"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.
[/quote]

Science is a worldview, you may want to play semantics and refer to the core nature of science, that's fine. But I refer to science in general, which in modern times predisposes evolution and the big bang before any other analysis is made.

*[[Rom 1:20-25]] WEB* For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse. Because, knowing God, they didn

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=thethinkingrebel]Science is a worldview, you may want to play semantics and refer to the core nature of science, that's fine.[/quote]

No...naturalism is a worldview (and the one you are railing against). It is also completely at odds with Christianity.

Science is a branch of knowledge that deals with the systematic study of the physical universe. These are very different.

[quote author=thethinkingrebel]But I refer to science in general, which in modern times predisposes evolution and the big bang before any other analysis is made.[/quote]

Do you realize how wide of a field "science" is and/or how various theories are formed? Do you know what a scientific definition for "theory" is?

[quote author=thethinkingrebel]What is faith? It isn't faith in the existence of God, but in faith that God has saved us from the consequence of sin in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. [/quote]

Do me a favor and define "faith" please. If you choose to cite a verse as your definition, please explain said verse.

[quote author=thethinkingrebel]It isn't Gnosticism to say that science is irrelevant.[/quote]

Do you know what the principle tenants of gnosticism are?

[quote author=thethinkingrebel]Where does God call for us to be scientists? He calls for us to make disciples, to bless and to curse, to save people from their own destruction with the power of the gospel. [/quote]

Where does He call for us to be doctors or architects or lawyers or construction workers? Or, if you prefer a different route, where has He told us to ignore His creation and how He created it to function?

(Just so you know, the understanding that we bring glory to God by learning about His creation is as old as Christianity itself. It was also the reason many of the greatest scientists (e.g. Isaac Newton) choose their trade. It wasn't until the mid-1800's that large portions of the Church started thinking that attempting to understand creation meant weak faith.)

[quote author=thethinkingrebel]Science is a great tool, but it is now a philosophy, a worldview, a religion!

It is a lens through which people view their reality - by definition that is a worldview.[/quote]

Again....

science ≠ naturalism

 

[Izdaari]

(Just so you know, the understanding that we bring glory to God by learning about His creation is as old as Christianity itself. It was also the reason many of the greatest scientists (e.g. Isaac Newton) choose their trade. It wasn't until the mid-1800's that large portions of the Church started thinking that attempting to understand creation meant weak faith.)

Just so! This idea that the study of the natural universe (God's creation!) is somehow at odds with faith in its Creator is a recent innovation, a reaction against naturalism. Remember the theological conservative rule-of-thumb, "If it's new, it can't be true." Given that Christianity is some 2000 years old, we probably aren't going to come up with new discoveries in it... or if we do, they're likely to be hare-brained nonsense.

And then again, maybe it isn't all that new. It is, as you correctly pointed out, found in Gnosticism, a very old idea! (A very old heresy, that is!)

So which is it, I wonder? A new-fangled notion? Or an ancient heresy? Ironically, maybe both. As George Santayana said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

 

[jimmudcatgrant]

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]Start a thread that will allow discussion on John 6 that is relevant to the point of discussion!

It's pretty clear why you are avoiding this and saying it doesn't relate, so let's do this:

So Jesus said to them,

 

[Izdaari]

Doesn't prove anything except that they couldn't understand spiritual things.  The same thing happened to Nicodemus as well when Jesus told him he must be born again.  He wanted to know how could that be, could you go back into your mother's womb?  So, with your reasoning, because Nicodemus thought he was being literal, we must all go back into our mother's womb.  Come on, man, transsubstantiation does not wash as a valid doctrine.  The verses you gave are spiritual and allegorical in nature, just as John chapter 3 was.

I agree! If we believed in transubstantiation, I guess we'd have to become Catholic! (I do believe in Real Presence, but in the Anglican way, as an indefinable holy mystery, not in the Catholic way.) I think his point was those who advocate a literalist hermeneutic are inconsistent about it... and isn't that true?

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=jimmudcatgrant]Doesn't prove anything except that they couldn't understand spiritual things.  The same thing happened to Nicodemus as well when Jesus told him he must be born again.  He wanted to know how could that be, could you go back into your mother's womb?  So, with your reasoning, because Nicodemus thought he was being literal, we must all go back into our mother's womb.  Come on, man, transsubstantiation does not wash as a valid doctrine.  The verses you gave are spiritual and allegorical in nature, just as John chapter 3 was.[/quote]

Your words:

R2D2 wrote: Except for those spots where He used parable and allegory, right?

We are talking about creation.  Show me in Genesis where God called creation a parable, or used allegorical language that plainly tells us not to take it literal.

So I'll ask you show me in the John passage where Jesus said He was speaking in allegory or metaphor. In fact, I'll just ask you to show me where the people around Him thought he wasn't speaking literally.

If you cannot do that, I would just ask that you recognize that the "plain" language of Scripture is sometimes the incorrect interpretation and when we have other clues, including God's other revelation (i.e. the natural world) that seemingly contradict the "plain" interpretation, we need to investigate further. God's written self-revelation will not contradict God's created self-revelation* and any disagreement between the two means our understanding of one (or both) of them are incorrect.

* Many (not all) miracles would not fit this category because they are, by definition, supernatural, and therefore, outside of laws of nature.

 

[jimmudcatgrant]

[quote author=jimmudcatgrant]Doesn't prove anything except that they couldn't understand spiritual things.  The same thing happened to Nicodemus as well when Jesus told him he must be born again.  He wanted to know how could that be, could you go back into your mother's womb?  So, with your reasoning, because Nicodemus thought he was being literal, we must all go back into our mother's womb.  Come on, man, transsubstantiation does not wash as a valid doctrine.  The verses you gave are spiritual and allegorical in nature, just as John chapter 3 was.

Your words:

R2D2 wrote: Except for those spots where He used parable and allegory, right?

We are talking about creation.  Show me in Genesis where God called creation a parable, or used allegorical language that plainly tells us not to take it literal.

So I'll ask you show me in the John passage where Jesus said He was speaking in allegory or metaphor. In fact, I'll just ask you to show me where the people around Him thought he wasn't speaking literally.

If you cannot do that, I would just ask that you recognize that the "plain" language of Scripture is sometimes the incorrect interpretation and when we have other clues, including God's other revelation (i.e. the natural world) that seemingly contradict the "plain" interpretation, we need to investigate further. God's written self-revelation will not contradict God's created self-revelation* and any disagreement between the two means our understanding of one (or both) of them are incorrect.

* Many (not all) miracles would not fit this category because they are, by definition, supernatural, and therefore, outside of laws of nature.
[/quote]

The difference is that God told you He did something that He could plainly do: create.  All scripture backs up his omnipotence.  Jesus told his followers to do something they plainly could not do.  That's how I know the difference, and how Jesus' words were spiritual.  Are you saying that you can't tell that Jesus was not being literal to Nicodemus?  I just want to understand, because one of your "proofs" was that the people took as literal on eating his flesh, etc., and Nicodemus plainly took Jesus as being literal as well.  The examples of creation and the words of Jesus are apples and oranges.  Plainly.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=jimmudcatgrant]The difference is that God told you He did something that He could plainly do: create.  All scripture backs up his omnipotence. [/quote]

And no one is arguing this point. What God did not do is tell us how He chose to create.

[quote author=jimmudcatgrant]Jesus told his followers to do something they plainly could not do.[/quote]

Well some people obviously disagree with you...

I'd also point out that God often told people to do things they "could not do".

[quote author=jimmudcatgrant]That's how I know the difference, and how Jesus' words were spiritual.  Are you saying that you can't tell that Jesus was not being literal to Nicodemus?  I just want to understand, because one of your "proofs" was that the people took as literal on eating his flesh, etc., and Nicodemus plainly took Jesus as being literal as well.[/quote]

I'm saying the exact opposite actually. I'm saying that, although they took them literally, Jesus was not speaking literally. Just like I'm saying, although you take Gen 1-3 literally (which is odd since they contradict), God did not mean for them to be understood that way. I reject a textbook interpretation of Gen 1-3 for the same reason I reject a "plain" reading of John 3 & 6...because the larger context shows them all to be allegory/metaphor.

[quote author=jimmudcatgrant]The examples of creation and the words of Jesus are apples and oranges.  Plainly.[/quote]

So God's revelation and God's revelation are apples and oranges?

As Izzy has stated, you're being inconsistent in your hermeneutical approach. In fact, you reject your own words when they don't fit into your presupposed theology. God is "literal" where you want Him to be literal and metaphorical where you want Him to be metaphorical.

 

[jimmudcatgrant]

R2D2, I like you as a person, but sometimes you overthink things, try to be too technical, and nitpick when it isn't necessary.  Once again, nothing indicates that God isn't being literal in the creation account.  I have shown you how God wasn't being literal in your accounts and Nicodemus, and you agreed.  I am still waiting for you to show me how God wasn't being literal in creation.  All the rest of your writings are just gobbledogook.  It's that simple:  show me how creation isn't literal.

 

[rsc2a]

R2D2, I like you as a person, but sometimes you overthink things, try to be too technical, and nitpick when it isn't necessary.  Once again, nothing indicates that God isn't being literal in the creation account.  I have shown you how God wasn't being literal in your accounts and Nicodemus, and you agreed.  I am still waiting for you to show me how God wasn't being literal in creation.  All the rest of your writings are just gobbledogook.  It's that simple:  show me how creation isn't literal.

[quote author=rsc2a]I'm saying the exact opposite actually. I'm saying that, although they took them literally, Jesus was not speaking literally. Just like I'm saying, although you take Gen 1-3 literally (which is odd since they contradict), God did not mean for them to be understood that way. I reject a textbook interpretation of Gen 1-3 for the same reason I reject a "plain" reading of John 3 & 6...because the larger context shows them all to be allegory/metaphor.[/quote]

...and...

[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[/quote]

 

[jimmudcatgrant]

R2D2, I like you as a person, but sometimes you overthink things, try to be too technical, and nitpick when it isn't necessary.  Once again, nothing indicates that God isn't being literal in the creation account.  I have shown you how God wasn't being literal in your accounts and Nicodemus, and you agreed.  I am still waiting for you to show me how God wasn't being literal in creation.  All the rest of your writings are just gobbledogook.  It's that simple:  show me how creation isn't literal.

[quote author=rsc2a]I'm saying the exact opposite actually. I'm saying that, although they took them literally, Jesus was not speaking literally. Just like I'm saying, although you take Gen 1-3 literally (which is odd since they contradict), God did not mean for them to be understood that way. I reject a textbook interpretation of Gen 1-3 for the same reason I reject a "plain" reading of John 3 & 6...because the larger context shows them all to be allegory/metaphor.

...and...

[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[/quote]
[/quote]

Historical interpretations have been for special creation in the large majority.  What revelations in God's other "testament are you talking about?  Creation was given chronologically in one account, and details were given, although not chronological in the second.  Simple.  Just like the synoptic gospels aren't always chronological, and describe the same events in different lights.  The same as I would if I saw a wreck, and then you saw one, and we were asked to give our accounts from our respective locations.  They would differ.

A lot of the bible is poetic, but that doesn't mean it can't be taken literal.  The bible always gives you obvious clues in the context that it is not literal, not in the overall context as you suggest.  You choose to believe your educators over the bible, fine, but that doesn't make you right.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=jimmudcatgrant]Historical interpretations have been for special creation in the large majority.[/quote]

Good thing I believe in a special creation.

[quote author=jimmudcatgrant]What revelations in God's other "testament are you talking about?[/quote]

Astrophysics. Geology. Paleontology. Etc...

[quote author=jimmudcatgrant]Creation was given chronologically in one account, and details were given, although not chronological in the second.  Simple.  Just like the synoptic gospels aren't always chronological, and describe the same events in different lights.  The same as I would if I saw a wreck, and then you saw one, and we were asked to give our accounts from our respective locations.  They would differ.[/quote]

"differ" ≠ "contradict"

And God said,

 

[jimmudcatgrant]

[quote author=jimmudcatgrant]Historical interpretations have been for special creation in the large majority.

Good thing I believe in a special creation.

[quote author=jimmudcatgrant]What revelations in God's other "testament are you talking about?[/quote]

Astrophysics. Geology. Paleontology. Etc...
Give me the bible when they conflict.

[quote author=jimmudcatgrant]Creation was given chronologically in one account, and details were given, although not chronological in the second.  Simple.  Just like the synoptic gospels aren't always chronological, and describe the same events in different lights.  The same as I would if I saw a wreck, and then you saw one, and we were asked to give our accounts from our respective locations.  They would differ.[/quote]

"differ" ≠ "contradict"

And God said,

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=jimmudcatgrant]Historical interpretations have been for special creation in the large majority.

Good thing I believe in a special creation.

[quote author=jimmudcatgrant]What revelations in God's other "testament are you talking about?

Astrophysics. Geology. Paleontology. Etc...
Give me the bible when they conflict.

[quote author=jimmudcatgrant]Creation was given chronologically in one account, and details were given, although not chronological in the second.  Simple.  Just like the synoptic gospels aren't always chronological, and describe the same events in different lights.  The same as I would if I saw a wreck, and then you saw one, and we were asked to give our accounts from our respective locations.  They would differ.[/quote]

"differ" ≠ "contradict"

And God said,

 

[jimmudcatgrant]

"And, it's often good to cite sources when you quote wholesale."

I agree and am pretty sure I included all the names of the people I sourced.

 

[rsc2a]

With reference to the initial passages of chapter one, Davis says:

That the text is prose and not poetry is evidenced by the frequent use of the waw consecutive; this is the grammatical device normally employed to describe sequential acts (38).

I just saw this...

If this is the only evidence he has that Gen 1 is prose and not poetry, he needs to just give up. There are hundreds of poetical examples where things happen in a sequential order while still being recognized as poetical. It also completely ignores any type of framework interpretation which could easily be sequential and poetic.

 

[thethinkingrebel]

[quote author=thethinkingrebel]Science is a worldview, you may want to play semantics and refer to the core nature of science, that's fine.

No...naturalism is a worldview (and the one you are railing against). It is also completely at odds with Christianity.

Science is a branch of knowledge that deals with the systematic study of the physical universe. These are very different.

[quote author=thethinkingrebel]But I refer to science in general, which in modern times predisposes evolution and the big bang before any other analysis is made.[/quote]

Do you realize how wide of a field "science" is and/or how various theories are formed? Do you know what a scientific definition for "theory" is?

[quote author=thethinkingrebel]What is faith? It isn't faith in the existence of God, but in faith that God has saved us from the consequence of sin in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. [/quote]

Do me a favor and define "faith" please. If you choose to cite a verse as your definition, please explain said verse.

[quote author=thethinkingrebel]It isn't Gnosticism to say that science is irrelevant.[/quote]

Do you know what the principle tenants of gnosticism are?

[quote author=thethinkingrebel]Where does God call for us to be scientists? He calls for us to make disciples, to bless and to curse, to save people from their own destruction with the power of the gospel. [/quote]

Where does He call for us to be doctors or architects or lawyers or construction workers? Or, if you prefer a different route, where has He told us to ignore His creation and how He created it to function?

(Just so you know, the understanding that we bring glory to God by learning about His creation is as old as Christianity itself. It was also the reason many of the greatest scientists (e.g. Isaac Newton) choose their trade. It wasn't until the mid-1800's that large portions of the Church started thinking that attempting to understand creation meant weak faith.)

[quote author=thethinkingrebel]Science is a great tool, but it is now a philosophy, a worldview, a religion!

It is a lens through which people view their reality - by definition that is a worldview.[/quote]

Again....

science ≠ naturalism
[/quote]

I'm sorry, I am far too stupid to answer any of these points.

God bless.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]Start a thread that will allow discussion on John 6 that is relevant to the point of discussion!

It's pretty clear why you are avoiding this and saying it doesn't relate, so let's do this:

So Jesus said to them,