Rising from the ashes
According to numbers released in December by the Episcopal Church, that denomination’s membership dropped by 3 percent in 2008. That doesn’t sound like much, but I am a bit of a demographics junkie, plus I researched and examined a lot of church membership and growth data in writing my book A Lover’s Quarrel With The Evangelical Church. I can tell you that I have never heard of a major denomination that has ever lost 3 percent of its membership in a single year.
What’s even more interesting about these numbers is that the Episcopal Church now says it has only about 2 million members in its 7,000-some parishes in the United States. That’s particularly astounding when you consider that the Episcopal Church had 3.5 million on its rolls in 1965—that’s a 43 percent drop from a year when the United States had about half as many people as it does today.
To make these numbers even more troubling (at least, if you’re a leader in the Episcopal Church), is the fact that while there may be 2 million on the rolls, it’s likely that only about 800,000 people actually attend Episcopal Churches on any given Sunday.
Theologically speaking, the Episcopal Church is winding down, too. In 2003, the church consecrated an openly homosexual priest, Gene Robinson, as bishop of New Hampshire. Earlier this month, Episcopalians in Los Angeles elected a lesbian priest to the office of bishop—despite warnings from Anglicans around the world that such a move would widen the rift created by the Robinson consecration.
And then there’s the general theological drift of the denomination, which has been going on for 40 years or more. Today it is common for leaders in the Episcopal Church to deny such core Christian doctrines as the Resurrection, the substitutionary atonement of Christ, the authority of Scripture, and the Virgin Birth. Conservative Bishop Fitz Allison famously summed up the situation when he said that retired liberal Bishop John Shelby Spong “perjures himself every time he recites the Apostle’s Creed.” One might reasonably wonder by what standard the Episcopal Church might still be called a Christian denomination.
If you are not a leader in the Episcopal Church, however, these numbers are not so much as troubling as they are encouraging. After all, if a building is on fire, the goal is to get people out alive—and as quickly as possible. And that is certainly what is happening, as the other side of the story—the growth of alternative Anglican churches—makes clear. Indeed, earlier this year, disaffected Episcopalians, who have left the church at various times to form other denominations over the past 40 years, came together in an unprecedented move to form the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA).
And the great news is that the ACNA is made up only partly of former Episcopalians. Many of the new Anglicans are new converts to Christianity as well as pilgrims from other denominations who are being nourished by the rich theology and liturgy of the Anglican tradition. The ACNA now numbers in excess of 100,000—and it’s growing rapidly. It’s easy to see that within a decade, if both churches continue on their respective paths, the Anglican Church in North America could pass the Episcopal Church as the primary expression of Anglicanism in the United States.
So don’t grieve the demise of the Episcopal Church. God has preserved a remnant. And the coming together of the various “continuing Anglican” churches under the ACNA organizational structure is one of the major religious developments of this year, a development what will likely resonate for many years to come.














Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top293 Comments to “Rising from the ashes”
“God has preserved a remnant.”
He always does!
Report comment to moderator
“Today it is common for leaders in the Episcopal Church to deny such core Christian doctrines as the Resurrection, the substitutionary atonement of Christ, the authority of Scripture, and the Virgin Birth.”
Oh no, It looks like my views on this Church has been right all along. Hey Thomas how about I am sorry Pastor you are right. The Christian Community does not see us as part of the Christian Church
Report comment to moderator
“One might reasonably wonder by what standard the Episcopal Church might still be called a Christian denomination.”
Know Thomas who has been saying this on these boards?
Report comment to moderator
Warren – one small, nit-picky editor-like comment:
A drop from 3.5 million to 2.0 million is a drop of about 43%, rather than 55% (divide the drop of 1.5 million by the original number of 3.5 million).
Report comment to moderator
“God has preserved a remnant.”
An implied argumentum ad populum
Due to high birth rates, many eastern religions are experiencing faster percentage and numerical growth rates than Christianity, generally. God must REALLY like them. And, of course, in America, the fastest growing segment by per cent is NO RELIGION – God must expecially favor those who don’t subscribe to traditional and institutional beliefs about Him! He’s leaving the remnant BEHIND!
Report comment to moderator
Math error corrected. Thanks, Buzzy.
Report comment to moderator
So don’t grieve the demise of the Episcopal Church. God has preserved a remnant.
I though the reference to a remnant was within the sphere of episcopalianism. I didn’t detect any intent to compare with other denominations or religions.
Also the whole concept of “remnant” implies lower numbers but continuing faithfulness.
Therefore, I don’t see how your comment is responsive to the post.
Report comment to moderator
Mickey – any time!
Report comment to moderator
“Today it is common for leaders in the Episcopal Church to deny such core Christian doctrines as the Resurrection, the substitutionary atonement of Christ, the authority of Scripture, and the Virgin Birth.”
Some substantiation for how common this is, exactly, would be helpful, but it is unlikely to be provided.
Report comment to moderator
PASTOR ROY: Don’t fall into the gutter.
Report comment to moderator
An implied argumentum ad populum
How so?
Report comment to moderator
It actually isn’t common at all “for leaders in the Episcopal Church to deny such core Christian doctrines as the Resurrection, the substitutionary atonement of Christ, the authority of Scripture, and the Virgin Birth.”
John Shelby Spong, mentioned in the article, has not called himself an Episcopalian in many years. And while there are probably some other examples, a few anecdotes does not make anything “common.”
The main issue seems to be that the demomination is willing to consider homosexuality an open subject, which homophobes cannot abide.
Report comment to moderator
roger patno 12.18.09 AT 2:33 PM
PASTOR ROY: Don’t fall into the gutter.
–
What? I do not understand your comment.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 12.18.09 AT 2:31 PM
“Today it is common for leaders in the Episcopal Church to deny such core Christian doctrines as the Resurrection, the substitutionary atonement of Christ, the authority of Scripture, and the Virgin Birth.”
Some substantiation for how common this is, exactly, would be helpful, but it is unlikely to be provided.
-
Changing God’s Word to support sin.
Report comment to moderator
Changing God’s Word to support sin…
More like, not being Biblical literalists, which drives Biblical literalists wild with cognitive dissonance. Not content to leave others alone to believe as they wish, the literalist goes into attack mode, both affirming his own belief while criticizing that of his foe.
Meanwhile, the folks who do not believe in Biblical literalism are left scratching their heads, thinking: I’m not trying to change his mind. So why is he all in a lather yelling at me to change mine? Does he really hope to do that by being so aggressive and irrational? Maybe I should just quietly hum “Let All Things Our Creator Bless” until he stops.
And at the end of the day, the Biblical literalist leaves, frustrated that his aggressive approach turned the nonliteralist off and didn’t convince him of anything new. And the nonliteralist is left bemused but unconcerned.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy – you can do better than bringing up someone’s name who hasn’t even posted on the thread yet…. no matter what he’s done in the past.
Report comment to moderator
not being Biblical literalists would fall under the idea taht was prestent the Episcopal Church to deny such core Christian doctrines of the authority of Scripture
Report comment to moderator
For a guy who’s never seen a Book Of Common Prayer, you have a lot of opinions on Episcopal views about the authority of Scripture.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria 12.18.09 AT 3:17 PM
Pastor Roy – you can do better than bringing up someone’s name who hasn’t even posted on the thread yet…. no matter what he’s done in the past.
–
sorry you are right I was wrong I should not have brought up his name.
Thomas I am sorry I was wrong.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 12.18.09 AT 3:25 PM
For a guy who’s never seen a Book Of Common Prayer, you have a lot of opinions on Episcopal views about the authority of Scripture.
—-
Well if they are changing God’s Word then they do not believe to much in the authority of Scripture.
So to a Episcopal Church the Book Of Common Prayer has the same authority of Scripture
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy, you are overestimating your capacity to offend me. I don’t think you’re a bad guy, and I recognize that one tenet of your faith is evangelism.
I only ask that you not bother with evangelizing to me. It won’t work and is a waste of your time. That doesn’t me we can’t debate and discuss.
But I will offer you this, for your attempts to evangelize to others. Most people of faith acknowledge differences in belief and find a way to coexist.
By contrast, evangelicals and fundamentalists seem unconcerned with common ground. Rather, they are angry in tone and confrontational in approach. They don’t say: “I disagree and here’s why.” Instead one gets “You’re wrong. You’re not a real Christian if you don’t believe as I do. You’re going to hell.”
Such discussions, as we’ve seen, go no place fast. Therefore, I suggest you modify your approach. It’s rather offensive to tell a person of faith that their years of prayerful study and introspection were worthless, even if that’s precisely what you think.
I would never say such a thing to you, even if I really, really, really believed it. For as wrong as I think you are about God, Christ’s teachings, and social issues, I think you have the right to your faith and to express it.
Your apology is sincerely appreciated, both for its intent and delivery. But it wasn’t necessary; I was not offended.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy,
You were not wrong – it was entirely appropriate based on multiple threads over the last few days. Haven’t you yet learned to ignore Victoria?
Report comment to moderator
This should help answer 20.
The Bible is the Defining Text
Episcopalians agree that the Bible, in the words of Article VI of the Articles of Religion, “containeth all things necessary to salvation.”
But the Bible Must be Interpreted: Scripture, Tradition and Reason
One of the defining ideas of Anglicanism is the theory, expounded by the 16th century theologian Richard Hooker, of a middle way (or, in Latin, a via media) between the extremes of the Roman Catholics on the one hand, and of the Puritans on the other.
Hooker argued that while the Scriptures were paramount, reason and tradition should be used to interpret them, and that they should be read as products of the historical contexts in which they were written (as, indeed, should the traditions that we receive and the reasoning that we develop within our own context).
Constant Tension
Since Hooker’s day, the tension has never ceased between Anglicans who emphasize the divine origin and immutability of Scripture alone, those who believe that Scripture should hold sway in combination with the particular tradition that they in their small corner of the world happen to have received, and those who believe that the Holy Spirit continues to work through the power of reason to set aside the injustices of humankind and transform the world.
http://www.dioceseny.org/pages/21-the-central-role-of-scripture-
Report comment to moderator
Folks this is the problem when you say reason. It means that society has the right to change God’s Word to meet the needs of society.
Report comment to moderator
mommy 12.18.09 AT 3:38 PM
Pastor Roy,
You were not wrong – it was entirely appropriate based on multiple threads over the last few days. Haven’t you yet learned to ignore Victoria?
-
The sad part is every thing I have said to Thomas is pointed out in the above story.
Report comment to moderator
Normally, when I write an article, I don’t jump into the comments section. I figure I gave it my best shot, and others should have their say. However, #12 above has a factual error that needs addressing: Bishop John Spong, though retired, is indeed still a bishop in the Episcopal Church. He actively and publicly identifies himself as such, and the Episcopal Church accepts him as such, and has never reprimanded him for his heretical beliefs. And if you doubt they are heretical, that he does not believe in a literal resurrection, etc., check out his web-site. He’s very explicit about his beliefs there. My criticism of him (and many others like him in ECUSA leadership; he is no longer an anomaly in that body) has nothing to do with homosexuality, as #12 asserts, and everything to do with the authority of scripture.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1,
I’m just curious (not adversarial, it is a legitimate question) – does the theology you describe in # 23 then result in the meaning of the Bible changing over time? If it is to be interpreted based on tradition and tradition builds over time, does the interpretation change?
Report comment to moderator
More like, not being Biblical literalists, which drives Biblical literalists wild with cognitive dissonance. Not content to leave others alone to believe as they wish, the literalist goes into attack mode, both affirming his own belief while criticizing that of his foe.
Issues of reformation tend to crop up when church leaders no longer treat the scriptures alone as authoritative. In these instances — as with the Protestant Reformation or the crack-up of the ECUSA — it is not really a matter of evangelicals leaving others alone, or attempting to evangelize individuals outside the faith. It is more a matter of protecting the church from the corrupting influence of unbelief and apostacy within. The real attack is being waged against the Scriptures and sound Christian doctrine from apostate or unbelieving leaders within the church, and the faithful Christian wants first to be left alone from such attacks, but barring that, to defend the true faith. Therefore, I think you have the attack scenario backwards.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks Warren – I think you were right to correct the factual error and re-focus on the authority-of-scripture issue (I actually cross-posted with you on that in #28).
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy – Therefore, I think you have the attack scenario backwards.
–
you are right, but it is their way of find a reason not to repent of their sins.
Report comment to moderator
IT’s always counterproductive to deny the authority of God’s Word, for the God you believe in…
As far as historical context, sin hasnt changed.
Report comment to moderator
Warren Cole Smith – and everything to do with the authority of scripture.
I agree it has every thing to do with the authority of scripture and if you believe that you can change God’s Word. The question must be ask how can you believe in the authority of scripture if it can always be changed.
Report comment to moderator
rn 12.18.09 AT 4:01 PM
IT’s always counterproductive to deny the authority of God’s Word, for the God you believe in…
As far as historical context, sin hasnt changed
–
If you deny the authority of God’s Word, how do you know who God is then?
Report comment to moderator
PASTOR ROY: I am simply saying you have no need to be a gutter fighter. The truth will speak for itself and will allways triumph
Report comment to moderator
what does it mean to deny the authority of God’s Word?
what does it look like?
You ask the Episcopal Church they well tell you they believe in the authority of God’s Word.
Report comment to moderator
@ Mommy @27. The short answer is yes.
We don’t stone people to death for various sins, although that’s in there, for example.
Report comment to moderator
roger patno 12.18.09 AT 4:09 PM
PASTOR ROY: I am simply saying you have no need to be a gutter fighter. The truth will speak for itself and will allways triumph
—
thanks an I am sorry for getting in the gutter. some time the old infranty soldier rises up in me and I can not help but get into that gutter an fight it out
Report comment to moderator
roger patno -The truth will speak for itself and will allways triumph
-
you are right an when it is reveal well we have to side to pick repent or not to repent.
Report comment to moderator
#36 – @ Mommy @27. The short answer is yes. We don’t stone people to death for various sins, although that’s in there, for example.
I’m not sure that’s a valid example. Although it is in there, it was never intended to apply to other than ancient Israel. While God’s moral law in the O.T. applies for all time, certain ceremonial and civil/criminal laws only applied to ancient Israel. Hence, this is not a valid example of the interpretation or meaning of Scripture changing over time.
Report comment to moderator
It feels weird typing Mommy to one not my Mom. But ok.
It’s pretty well documented that beliefs about the Bible have changed a lot over time. Look at the issues of slavery and the role of women in the church for two notable examples. Christians today still have disagreements about the latter. Google “women’s ordination” and you’ll read all kinds of screamy arguments for and against.
This has applied to other social issues as well across history.
People tend to forget this.
Report comment to moderator
“We don’t stone people to death for various sins, although that’s in there, for example.”
“Hooker argued that while the Scriptures were paramount, reason and tradition should be used to interpret them, and that they should be read as products of the historical contexts in which they were written (as, indeed, should the traditions that we receive and the reasoning that we develop within our own context).”
Employing reason and an awareness of the historical context and the traditional understanding of the church, as well as basic reading skills, we understand that the civil law that ordered the lives of Jewish believers under the Old Covenant is not and never was binding on New Covenant believers. The Scriptures explicitly address laws like the stoning you reference only to God’s chosen people in ancient Israel. It is not evidence of theological straying for modern Christians not to follow everything that’s “in there,” as it is for modern Episcopalian Bishops to deny the creeds of the church that explicitly define what true Christian faith means.
Report comment to moderator
#40 – It’s true that (a) there are ongoing debates about various areas of doctrine and scriptural interpretation, and (b) some of the O.T. law ceremonial/civil law was only intended to apply to ancient Israel. However, both (a) and (b) are distinct from saying that God’s views have evolved or changed over time, so that some portion of the Bible no longer reflects God’s present-day beliefs. It is this latter position that I have seen purveyed by liberal mainline denominations, and it is in tension with the divine attribute of immutability.
Report comment to moderator
PASTOR ROY @ 37: All is well. At 77 I have yet to retire from the influence of Parris Island myself.
Report comment to moderator
thomas what does God Word say about the role of a women in the position of Pastor? Now what society says, but what does God’s Word say, provide passages.
Report comment to moderator
Not what society says, or your church, but what does God’s Word say, provide passages
Report comment to moderator
roger patno 12.18.09 AT 4:43 PM
PASTOR ROY @ 37: All is well. At 77 I have yet to retire from the influence of Parris Island myself
–
me it is being an Airborne Soldier
Report comment to moderator
Does the Bible say it is a sin for a woman to lead in the church?
Does the Bible say it is a sin for a man to have sex with a man, etc.?
Report comment to moderator
news2me 12.18.09 AT 5:27 PM
Does the Bible say it is a sin for a woman to lead in the church?
Does the Bible say it is a sin for a man to have sex with a man, etc.?
–
great question what is you views on the issues.
Report comment to moderator
According to the Bible the man should be the teacher of men.
But it isn’t a sin for a woman to lead.
It is however a sin for a man to have sex with a man, etc.
Report comment to moderator
news2me 12.18.09 AT 5:36 PM
According to the Bible the man should be the teacher of men.
But it isn’t a sin for a woman to lead.
It is however a sin for a man to have sex with a man, etc.
–
When you look at God’s Word from start to finish. You see certian roles for man and certain roles for a woman. Man is called to be the head of the house hold, he is called to love his wife as Christ loves the Church, He is to be the Spiritual Head of the House Hold. An as we see the role of man in the Church is to be in charge of the Church, we see this in the OT and NT.
Now I can not find any passage showing a Woman being in charger of God’s House.
Report comment to moderator
Therefore, if a man or woman is having sex with their own gender they should not be leading the church and telling the church that homosexuality is ok because society has changed.
According to the Bible there is NOTHING NEW under the sun.
Homosexuality is NOT NEW.
Adultery is NOT NEW.
Fornication is NOT NEW.
Go and sin no more.
I will NOT attend a church LEAD by an adulterer or a fornicator, just as I wouldn’t attend a church LEAD by a homosexual.
Are these people welcome in our churches? Yes.
ALL Christians are sinners saved ONLY by Grace,
and ONLY thru Jesus Christ our LORD.
Report comment to moderator
Now I believe a woman can preach and teach in the Church but not as the Pastor. When a woman is preaching and teaching in the Church, she is under the Pastor autho.
Report comment to moderator
PASTOR #50
you are correct in what you say about a woman’s role, but
It is hard for many to follow that when men have forsaken their families–Christian men, as many as non-Christian men.
Report comment to moderator
news2me 12.18.09 AT 5:45 PM
PASTOR #50
you are correct in what you say about a woman’s role, but
It is hard for many to follow that when men have forsaken their families–Christian men, as many as non-Christian men
–
that is the sin of men today, not taken the correct role in the family and in God’s House.
Report comment to moderator
In the Bible it says that the leader of the church has a lot of responsibility on him. He will be held responsible for his flock. Do you know what verse I am referring to? I can’t remember.
Report comment to moderator
news2me 12.18.09 AT 5:50 PM
In the Bible it says that the leader of the church has a lot of responsibility on him. He will be held responsible for his flock. Do you know what verse I am referring to? I can’t remember.
-
sorry I am at work an do not have my Bible with me.
Report comment to moderator
As this thread has trodden upon the usual ground regarding the bible and homosexuality, I suggest that anyone who cares to dig into what the bible actually says about homosexual behavior consider reading “The Bible and Homosexual Practice” by Robert A.J. Gagnon.
Report comment to moderator
Sir I am do not know Robert A.J. Gagnon is he a Christian writer? Does he support Homosexual?
Report comment to moderator
Davidheinaman – 57
There have been many books written about what the Bible says regarding homosexuality – however, after it’s all written and spoken, the Bible is the LAST Word, it says clearly that it is sin. All the books in the world, no matter how scholarly they appear, cannot compete with the Word of GOD -….. as if to do better.
One doesn’t have to read a book to “to dig into what the bible actually says about homosexual behavior” – the Bible has done it GOD’s way, HIS inerrant inspired Word.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria I try to say I wa sorry to thomas but I believe it feel on deaft ears
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy,
We know you tried –
GOD bless you my friend.
Report comment to moderator
Warren at #26: No, I believe you are wrong. Spong makes it very clear in his most recent three books that he can no longer share the beliefs of the Episcopalians. Contra Allison, Spong does not “recite the Apostle’s Creed” and does not hesitate to explain why he no longer feels he can. He holds no position in the Episcopal Church that I’m aware of, as a leader or anything else.
He is entitled to be called a “retired Bishop,” because he is. But that does not mean he is still an Episcopalian.
Report comment to moderator
#51 – News2me: The past tense and past participle of the verb to lead is “led” not “lead.” (I know, I know, it’s yet another nit-pick.) I assume that’s what you meant.
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy: However, both (a) and (b) are distinct from saying that God’s views have evolved or changed over time, so that some portion of the Bible no longer reflects God’s present-day beliefs. It is this latter position that I have seen purveyed by liberal mainline denominations, and it is in tension with the divine attribute of immutability.
I think it is more accurate to say that human understanding of God has evolved over time. God does not change, but how well we understand him does.
Of course, if you insist that the Bible is God’s perfect Word and not the imperfect work of humans, you can’t accept this possibility. But you should at least understand the difference.
Report comment to moderator
Conan – your distinction between God evolving versus human understanding of God evolving is a valid one. However, it seems from your follow-on that your conception of human understanding of God does not entail the Bible being God’s word, but rather, as you put it, the “imperfect work of humans.” If that’s what I thought, then I could consistently move away from the biblical text in arriving at a better understanding of God. However, I do in fact accept the Bible as inspired and infallible. Therefore, I cannot accept the idea that its writers were mistaken about certain things, and in our more educated (read: “evolved”) society we can move beyond that text to a better understanding of God that is inconsistent with it.
Report comment to moderator
And yes I do understand the difference. If non-Christians adopt your position, “it is what it is” as the saying goes. What I was getting at is that some Christian denominations — the liberal mainlines — adopt your position. That’s the rub. I don’t know how an organization can call itself a Christian denomination or Christian church and take the position that the biblical text is mistaken, old-fashioned, or out-of-date based on more modern knowledge.
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy – That’s the rub. I don’t know how an organization can call itself a Christian denomination or Christian church and take the position that the biblical text is mistaken, old-fashioned, or out-of-date based on more modern knowledge.
–
very well put
Report comment to moderator
#63 BUZZY
Sorry.
I am definitely NOT good at English. Never was.
My spelling used to be correct–now I Google.
Report comment to moderator
BUZZY
Re: #51 :LOL:
It probably should be LEAD, as in that’s very heavy stuff.
Report comment to moderator
PASTOR ROY: It is impossible to offend a heart of stone.
Report comment to moderator
If there is a God (very unlikely) Its existence or non-existence has nothing to do with how many people believe in It.
If there is a God, and It wants humans to worship It, [why?], does It depend for its sustenance on how many do so?
Why is it so important to you to count up how many agree with you? If you numbers are dropping off, what does that tell us, except perhaps that the market for religious fanaticism is dropping off, though I suspect as long as humans are mortal, they will cling to any hope there is some there there after we are gone.
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy 65&66 – I think you just succinctly described the arguments of Bishop Spong and his influence on some Episcopalians and other intellectualistic Christians.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t know how an organization can call itself a Christian denomination or Christian church and take the position that the biblical text is mistaken, old-fashioned, or out-of-date based on more modern knowledge.
Tell a female pastor or priest that she should be silent in church and submit to her husband, Buzzy, and that your exhortation is based on the biblical text. When she stops laughing at you, she’ll gladly explain.
Report comment to moderator
Roger, as often stated, one must care in order to be offended. Serially offending others also demonstrates an in-your-face uncaring so-called christian.
Report comment to moderator
Random wants to know: Why is it so important to you to count up how many agree with you?
The human capacity for cognitive dissonance is not limited to retail purchases of dry goods.
Nor is the suspension of logic limited to children. Here, we are seeing the logical fallacy that a decline in numbers of a denomination of a group where most denominations are declining in numbers means ipso facto that something is wrong with that particular denomination. It’s a logical fallacy presented as fact in this forum, and what it boils down to is: more = better.
We all know that’s not true. Ask a kid in a park what he thinks about more goose poop on the lawns. More crime? Not good. More cancer cells? Not a good situation.
Likewise, the lack of sourcing for Mr. Smith’s opinions and analyses is perfect in this forum, because it serves the purpose of propaganda rather well. It doesn’t render this piece very quotable or valuable to anyone making a study of Christianity in general or Episcopalians in particular.
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy: Well, it may be that the truth of God and Christ doesn’t depend on every word of the Bible being literally true. And that seems like a pretty dangerous position to take, since it means if any part of it is shown to not be literally true, your foundation crumbles.
That’s why we see such dogged resistance from some to gains in knowledge. If the modern knowledge is correct, it renders some part of the Bible not literally true, and threatens their belief entirely.
But those who take a more human-oriented view of Scripture can maintain their faith in God and Christ quite easily even if not every word is literally true. They do not need to fight science tooth and nail to maintain their faith. And it seems to me that any faith that does require the denial of knowledge from other sources is a pretty weak faith.
Report comment to moderator
#26, Warren Cole Smith wrote; “Normally, when I write an article, I don’t jump into the comments section.”
Thank you for your corrective comment. I like WMB a lot but my biggest complaint is that the authors play hit n run, never to return. Thanks for not doing that this time, Warren.
Report comment to moderator
There are many living churches that offer living hope in the face of sin.
There are many dead churches who just tip-toe around the problem of sin and play church.
The Episcopalian church fits yet another category–actively sanctioning and glorifying sin without a shred of repentance, all in the name of God.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas, since she clearly doesn’t believe the Bible she claims to be preaching, why does she bother preaching it? And why do you bother calling yourself a Christian, since you treat the Bible with less respect than you’d treat any book by an author you actually trust?
Report comment to moderator
This blog is by a young Episcopal priest. I defy anyone to read a few entries and say he’s not a Christian.
Report comment to moderator
Conan, how does that matter? Episcopalians are at odds with themselves, not to mention the inerrancy of the Bible.
Report comment to moderator
Conan #76 – It may be that the truth of God and Christ doesn’t depend on every word of the Bible being literally true.
I’m not sure what it means for every word to be “literally true.” The Bible contains many types of literature. Some is history, some poetry, some wisdom literature, some theology, some prophecy, some exhortations. Each must be interpreted according to its type and the context in which it is written. For example, we use phenomenological language in every day speaking (e.g., the sun is going behind the clouds), without intending to assert that it is “literally” true (i.e., we know the clouds are moving, and not the sun). The Bible uses this type of language too, without compromising its veracity on issues of truth, God, goodness, morality, evil, eternal destiny, etc. The reason is it was written to be understood for those purposes, and not as a science textbook.
But those who take a more human-oriented view of Scripture can maintain their faith in God and Christ quite easily even if not every word is literally true. They do not need to fight science tooth and nail to maintain their faith. And it seems to me that any faith that does require the denial of knowledge from other sources is a pretty weak faith.
By “human-oriented view,” I assume you’re referring back to your prior reference to the “imperfect work of humans” relative to the biblical text. My question would be, if you view the Bible this way, and thus end up rejecting part of the text as flawed, doesn’t that cause your faith in God and Christ to crumble? In other words, how can you know what to believe about God and Christ when you’re never sure which part of the text is going to crumble next? Also, belief in the divine inspiration of Scripture does not require denial of knowledge from other sources. We can get knowledge from many extra-biblical sources. Finally, I don’t think the Bible and good science can ever be in contradiction. If they seem to be, then either the science is bad or our understanding of the biblical text is erroneous (or both).
Report comment to moderator
My question would be, if you view the Bible this way, and thus end up rejecting part of the text as flawed, doesn’t that cause your faith in God and Christ to crumble? In other words, how can you know what to believe about God and Christ when you’re never sure which part of the text is going to crumble next?
There is nothing about Christianity per se that says you must believe the entire Bible, and only the Bible. That’s an invention of (much) later theologians … within the last couple hundred years.
To be a Christian, you only need to believe in the saving power of Christ. There are themes through the Bible that reflect that, but even that doesn’t depend on every word or every story being true. One can believe that Christ came to save us from sin and rose from the dead, but not believe there was ever a global flood. The truth of one does not depend on the other.
As for “how you know,” you don’t. YOU don’t. No one does. You CHOOSE to believe that the Bible is true, but you don’t KNOW it is.
Report comment to moderator
Hi CONANTHELIBRARIAN,
As FOR “how you know” WHAT others know, YOU don’t. You CHOOSE to believe others DON’T know, BUT you don’t KNOW they don’t know.
Report comment to moderator
For Cheryl
Thomas, since she clearly doesn’t believe the Bible she claims to be preaching, why does she bother preaching it?
She who? Of whom are you speaking?
And why do you bother calling yourself a Christian, since you treat the Bible with less respect than you’d treat any book by an author you actually trust?
As I’ve said, Biblical literalism is the province of the intellectually challenged Christian. I’m not one of those. I treat the Bible with more respect thamn literalists do by actually thinking about it rather than reading it like a science text. God did give me a mind, after all, with the expectation that I would use it.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas: Cheryl was speaking of the hypothetical woman you mentioned in #73.
Macrutabaga: Unless God himself has appeared to you and told you that the Bible is his only true word, then you are operating on belief taught by fallible humans.
Report comment to moderator
Conan @ 86, thank you for clearing that up. I challenge Cheryl to actually speak to a female Pastor or priest and get back to us on the subject.
Report comment to moderator
Seems like the departing Episcopalians outnumber the clique of UnScriptural leaders. So how did the clique gain control? Someone should look into their seminaries where this “problem” began
Report comment to moderator
Conan #83 – There is nothing about Christianity per se that says you must believe the entire Bible…
First, I agree with you that one’s salvation by faith in Christ does not depend on that person believing the whole Bible – in fact many come to saving faith without having read more than a small portion of the Bibe, if any. They grow in faith later through the study of God’s word, prayer, and other means of grace.
Second, I do think the N.T. clarifies that all of the Bible is divinely inspired (2 Tim. 3:16). The N.T. writers recognized this about other N.T. writers at times (e.g., 2 Pet. 3:16 – commending Paul’s letters as scripture), and Jesus himself understood the O.T. as God’s word. Again, however, while I think that’s a correct theological position, I would agree with you to the extent that I don’t think everyone has to be 100% right theologically to be saved by faith in Christ. Also, as for needing to believe every word is true, again I would note that the idea of a word being “true” or “literally true” as you phrased it earlier, is hard to understand as a concept, since much of the Bible uses metaphor (e.g., Song of Songs, Psalms), parable (stories that are intended to be understood metaphorically), phenomenological language (describing things how they appear to us, rather than in a scientific way), and apocolyptic language (e.g., Daniel, Zechariah, Revelation), which tends to be highly symbolic. Perhaps I’m falsely responding to a hyper-literalism accusation on your part which you had no intent of making.
…and only the Bible.
I answered this above. I don’t know of any Christian who denies that knowledge can be gained from other sources besides the Bible. The only point is if another source cannot be reconciled with the Bible, that other source should not be accepted as true.
You CHOOSE to believe that the Bible is true, but you don’t KNOW it is.
This raises a very interesting point. Does a person really “choose” their beliefs? If someone believes X, it is often because they have become convinced that X is true. I believe India exists, although I have never been there, because I have become convinced India exists by things in my life. I cannot “choose” to stop believing India exists, even if I wanted to. In a similar vein, I believe the Bible is the true, inerrant, Word of God based on things that have happened in my life and in my soul while reading the Bible, while praying, and while learning from others. Whether I “chose” that belief is somewhat ambiguous. I think if I wanted to stop believing the Bible is true, I would be unable to do so.
Report comment to moderator
wow.
Pastor Roy — really, get yourself a Book of Common Prayer. A lot of the language we use in worship in English derives from this book. I’ve used if for 20+ years as a guide to morning devotions: the liturgies for morning and evening prayer are quite sound and useful. I like it for prayers like this one, assigned for this week of the year:
There has also been some discussion about the TEC that it does not hold to inerrancy. Well, no, it does not. Anglicans generally consider themselves to be Protestant church in the Catholic tradition. Their way of understanding Scripture gives a greater role to the role of the Church Fathers and Church Tradition than the evangelical church finds comfortable. This traditional approach has allowed for a greater tolerance of critical methods in biblical interpretation, as well as a greater appreciation for methods (e.g. use of allegory) that conservative Protestants typically reject.
To be clear, this is a difference in traditions (conservative Protestant v. Anglican) and not one of theological defection.
Finally, about a remnant, the situation in the TEC is very troubling, but there are voices of those who remain, who work for a Church that is faithful. On this line one might consult the blog of Kendall Harmon (Titus One Nine), and a group blog, Covenant.
Report comment to moderator
CONAN: Why must God have *appeared* to me for me to know of His communication? I wonder about your criteria for believing a thing. Do you really KNOW that “[t]o be a Christian, you only need to believe in the saving power of Christ.” How do you KNOW Christ was resurrected, and if you don’t KNOW, isn’t that a problem?
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy: Also, as for needing to believe every word is true, again I would note that the idea of a word being “true” or “literally true” as you phrased it earlier, is hard to understand as a concept, since much of the Bible uses metaphor (e.g., Song of Songs, Psalms), parable (stories that are intended to be understood metaphorically), phenomenological language (describing things how they appear to us, rather than in a scientific way), and apocolyptic language (e.g., Daniel, Zechariah, Revelation), which tends to be highly symbolic. Perhaps I’m falsely responding to a hyper-literalism accusation on your part which you had no intent of making.
No, I’m not making an accusation of hyper-literalism. What I’m talking about is Christians who, for example, reject evolution not because of any knowledgeable assessment of the scientific evidence, but because it’s not what “the Bible says,” or who insist that there was once a flood that covered the entire Earth because the story is in the Bible, regardless of the utter lack of geological evidence to substantiate it.
This seems to me a very fragile way to structure beliefs. It puts people in the position of having to deny the discoveries of science in defense of Scriptural inerrancy.
To get away from the evolution issue, consider the Copernican view of the solar system. Today, it’s well accepted that the Earth and other planets orbit the sun. But 500 or so years ago, when Copernicus and others first started to expound that view, the Church resisted it because they believed Scripture taught that the Earth was the center of everything.
On the topic of inspiration, the reference to 2 Timothy doesn’t really help. It says “all Scripture,” but it does not in any way define what the author meant by that. Certainly the Bible as we know it today did not exist at that time, as the canon was still three centuries or so from being fixed, and the New Testament documents had not all been written yet. There were many writings floating around claiming to be inspired by God, many of which the Church ultimately rejected. And the canon changed again with the Protestant Reformation, when some of the books were relegated to the level of apocrypha and which are not even included anymore in most non-Catholic Bibles.
So what is the “all scripture” being referred to?
Report comment to moderator
Warren at #26: My criticism of him (and many others like him in ECUSA leadership; he is no longer an anomaly in that body) has nothing to do with homosexuality, as #12 asserts, and everything to do with the authority of scripture.
It’s funny then that your first two points of evidence that the ECUSA is “winding down” is the appointments of gay clergy.
Report comment to moderator
Macrutabaga: OK, so tell me how you know the Bible is God’s inerrant word. It’s clear you believe it. How do you KNOW it?
Report comment to moderator
What has been called the three legs of the stool of authority in the Episcopal Church are the Bible, Tradition, and reason. Martin Luther called reason a whore. It can be manipulated and run in circles. Jesus called tradition, elevated to a level plain with God’s commands, sin. Higher Criticism (reason and tradition) is a vain attempt of man to think he is intelligent. While reason, grammar, and history are used to understand the Bible there is a key to understanding scripture. That key is faith. Faith is the gift of the Holy Spirit Who enables the believer to confess that Jesus is Lord not my reason, not my emotions, not my traditions, not my money, not my works.
Report comment to moderator
conan,
Supposed evolutionists assume living cells without a spiritual base..
..there’s never been any of those.
The reason many reject the infallible facts regarding Noah and the flood, is because of the REAL reason behind the judgment. It’s real irritating to Bible rejectors, that evil would be interrupted..
“And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually.” (Ge 6:5)
:-O
Report comment to moderator
Thomas, how would talking with women preachers show me that the Bible isn’t true in its assessment that women aren’t supposed to be pastors? For what it’s worth, for many years I had a close friend who was one, and I studied the issue in depth, but determined that the Bible truly did not allow woman pastors. I’m sure I could talk with an adulterer and be told the Bible doesn’t challenge adultery, but the one talking would be wrong and the Bible would still be right.
No one who knows me would consider me intellectually challenged or unthinking, by the way; that insult of those who believe the Bible to be true was needless. Let me ask you this: Are you showing more intellectual sophistication if you have to question every word your wife says to see whether it is true, or by interacting with what she actually says? It seems to me that cynicism and constant doubting shows less intellectual rigor than study of the actual text does.
Report comment to moderator
conan,
Fundamentals and literalism is the only way to soundness.
Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are literalists and fundamentalists….
…they know that an “s” is not a “”.
“Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.” (Ga 3:16)
Even Ken Miller knows that “CREATED” starts with a “C” and not an “E”. But the “evolution industrial complex” sometimes holds great sway.
Report comment to moderator
Conan, I laughed when I read your assertion that there’s no evidence of a worldwide flood. What would count as evidence to you? Let’s see, we have three major lines of evidence: (1) the Bible’s very careful record, including genealogies and dimensions of the ark (since then determined to be the dimensions of a very seaworthy vessel and the kind of detail that “myths” simply don’t include); (2) major evidence from geology, including huge amounts of fossilized animals buried quickly and features like the Grand Canyon, and likely even the breaking of the pangea into separate continents (something major happened to cause that); and (3) stories in every culture of a worldwide flood (though told without the precision of the Genesis account). Also, the rest of the Bible treats it as true.
Scientists don’t want to say there’s worldwide evidence of a global flood, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t any. There are vast amounts, actually.
Report comment to moderator
The REAL reason a literal Genesis is challenged, is because involves the infallible fact of the Fall.
That’s REAL irritating to the Bible rejectors.
Why? It implies the critical necessity of the victory at Calvary.
Thus, the sinner wants to pretend that sin is not so sinful.
Thus, making the dodging of accountability before God (in a fantasy of self-delusion), that much eeasier.
“Be not deceived; God is not mocked….” (Ga 6:7)
:-O
Report comment to moderator
The ape and the human being are very far apart, indeed.
They differ as to spiritual constitution. Chemical-onlyites haven’t a clue.
And peacocks will not be the result of melting a 64 box of
crayons, over low heat, for millions of years.
Having said that, there may be a place for a nice ship ride from time to time..
“For the king had at sea a navy of Tharshish with the navy of Hiram: once in three years came the navy of Tharshish, bringing gold, and silver, ivory, and apes, and peacocks.” (1Ki 10:22)
And they may all enjoy a little banana creme pie.
Report comment to moderator
Conan – This seems to me a very fragile way to structure beliefs. It puts people in the position of having to deny the discoveries of science in defense of Scriptural inerrancy.
Here, you seem to start from the premise that people intentionally “structure beliefs” based on what obstacles they anticipate down the road. As I attempted to explain in the last paragraph of #89, that’s not how many beliefs come about.
Consider the Copernican view of the solar system. Today, it’s well accepted that the Earth and other planets orbit the sun. But 500 or so years ago, when Copernicus and others first started to expound that view, the Church resisted it because they believed Scripture taught that the Earth was the center of everything.
That doesn’t show Scripture was untrustworthy, only that the church leaders’ interpretation of it was overly scientific in nature (as opposed to allowing room for Scripture’s use of phenomenological language, as I’ve discussed above).
I’ll get back to your point about the development of the canon tonight. Right now I have to deal with a major snow storm and a half-dozen children who want to go sledding! Have a wonderful day.
Report comment to moderator
God has providentially preserved HIS Word perfect in the Bible. God has used HIS servants in HIS time and way, to provide HIS revelation.
This can be irritating to a high priest of yesteryear..
“Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.” (Lu 3:2)
Hurt feelings, in the realm of entitlement, can bring on stomach indigestion at the religious elite luncheon. Even if one is privileged to eat something better than locusts and wild honey.
Report comment to moderator
In the picture, it appears that Gene has something to say of substance.
That can’t be it.
It must the rigidly-starched, collar-edge, jamming the inferior margin of the hyoid bone.
Repent and loosen up, Gene..
“[This] I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.” (Ga 5:16)
…later…over and out.
Report comment to moderator
Re #92 The Canon
The Apocrypha were not part of the original bible. Jerome included them in his latin translation (vulgate), but he marked them as doubtful and didn’t elevate them to canon status.
Over the next thousand years, the Catholic church came to accept the apocrypha. When Martin Luther was translating the bible into german, he took Jerome’s notes seriously and didn’t include the apocrypha. By omitting it, he was simply restoring the bible to the way it used to be.
btw, the apocrypha are old testament era books, and the jews do not recognize them as scripture either.
Report comment to moderator
what is meant by “all scripture”?
Near the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry he read from the scroll of Isaiah. He often quoted what we call the O.T. In John chapter 4, he confirmed that he sided with the Jewish bible over the Samaritan bible. In John chapter 10 he stated that Scripture cannot be anulled. It is also interesting that he never quoted or alluded to apocryphal books.
Canon means “measuring stick.” The N.T. is made up of books which “measured up” to the standard. While some books were debated and ultimately rejected, the 4 gospels were never in question.
Report comment to moderator
CONAN at 93: Well, I did ask you first.
Report comment to moderator
Conanthelibrarian wrote; “To be a Christian, you only need to believe in the saving power of Christ.”
Incorrect. The Bible says that even the demons believe and shudder (see James 2:19). To be a Christian, you MUST repent of your sins and believe in the saving power of Christ to the extent that His righteousness grows in you. Otherwise, you are not a Christian.
Easy believism is rampent in America. It’s a theological shame.
Report comment to moderator
At #80, Conanthelibrarian linked us to a blog that is by a young Episcopal priest and wrote; “I defy anyone to read a few entries and say he’s not a Christian.”
I read several entries and articles and found absolutely zero grounds to say he is or isn’t a Christian. He can write words endlessless without saying anything of real substance whatsoever.
Report comment to moderator
In answer to the question about the prevalence of unChristian doctrine in the Episcopal Church, the first 17 pages of the American Anglican Council’s report should give you a fairly thorough answer. It’s current as of Feb 2009 so it doesn’t mention the Buddhist who was elected bishop but failed to receive the required consents. The report is here: http://www.americananglican.org/assets/Publications/Primates-Report-Final.pdf.
Report comment to moderator
sorry, it’s here:
http://www.americananglican.org/assets/Publications/Primates-Report-Final.pdf
Report comment to moderator
Thank you Ralinda, after a cursory reading it seems to fit with Bishop Spong’s Episcopalian sect of intellectualists submitting to cultural whims and heresy.
Report comment to moderator
Conan,
It seems to me as though your idea of God is quite a manageable deity. You choose which parts of His revelation to believe, but since you’re nice enough to “believe” in Him a little bit, He’ll forgive you and let you into heaven at the end. The Bible doesn’t present such a build-it-yourself kind of deity. Either the God of the Bible is true–the Creator, the Law Giver, and the Judge as well as the Savior and King–or you are your own god answering to yourself and hoping God will slide in on your terms. But He won’t. He won’t allow rival gods, and He is who He is. Read Exodus 20 for a sense of what He thinks of alternate deities (including alternative representations of who He is that aren’t approved by Him).
Report comment to moderator
CherylD: I laughed when I read your woeful lack of understanding of science in #99.
1. The Bible’s record of geneaologies and the dimensions of the ark can’t be shown to be true or false. Whether it would have been seaworthy or not I don’t know (though there would be nothing remarkable about it if it were, as people knew how to build boats), but there’s no way it would have been anywhere near big enough to hold all the animals and plants and food stores with them.
2. Fossils are in no way evidence of a global flood. What would be evidence of a global flood would be the appropriate markings in the geological strata showing a major flood event that happened around the whole world at the same time, and nothing like that exists.
3.Likewise, stories of floods occur in most cultures because most places flood. There’s no evidence that the stories derive from the same worldwide flood.
You sound like you get most of your science “knowledge” from Answers In Genesis or similar sources. You’re being misled. But you’re providing a good example of the kind of person I was talking to Buzzy about. Your faith is so dependent on your Biblical inerrancy that you will believe any pseudoscience you can find that reinforces that belief, no matter how absurd it is.
Report comment to moderator
Macrutabaga: I answered your question with a question because it seems to be obvious that no one can know with certainty that any given religious text is the word of God. If you’re going to assert that you do know, I’d like to know how you know.
How do you have knowledge, and not belief?
Report comment to moderator
But CONAN, that just won’t do. You made the following robust assertion: “To be a Christian, you only need to believe in the saving power of Christ.” There are a number of implications to that proposition: People need saving; Christ saves; He’s still somehow active; his power is accessed or activated via one’s belief, etc. You made the claim without qualification, as if you KNOW it to be true. How could you have KNOWN any of this stuff without its delivery through fallible human agency? Do you recall having written this:
“Unless God himself has appeared to you and told you that the Bible is his only true word, then you are operating on belief taught by fallible humans.”
Does that criticism not apply to your KNOWledge?
So given that you’re the one making claims as to what others KNOW, and that you’ve claimed certain knowledge of your own, I only think it’s fair you answer the question I posed in 91, reproduced here:
Report comment to moderator
Mac: There are a number of implications to that proposition: People need saving; Christ saves; He’s still somehow active; his power is accessed or activated via one’s belief, etc. You made the claim without qualification, as if you KNOW it to be true. How could you have KNOWN any of this stuff without its delivery through fallible human agency?
I don’t know it, and didn’t claim to. I was merely describing what’s essential to being a Christian, and belief in Biblical inerrancy is not a requirement. Joel Mark corrected me in #108 on one point, but that still doesn’t amount to inerrancy.
The rest of your post is just avoidance I think. I suppose I can say I don’t KNOW that you don’t know; I just think it’s very likely the case. But since it appears you claim knowledge, I would like to hear you explain how it is that you know, rather than believe, that the Bible is God’s word.
Since you are apparently trying to avoid answering that, I assume you know you have no good answer.
Report comment to moderator
CONAN: I’m not following. What are you saying you don’t know? When you said what I quoted you as saying, and when you “describe what’s essential to being a Christian,” aren’t you telling me you KNOW those things? I’m not avoiding anything. YOU were the one making the sweeping claim. So do you KNOW Christ was resurrected? Do you really KNOW what’s essential to being a Christian? Those notions are no different, in essence, than inerrancy–they’re subject to the same criticism you try to apply against the ‘inerrantist’–they spring from the same fallible source; God didn’t appear to you to communicate them. If you don’t KNOW whether those things are true, but still argue they’re *essential*, that’s a problem.
No, I’m not avoiding anything. YOU made the claims; don’t blame me for sounding you out on them.
Report comment to moderator
Conan, the question about the ark’s size has been more than adequately answered many times: there was plenty of room for the animals and food for them, with only two of each species or kind, and the possibility that young (smaller) ones were taken in as well. I’m not a numbers person (as far as being able to remember and recite a summary of the evidence), but entire books have been written on this. This question cannot be said to be unanswered.
As to whether the fossil evidence points to a worldwide flood, those who disbelieve there was one do tend to believe that it doesn’t. But it’s sure hard to imagine anything else it does point to (animals don’t die and get fossilized in the very act of swallowing another animal under normal circumstances!), and to reject it outright as even possible evidence for the flood seems quite unscientific. Remember, I don’t personally have to “prove” the flood existed; but you said there is no evidence for the flood, and what I am asserting is that there is.
And again, the Bible does tell of this very clearly, and when we have actual history about an event, and plenty of evidence, giving the “benefit of the doubt” to the record from God Himself simply makes sense. He can be trusted, and when the evidence also backs up His Word (as it does), then choosing not to believe is choosing doubt, not being forced to doubt. So yes, I do trust God’s Word even without 100% “proof” of it. He is God, and I am not, and furthermore His Word has never been disproven in spite of multiple efforts to do so.
If we had a world without massive fossil graveyards, major erosion, and even continents hugely dislocated, then one could say there was no “evidence” of a worldwide flood outside of Scripture. As it is, one cannot honestly say that. My dad said many times that if the Bible hadn’t reported a worldwide flood, scientists would have proven one . . . and I believe he’s right. It is simply not in the best interest of naturalistic science to say, “Wow, this find backs up Genesis!!” So the lack of scientists coming on board and admitting that there is major evidence of a worlwide flood, depositing fish fossils at the top of multiple very high mountains for example, doesn’t mean there is no evidence. It simply means the evidence that exists conflicts with the prior worldview of scientists, and frankly that doesn’t bother me one little bit. God can be trusted. And if I look “stupid” to you for trusting Him and rejoicing that there is plenty of evidence when in your mind (which tends to doubt instead of believe) there is not, so be it. I’d rather stand with God than against Him any day of the week.
Report comment to moderator
The two things that make me laugh hardest here are:
1. Nana’s classification of Episcopalians as “intellectualists”, which she considers an insult, but which most people would consider a compliment. I mean, how dare people use the mind that God has given them!
2. Cheryl D’s idea that the fossil record supports a Biblical version of The Great Flood.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 wrote; “The two things that make me laugh hardest here…”
You are not a serious poster here, Thomas. Nana and Cheryl made intelligent points respectfully, and you show them no respect–though it is well deserved. You are not serious.
Report comment to moderator
Here’s one thing that perplexes me. How a person who wants to change the meaning of the Bible and calls plain language “literalism.” I can’t imagine telling God …. oh, let’s not go there.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl: This question cannot be said to be unanswered.
Maybe, but it can be said to be unanswered by anything remotely close to realism.
I am not going to try to debate you on this. You obviously believe a lot of things that are simply absurd, because they allow you to maintain Biblical literalism and still imagine yourself to be well-informed.
Report comment to moderator
Mac: CONAN: I’m not following. What are you saying you don’t know? When you said what I quoted you as saying, and when you “describe what’s essential to being a Christian,” aren’t you telling me you KNOW those things?
I know what is essential to be a Christian because the various theologians and others who formulated the essentials laid it out centuries ago. I do NOT know, do not CLAIM to know, if various claims of fact are true.
I do not call myself a Christian, except in the Unitarian sense. I’m not making statements about my own beliefs here. But as a student of religion in general, I know that some beliefs are historically considered essential to being a Christian, and others are not. Biblical inerrancy is not, except in the opinions of a few schools of thought, and is a relatively recent invention. For most of Christian history, the inerrancy was in the Church’s authority (whether Roman Catholic or Orthdox.) Most ordinary believers were not even able to read the Bible, let alone hold opinions about it. After the Reformation, some groups became alarmed that people who were now able to read the Bible were treating it as having some spiritual value but not being infallible, so they made it part of their denominational doctrine to call it infallible or inerrant.
I’m not avoiding anything. YOU were the one making the sweeping claim. So do you KNOW Christ was resurrected?
Not at all, nor did I claim to. There are some good arguments that he was. There are some good arguments that he was not. Ultimately, it’s a matter of faith and belief, not inarguable fact.
Do you really KNOW what’s essential to being a Christian? Those notions are no different, in essence, than inerrancy–they’re subject to the same criticism you try to apply against the ‘inerrantist’–they spring from the same fallible source; God didn’t appear to you to communicate them. If you don’t KNOW whether those things are true, but still argue they’re *essential*, that’s a problem.
Christianity is a religion. You have to accept certain claims to be a Christian, summed up in the creeds. Religions are not mysterious, what they require of their adherents is usually delineated pretty plainly. I do not claim to know that the claims of Christianity are true or not true; but knowing what those claims are is not remarkable.
Report comment to moderator
Conan, my guess is you haven’t actually seen the hard numbers looking at what it would take to fit all the species into the ark, and to feed them; you assume it’s just silly guesses, but it has actually been plotted out very carefully, and it does work.
But you choose to disbelieve and you’re biased toward thinking it isn’t true, and that anyone who believes it is intellectually challenged. That is your choice, but just don’t see it as the intellectually rigorous one, because it is simply a bias. And you won’t be able to use it as an excuse when you meet God that you thought all of His people were just stupid and that His Word couldn’t be trusted.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl: Thanks for proving the point.
Report comment to moderator
#125 Complete nonsense again Cheryl D – are you referring to “Woodmorappe’s” (a pseudonym) creationist book on the ark? What a crock of pseudo-science for the biologically illiterate! Or is there some other reference you are referring to?!
Here is a very “kind” review of Woodmorappe’s book that discusses each of the faux “scientific” claims in turn: Review of “Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study” by a Christian and former associate of ICR who is no longer a YEC.
Here’s a more sober assessment of the many problems with the ark fish story: The Impossible Voyage of Noah’s Ark
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl – Conan wrote, I do not claim to know that the claims of Christianity are true….
So it’s apparent he does not claim to be a Christian. This post is about an ostensibly Christian denomination that has abandoned the authority of scripture. In the case of someone who does not even claim to be a Christian, I don’t think they’re ever going to believe the Bible is true. (See 1 Cor. 2:14: The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.) So you are never going to convince a non-Christian of the reliability of God’s word. Only God’s Spirit can do that.
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy: Yes, the Bible does come complete with a few nice rationalizations. So when someone points out that the story of Noah’s Ark couldn’t have happened for a long list of reasons, rather than actually have to confront that, you can shrug it off and say, “They don’t get it because they don’t have the Spirit like I do.”
Report comment to moderator
I think “asserts” would have been more appropriate than “points out.”
Report comment to moderator
I am a follower of God. I walk by faith and not by sight. In the end I have to decide if I believe God’s word to be truth which I do. We could go round and round and I have read most of the thread, about the scientific evidenc etc. In the end I walk by faith. I believe someday my faith will turn to sight.
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy,
I know. That’s why I’m not bothering to look up the research and give him the numbers. He doesn’t want to believe. That is his choice, a sad one, but his own choice. I can’t “prove” anything, but can point out that there is available evidence for those who are willing to look into it. (And when we get into apologetics, I’m always aware that there might be a young Christian reading this, who thinks, Hmm, this atheist asked a question the Christians don’t seem to be able to answer, so if I know that there is an answer, saying so might help such a lurker.)
Report comment to moderator
Jiller & Cheryl – the world says, “seeing is believing.” But sometimes you have to believe before you can see. That is called seeing with the eyes of faith. With faith, you can ask God with a sincere heart to show you the truth, and by his grace you will see things that are invisible to the natural eye. Again, the things that come from the Spirit of God … are spiritually discerned (1 Cor. 2:14). May God bless you richly.
Report comment to moderator
No one who knows me would consider me intellectually challenged or unthinking…
Report comment to moderator
Small point: I’m not an atheist.
Report comment to moderator
what you are arguing for (Cheryl and Buzzy) is that the Bible is correct and science is wrong when the two conflict. Which is just what I was talking about originally in posts 64 and 76.
It’s an anti-intellectual position that elevates, in my opinion, the Bible to the level of an idol. Instead of having a relationship with the living God, you wave the book around and insist it must always be true, no matter how much evidence contradicts a particular story.
And this is a good example. If someone comes to you and says he believes in Jesus and believes that Jesus’s death provides salvation, what possible difference does it make if he doesn’t believe the Noah story is anything more than legend?
Holding to Christian faith depends on faith in Christ, not in gullibly believing every word in the Bible.
Report comment to moderator
Conan – but you are not a Christian, by your own admission. So why are you lecturing us on the right way to be a Christian? And why do you even care?
Report comment to moderator
Conan,
I have a relationship with the living God, and thus I trust Him and what He has written.
Figuring out what happened historically is more history than science, by the way, and trustworthy historical records are an important part of history. If a written record and speculation about the time period seem to conflict, how much weight we give to each depends on how reliable the written record is, including how reliable it has proven to be about other things.
It would be foolish, for example, to discount a diary written by George Washington recording eating something or other for breakfast because modern historians “know” that no one ate that item for breakfast in Washington’s day. If the diary wasn’t known to be genuine, we can weigh that hesitation in the evidence pro and con. If the diary is genuine, and we know the one writing it was trustworthy, we give it more weight than we give to people whose evidence seems to conflict with it.
Washington’s memory could be faulty at times, however, and thus even the most trustworthy human document is imperfect. Scripture has proven to be more trustworthy than any mere human document, and yes, I trust it absolutely. If something only seems to conflict with Scripture, there might be alternate possibilities. But if Scripture says something very clearly with no legitimate alternative reading, I can and do trust it absolutely. The Word of God is more trustworthy than the best science of man, and particularly more trustworthy than man’s speculations about history. No matter how much evidence may accumulate, speculations about what happened when cannot be 100% reliable–even with news from a year ago. Do I trust the Bible above “science” in telling me what happened thousands of years ago? Absolutely. None of us was there; God was. And He can be trusted.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah, Cheryl, but see, you’re not talking about trusting God, even though you think you are. You’re talking about trusting the promises of PEOPLE that the Bible is the word of God. It depends on people being right about that.
I also trust God, completely. But I am much less willing to trust those preachers who tell me to ignore all the evidence of the observed world and believe legends instead.
Report comment to moderator
Quote from Conan #136:
“Holding to Christian faith depends on faith in Christ, not in gullibly believing every word in the Bible.”
Conan, we do learn about Christ in the Bible, though. I’m just wondering where the line is drawn as to what is to be taken as literal and what is not.
Report comment to moderator
HopeSprings: God gave you a mind to figure out such things. It’s important to note that everybody picks and chooses what they want to believe in the Bible. It’s just that the inerrantist picks all of it. That removes the responsibility to discriminate, but it is no less a choice about what parts to believe or take literally.
On the point of Biblical authority, and it’s been explained before, that’s a relatively new development for Christianity. Before the Protestant Reformation — in other words, for 75 percent of Christian history — the authority was with the Church, not the inidividual believer’s view of Scripture. And for Roman Catholics, Orthodox and to a lesser extent, Anglican/Episcopals, that’s still the case.
So don’t defend the inerrant Bible view as if it were the root of Christianity … it isn’t and never was.
Report comment to moderator
Conan – your view of biblical inerrancy in the history of Christian theology is in serious error. I don’t know where you’re getting your information, but it’s not from a reliable source. And just as you’re accusing us of gullibly believing the veracity of God’s word (although you have no clue why we do, so you’re making an accusation from ignorance), you seem to think that whatever source tells you that biblical inerrancy is a recent development in Christianity is infalliblee.
But my point from #113 remains unanswered: you make no claim to be a Christian other than unitarianism. Therefore, why are you lecturing us on how to be (trinitarian) Christians? I would not presume to approach an Orthodox Jew and tell him, “You have Orthodox Judaism all wrong. You do not need to keep the kosher laws, for example; that has no reliable basis in Judaism. Rather, you only need to do good deeds for your neighbors. Furthermore, I’ll tell you what requirements you should use to decide whether someone else can validly be considered an Orthodox Jew. One parameter is you should not insist that they keep kosher.” Since I’m not an Orthodox Jew, I would come across as extremely arrogant to say something like that. Can you see that you’re coming across that way by lecturing us on our own faith, when you don’t even hold that faith? From your remarks, moreover, it is plain to me, and probably a lot of other people, that you are ignorant what it means to believe in infallibility of God’s word, and why Christians hold to that belief.
Report comment to moderator
… and that’s not even to mention the internal inconsistencies of what you’re saying. The question of who has authority to interpret the biblical text is entirely separate from the question of scriptural infallibility. Can you point to one example where the pre-Reformation church councils asserted that the biblical text contained an error? And even if one were to accept, for sake of argument, your premise that the concept of biblical inerrency only came into play 500 years ago, how does that show it’s wrong?
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark 12.19.09 AT 6:35 PM
Conanthelibrarian wrote; “To be a Christian, you only need to believe in the saving power of Christ.”
Incorrect. The Bible says that even the demons believe and shudder (see James 2:19). To be a Christian, you MUST repent of your sins and believe in the saving power of Christ to the extent that His righteousness grows in you. Otherwise, you are not a Christian.
Easy believism is rampent in America. It’s a theological shame
—
The problem with the idea of repenting for some. It would mean they must admit God has said certain behavior is wrong and not permitted.
Report comment to moderator
Harris – the problem is when you take the pray book and put it on the same level as God’s Word.
Report comment to moderator
Folks, I believe it is coming down to the issue do we believe in God’s Word as being true? Do we believe that sin is real? Do we believe what God calls a sin in the Bible is sin today?
Report comment to moderator
Harris – the problem is when you take the pray book and put it on the same level as God’s Word.
Whack! Ah, no I do not. The Prayer Book is a collection of prayers and liturgies to be used in worship. In this sense it is like any other worship book, indeed historically, we may think of it as sort of a grand-daddy of worship books.
Within the context of the TEC, the BCP functions closer to a keel. While liberals have abandonned biblical sense, nonetheless, the prayerbook’s language, recited in every service, functions to point back to the truth of the Gospel. As I pointed out earlier, there exists a significant difference between the Anglican tradition and that of conservative Evangelicals when it comes to sources of authority: Anglicans along with others in liturgical traditions, give more direct acknowledgment to the role of Tradition in making theological claims. There is also a greater embrace of the role of human reason.
This condition is one of being explicit. In fact even conservative Evangelicals bring in these elements, as well. That is, we have our own Traditions that in turn guide our thinking; and we are more than willing also to appeal to Reason, as well (see the Manhattan Declaration for one of the most recent examples).
Again, the important thing to understand is that this is a matter of methodology, not of theological orthodoxy, per se. So while bad theology often has bad methodology, bad methodology (to our conservative Protestant eyes) does not necessarily lead to bad confession. Incomplete or mistaken, yes, but not wrong.
Report comment to moderator
Harris – we have a post here who does. An I was not saying you do.
Now on this statemnent – “While liberals have abandonned biblical sense, nonetheless, the prayerbook’s language, recited in every service, functions to point back to the truth of the Gospel. ”
Those who have abandonned biblical sense can recited every prayerbook’s language they want. their words are meanless before God, for the season they no longer believe in Him and His Word
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy — the language of a prayer book or of a hymnal can function as a witness for God even when the words spoken elsewhere seem to go against Him. This formal language can’t produce faith, but sometimes for the searcher in the pew, it pushes, nudges the person towards a living faith. God has all sorts of ways of getting people into the kingdom, Balaam’s Ass, rocks, etc.
Report comment to moderator
Harris 12.21.09 AT 2:13 PM
Pastor Roy — the language of a prayer book or of a hymnal can function as a witness for God even when the words spoken elsewhere seem to go against Him. This formal language can’t produce faith, but sometimes for the searcher in the pew, it pushes, nudges the person towards a living faith. God has all sorts of ways of getting people into the kingdom, Balaam’s Ass, rocks, etc.
-
I understand what you are saying but the prayer book or a hymnal. they are not on the same level as God’s Word. One poster here does put his prayer book on the same level or above God’s Word.
Report comment to moderator
Harris 12.21.09 AT 2:13 PM
Pastor Roy — the language of a prayer book or of a hymnal can function as a witness for God even when the words spoken elsewhere seem to go against Him. This formal language can’t produce faith, but sometimes for the searcher in the pew, it pushes, nudges the person towards a living faith. God has all sorts of ways of getting people into the kingdom, Balaam’s Ass, rocks, etc.
-
I understand what you are saying but the prayer book or a hymnal. they are not on the same level as God’s Word. One poster here does put his prayer book on the same level or above God’s Word.
Report comment to moderator
Harris sorry I click it twice an it posted twice.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D – “Scientists don’t want to say there’s worldwide evidence of a global flood, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t any. There are vast amounts, actually.”
There is exactly ZERO evidence of a global flood. Cheryl D – you believe and speak outrageous lies. How is that “Christian?”
Report comment to moderator
#139 What Cheryl D is talking about is putting her faith in institutions like Answers in Genesis or the Institute for Creation Research. They are “GOD” to her. She worships a pack of liars.
Report comment to moderator
How can there be any more reliable “revelation” than the creation itself? Unlike the Bible, it wasn’t penned by ancient men writing in social situations with particular agendas in mind. So if you LIE about the natural world, you can’t possibly have a ghost of a chance to hear anything a putative God might be saying!!
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza,
Posts 153-154 are personal attacks, and lies to boot. You are welcome to apologize and retract them.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D. 12.21.09 AT 4:23 PM
Spinoza,
Posts 153-154 are personal attacks, and lies to boot. You are welcome to apologize and retract them
-
I am sorry that the cyber bully targeted you. Please forgiven him, he does not know any better.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl – be encouraged. The bad guys hate you and the good guys love you.
Report comment to moderator
Rather a backward statement by Spin that lying about the natural world negates hearing what God says, since Jesus Christ Himself told Nicodemus (Jn. 3:12) – If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how shall you believe it I tell you of heavenly things?
If the Scriptures can be wrong on testable matters, why should it be trusted on matters like tha nature of God and life after death, which are not open to empirical testing?
The inerrancy of Scripture was the view of Christ. To a professing Christian, His testimony outweighs speculative theories.
Exactly who is lying or deceived?
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy: Conan – your view of biblical inerrancy in the history of Christian theology is in serious error. I don’t know where you’re getting your information, but it’s not from a reliable source. And just as you’re accusing us of gullibly believing the veracity of God’s word (although you have no clue why we do, so you’re making an accusation from ignorance), you seem to think that whatever source tells you that biblical inerrancy is a recent development in Christianity is infalliblee.
No, it’s a well-established fact of history, really, and there’s no single source from which I draw it. Any good study of the history of Christianity will show it. I suppose it may be that there were no serious scientific or historical challenges to it before the past 500 years or so, so it just wasn’t an issue. Nevertheless, it hasn’t been considered an important issue until the past couple of centuries.
But my point from #113 remains unanswered: you make no claim to be a Christian other than unitarianism. Therefore, why are you lecturing us on how to be (trinitarian) Christians? I would not presume to approach an Orthodox Jew and tell him, “You have Orthodox Judaism all wrong. You do not need to keep the kosher laws, for example; that has no reliable basis in Judaism. Rather, you only need to do good deeds for your neighbors. Furthermore, I’ll tell you what requirements you should use to decide whether someone else can validly be considered an Orthodox Jew. One parameter is you should not insist that they keep kosher.” Since I’m not an Orthodox Jew, I would come across as extremely arrogant to say something like that. Can you see that you’re coming across that way by lecturing us on our own faith, when you don’t even hold that faith?
I suppose that’s a fair point. I’m mostly mystified as to why an intelligent person would adopt a position that requires rejecting knowledge if it conflicts with pre-existing belief.
You might find this amusing and enlightening. But probably not: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDWelEmuJV4
Report comment to moderator
Nana: The inerrancy of Scripture was the view of Christ. To a professing Christian, His testimony outweighs speculative theories.
Was it?
How many times in the Gospels does Christ say, “You have heard it said …” and then offer one of the laws that God handed down to Moses, like “eye for an eye” … and then follow it with “but I say to you…” and change it?
Seems like he thought some of it was in error.
Report comment to moderator
Conan, “Was it?” what? Your argumentative references are so bereft of context and understanding, they’re almost laughable.
Report comment to moderator
Conan, you say, “I’m mostly mystified as to why an intelligent person would adopt a position that requires rejecting knowledge if it conflicts with pre-existing belief.”
Possibly I can help you with this. You seem to be contrasting “knowledge” (something absolutely proven) with “belief” (something you simply believe, without good evidence), and that’s a false comparison.
We aren’t talking about “knowledge” in the 1+1=2 category, in the first place. We’re talking about, say, scientists’ best guesses saying that this rock is 3 million years old. They can’t actually prove it to a layman; they can only say, “That’s what today’s best science tells us.” And they might very well come up with a different age tomorrow. Fact is, they weren’t there when the rock was put there. Their dating may or may not be accurate.
On the other side, we aren’t talking about random, baseless “faith.” We are talking about faith in a knowable God who can be trusted.
Now, sometimes there may seem to be a discrepancy between the two that really aren’t there. In those cases, where one can “believe” science without doubting Scripture, one might as well do so. But when the question is between believing a scientist and believing God–when there really truly IS such a dilemma–then believing God is the safer thing to do. Science has often said that something in Scripture cannot be true. Sometimes it’s telling us miracles can’t be true; sometimes it’s telling us that no such civilization ever existed; and sometimes it’s telling us we’re wrong about other things (origins or the Flood, or the existence of such a person or such a civilization). Multiple times the scientists have had to backtrack; God’s Word has never had to be rewritten. I’m not embarrassed to stand by God’s Word and say that it is worthy of the trust I place in it, and more importantly in its author. Scientists have egg on their face a lot (various fossils declared to be human ancestors, etc.), but God’s Word still stands intact. I’ll stay with it, and that doesn’t mean I choose “faith” over reason. It means I choose both.
Report comment to moderator
ConanTheLibrarian 12.21.09 AT 5:05 PM
Nana: The inerrancy of Scripture was the view of Christ. To a professing Christian, His testimony outweighs speculative theories.
Was it?
How many times in the Gospels does Christ say, “You have heard it said …” and then offer one of the laws that God handed down to Moses, like “eye for an eye” … and then follow it with “but I say to you…” and change it?
Seems like he thought some of it was in error.
–
not at all Christ was teaching about Grace, Mercy which the law its self was unflaxable in it’s passing of jugdement
Report comment to moderator
Thank you Pastor Roy, doesn’t every Christian knows that Christ was the fulfillment of the law?
Report comment to moderator
Nana 12.21.09 AT 5:26 PM
Thank you Pastor Roy, doesn’t every Christian knows that Christ was the fulfillment of the law?
–
No, the reason they need the law to justify their support of sin. They see Christ as just this loven person that would never tell someone to repent
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza: You are crossing the line in your comments directed at Cheryl D. Cut out the name calling and argue the points not the person.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy: But why would God give a law that allows His people to exact justice in equal measure to the offense (eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life), and then come in an incarnation and retract that law?
Either God changed his mind, or else allowed people to live for a couple of thousand years under a law far harsher than the standard he eventually planned to institute …
… or the Old Testament laws are more a product of the people and culture of the time than they are from God.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl: Your phrase “believe God” is the whole problem I have. You choose to believe that the Bible is the word of God, and as a result of that, you equate doubting the Bible with doubting God. That’s one big piece of circular reasoning.
I would tell you that I DO believe God, I just don’t believe the Bible is entirely from God. Your belief structure won’t allow you to accept that the two things can be different.
Frankly, I find your grasp of science to be minimal at best, and your continued citing of “facts” that are clearly incorrect to anyone who understands the science to be naive. But the core problem is that you cannot separate faith in God from an unyielding insistence on the inerrancy of the Bible. Which is exactly the problem I’ve been describing.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl: Science has often said that something in Scripture cannot be true. Sometimes it’s telling us miracles can’t be true; sometimes it’s telling us that no such civilization ever existed; and sometimes it’s telling us we’re wrong about other things (origins or the Flood, or the existence of such a person or such a civilization). Multiple times the scientists have had to backtrack; God’s Word has never had to be rewritten. I’m not embarrassed to stand by God’s Word and say that it is worthy of the trust I place in it, and more importantly in its author. Scientists have egg on their face a lot (various fossils declared to be human ancestors, etc.), but God’s Word still stands intact.
And there ya go. See, science is SUPPOSED to correct itself. The fact that scientists modify their theories with new data, and sometimes drop them altogether when the evidence turns out to not support them, is the strength of science. It’s how the scientific method is supposed to work. For you to suggest that it’s some kind of weakness shows you really do not understand what science actually is.
The Bible “stands intact” because how could it do otherwise? It’s a collection of ancient texts and provides no way to change anything. They’re not similar things. Science is a process of discovery and invention. The Bible is a set of books that are what they are.
Report comment to moderator
“The Bible . . . provides no way to change anything.” Au contraire, for as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater, so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it … For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any two-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. … and the word was God. . . . The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. … .
Brothers and sisters in Christ: from the beginning, it has been the enemy’s strategy to cast doubt the veracity of God’s word. To Adam & Eve: “Hath God said…?” To the One of whom God the Father said, “This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased [Matt. 3:17]” he said, “If you are the son of God, tell these stones to become bread.” To modern-day secularists: “the Bible is unreliable, it was just written by men and contains errors.” While they are listening to the voice of the enemy of their own souls, you are filled with the Spirit of God, the lover of your soul, and can discern things they cannot. 2 Cor. 2:14. Just as their spirits are dead, yours are alive, for man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.
So it has always been, so it will always be until the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan is cast down forever.
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy, that’s why the naysayers are proselytizing for converts. They’re not lonely, they just want to drag as many souls into the pit as they can.
Report comment to moderator
Maybe that should have read Pit!
Report comment to moderator
Ah, and the last card. If you don’t believe the book in its entirety, if you DARE to raise questions, you’re of the devil.
OK, I’m done.
Report comment to moderator
If what you mean is you’re done lecturing us on how to be a Christian, when you admit that you are not one … if what you mean is you’re done telling us we’re idiots for believing in the authority and infalliblity of Scripture … if what you mean is you’re done arrogantly telling us what’s right with no intention of engaging in a reasonable give-and-take or even trying to understand someone else’s point of view, then I say good riddance.
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza: You are crossing the line in your comments directed at Cheryl D. Cut out the name calling and argue the points not the person.
I AM stating a very important point! Which is – Cheryl D’s assertions about geological support for a global flood, as buttressed by her reading of creationist propaganda, are LIES. This is an important POINT, not just name calling. And if Cheryl wants to refute this point, she is welcome to refer to actual scientific evidence. But she has always refused to learn from mainstream science, since she believes the creationist well-poisoning which says scientists are hiding evidence for a global flood. This too is a lie. The statement that scientists are hiding evidence for a global flood is a supremely libelous ad hominem with not a shred of evidence to support it. Why not call Cheryl out on that?!
Report comment to moderator
Point Two – belief in a literal global flood is NOT a sign of Christian orthodoxy. Even WMB’s “Daniel” of the year (Stephen Meyer) doesn’t believe it. He at least had the integrity to give it up when, as a geologist for the oil industry, he was confronted by a lot of evidence to the contrary!
It is no more tolerable to stand by and accept assertions about a literal Noah’s Ark than it is to stand by and nod one’s head approvingly while listening to alien abduction stories.
Report comment to moderator
I really marvel that evangelicals think it is in their interest to defend fundamentalist beliefs in the absolutely false! This completely discredits all of your religious experience. Even St. Augustine knew this:
“Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]“
Report comment to moderator
Nana – that’s why the naysayers are proselytizing for converts. They’re not lonely, they just want to drag as many souls into the pit as they can.
Right on, sister!
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy: f what you mean is you’re done arrogantly telling us what’s right with no intention of engaging in a reasonable give-and-take or even trying to understand someone else’s point of view, then I say good riddance.
Uh huh. I’ve been trying to engage in a give-and-take, and the best response you have is that I’m from the devil trying to drag souls into the pit.
That is after you tried to convince me to ignore actual evidence and believe ancient fables instead, and Cheryl’s laughable attempts to lecture me about science that she doesn’t come close to understanding.
But sure, I’m the one with a closed mind.
Report comment to moderator
Hey, you promised to leave. I would think even in Unitarianism it’s important to keep one’s word.
Report comment to moderator
Conan, I think in an honest give-and-take, you’d ask sincere questions, not simply raise combative objections. That isn’t an open-minded inquiry.
Report comment to moderator
Conan, #170, I completely understand that science is supposed to correct itself. That isn’t a weakness in science. I know that. Not all scientists are scrupulous, of course, as we found out in the recent “global warming” fiasco.
My point isn’t that science is bad if it corrects itself; my point is that it’s silly to “believe” something that needs regular correcting when it comes in conflict with something (God’s Word) that does not. Many times scientists and archeologists have laughed at our “gullibility” for still believing the Word when they have “proof” of our evolving from apes, or some city never actually existing, or Jesus’ bones being still in the tomb, ad nauseum. And then the “proof” turns out to be bogus and we’re on to the next attack on Scripture. Meanwhile, God’s Word needs no such retractions or even self-corrections. So I’ll stand with it.
Report comment to moderator
Conan, BTW, disbelief in the naturalistic assumptions of some science has nothing to do with one’s “understanding” of science. I do believe that evolution is bogus science; that’s a philosophical dispute, and not a scientific one. Give me a test on science, not the worldview of evolution, and I’ll come in well over the 90th percentile for someone with my education (i.e., a person with a college degree who is not a trained scientist). I guarantee it.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl: Where is the Tree of Life?
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl, re #183:
Scientists would not point to any single fossil or other discovery as “proof” of evolution. Evolution is shown to be the correct theory by thousands upon thousands of facts coming from many different fields of science. Perhaps most impressively, confirming evidence has come from fields such as genomics that didn’t even exist when Darwin first formulated the theory.
But there’s no one single “smoking gun” that proves it. So one something turns out to be a hoax or a mistake, it does nothing to dent the overall strength of evolution.
Also, it’s important to understand just what it is that scientists think. There was the recent case of “Ida,” where there was some talk that it might be the oldest known common ancestor of hominids, and a few months later the news came that it wasn’t. I read a few Creationists rejoicing that scientists had been made fools of, but in fact the actual scientists had never thought the fossil was that significant. The hype had been generated by public relations and the media.
Archaeology also can’t say much definitive based on the lack of evidence. It’s hard to say that you can prove a city never existed; but you can say you’ve been searching for decades and so far found no evidence that it did.
As for Jesus’s bones being in the tomb, how could you ever determine with certainty that a given tomb was Jesus’s, and that it was THE Jesus (it was a fairly common name at the time)? That too would not be a scientific claim. Any non-Christian would probably say they believe it, because they would not believe he resurrected, but claiming to have proof that specific bones were those of The Jesus would not be something you could prove scientifically.
Report comment to moderator
ConanTheLibrarian 12.21.09 AT 8:48 PM
Pastor Roy: But why would God give a law that allows His people to exact justice in equal measure to the offense (eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life), and then come in an incarnation and retract that law?
Either God changed his mind, or else allowed people to live for a couple of thousand years under a law far harsher than the standard he eventually planned to institute …
… or the Old Testament laws are more a product of the people and culture of the time than they are from God.
–
The Old Testament laws was written for the Jewish People. The law was to reveal the burden of sin and point to the coming of Christ.. When Christ came He open the gates of heaven to all, Through Him not the Old Testament laws. The Law fell short of provide grace and forgiveness because man could not obey the law due to sin. Christ came to help man to obey God and over the failure of sin.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy: The Law fell short of provide grace and forgiveness because man could not obey the law due to sin. Christ came to help man to obey God and over the failure of sin.
Yes, but God would have known when giving the law that man would never be able to obey it, right? So why require people to try to live up to that standard for many centuries and only then come in human flesh to do away with it?
“The Law fell short … ” so God made a mistake?
Report comment to moderator
ConanTheLibrarian 12.22.09 AT 10:36 AM
Pastor Roy: The Law fell short of provide grace and forgiveness because man could not obey the law due to sin. Christ came to help man to obey God and over the failure of sin.
Yes, but God would have known when giving the law that man would never be able to obey it, right? So why require people to try to live up to that standard for many centuries and only then come in human flesh to do away with it?
“The Law fell short … ” so God made a mistake?
–
So man can understand and see they are in need of a savior. The Law was to reveal those failure of man (in this case the Jewsih People which the Law was for) The OT today is to show Christian that if we listen to God, Love Him and Obey Him, we will be blessed, and taken care of. We see this through out the OT when the people God listen. But on the flip side we also see if the Jewish people did not obey God, He did every thing in His power to reveal to them, that they were in troube. An they did not listen to God. Such the prophet of the OT and the punishment that followed.
Report comment to moderator
Conan, I assume that the tree of life is no longer in existence. After the Fall, humans were kept from getting to it. Why do you ask?
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D. 12.22.09 AT 12:05 PM
Conan, I assume that the tree of life is no longer in existence. After the Fall, humans were kept from getting to it. Why do you ask?
–
My understand the Tree is still in the garden but God put something to stop man from coming back to the garden. I do not have my Bible with me at work, so I can not look it up and tell you what it was the God put in place to stop man from coming back.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl: If the story is literally true, somewhere on Earth there should be a tree with fruit that gives eternal life, but with cherubim and a flaming sword guarding it.
So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.
Nowhere in the Bible does it ever say that God removed the tree or the cherubim, or the flaming sword. And why would he have put it there in the first place, if the plan to was keep people from getting to it and eventually to remove it? It must still be there.
So where is it?
Report comment to moderator
Oh, that’s Genesis 3:23-24. Forgot to add the reference, sorry.
Report comment to moderator
So where is it? –
ConanTheLibrarian it is in the Garden of Eden.
Report comment to moderator
Right, Pastor. And where is that? Somewhere, I should be able to go see cherubim and a flaming sword guarding a tree. So where on Earth is it? What country is it in? Can you show me photographs of it?
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl & Pastor Roy – the tree of life is now in the New Jerusalem (see Rev. 22:2), which will one day “come down out of heaven from God” (Rev. 21:2). Both it and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil were placed in the Garden for Adam & Eve’s spiritual growth (this is a deep topic; see Created in God’s Image, by Anthony Hoekema for a fuller explanation). Someone asked why it was placed there if God was going to block access to it. The reason is that it was offered to Adam & Eve, but they chose unbelief and disobedience instead of receiving that gift. After that, God lovingly blocked access to the Tree of Life to keep open the path of redemption. See Gen. 3:22.
Report comment to moderator
ConanTheLibrarian 12.22.09 AT 1:12 PM
Right, Pastor. And where is that? Somewhere, I should be able to go see cherubim and a flaming sword guarding a tree. So where on Earth is it? What country is it in? Can you show me photographs of it?
—
Sorry, due to our sinful nature God was force to hide it from us.
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy 12.22.09 AT 1:14 PM
Cheryl & Pastor Roy – the tree of life is now in the New Jerusalem (see Rev. 22:2), which will one day “come down out of heaven from God” (Rev. 21:2). Both it and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil were placed in the Garden for Adam & Eve’s spiritual growth (this is a deep topic; see Created in God’s Image, by Anthony Hoekema for a fuller explanation). Someone asked why it was placed there if God was going to block access to it. The reason is that it was offered to Adam & Eve, but they chose unbelief and disobedience instead of receiving that gift. After that, God lovingly blocked access to the Tree of Life to keep open the path of redemption. See Gen. 3:22.
–
ConanTheLibrarian – the New Jerusalem is in heaven and when Christ return to set up His kingdom the New Jerusalem will take it’s place on earth.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy – correct. Interestingly, the Tree of Life is in the New Jerusalem, but nowhere do we read that the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is there. The latter tree has fully served its purpose so it no longer needs to exist. Presumably God has destroyed it. However, the Tree of Life still has a function in the New Jerusalem, and hence its continued existence. That alone is enough to make one worship Almighty God.
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy, I almost went into all that, but wanted to know his reason for the question (which I assumed was skepticism–and he has shown that it is) before answering. I’m assuming it is literally the same tree that we’ll have access to in eternity, but really don’t know. God might have recreated it. The Garden of Eden itself was presumably destroyed in the Flood, if not before. Whether the tree was still alive / still on earth at that point, we simply don’t know.
Report comment to moderator
Side note: Last night I read Scripture that referred to believers as “members of the household of God.” And I thought back to this discussion, in which some of us are being treated as stupid idiots for being on God’s side. And I thought would I really be willing to give up such an unbelievable privilege, being part of God’s household, to believe in the “we’re here by chance” model?
As a child I was mocked a lot, and sometimes it hurt. As an adult, knowing I am loved and chosen by God, the mockery seems so trivial. I could give up the incredible privilege of belonging to God to join the side of the mockers. Why exactly would one want to do that? To know God, and fully trust Him, is so much more glorious! Even so, come Lord Jesus.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl – you’re right we can’t know for sure, but like you I was assuming it’s the same tree based on a common-sense reading of the text – i.e., “the” tree of life, in view of its having appeared earlier in the Bible (Gen.). Also, like you say the Garden was probably destroyed in the flood. This is all such a fascinating topic to me. My kids love Genesis too and I take them through a six-week study of the function of the trees and what it means to be made in God’s image, and how all of that relates to the specific features and instructions relative to the Garden and the Sabbath day.
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy 12.22.09 AT 1:28 PM
Pastor Roy – correct. Interestingly, the Tree of Life is in the New Jerusalem, but nowhere do we read that the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is there. The latter tree has fully served its purpose so it no longer needs to exist. Presumably God has destroyed it. However, the Tree of Life still has a function in the New Jerusalem, and hence its continued existence. That alone is enough to make one worship Almighty God.
–
It is one of those question that we just do not know the answer to. Becuase God did not prove the answer to that question
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl #201 – also remember the Lord’s words from the Sermon on the Mount: Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. So we can actually rejoince when the scoffers mock us!
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy 12.22.09 AT 1:43 PM
Cheryl #201 – also remember the Lord’s words from the Sermon on the Mount: Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. So we can actually rejoince when the scoffers mock us!
–
I love to tell people who treat me that way, with a thank you.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D. – the hardest mockerying comes from people who calls themselves Christian, but are not living a Christian Life. They do this because they know they are not living right and hate it. So instead of repent of the sin they target Christian think if I can make them look stupid then it will give me a reason not to repent.
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy: Interestingly, the Tree of Life is in the New Jerusalem, but nowhere do we read that the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is there. The latter tree has fully served its purpose so it no longer needs to exist.
And what was its purpose? It seems to have no purpose other than to make the Fall possible, based on the story. So if that’s not it, what was it?
Report comment to moderator
ConanTheLibrarian 12.22.09 AT 2:25 PM
Buzzy: Interestingly, the Tree of Life is in the New Jerusalem, but nowhere do we read that the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is there. The latter tree has fully served its purpose so it no longer needs to exist.
And what was its purpose? It seems to have no purpose other than to make the Fall possible, based on the story. So if that’s not it, what was it?
–
what do you think the purpose of the tree was for?
Report comment to moderator
Perhaps it was there to make choice, and free will, possible. There can’t be free will unless there is a choice, can there?
Report comment to moderator
Pastor: I’m asking you. I can’t see any purpose other than to put humans in danger of hell when they otherwise would not have been (according to Christian belief.) That’s one reason the story doesn’t make sense to me. I’m asking you to explain whatever it is I’m missing.
DJ: Why then would God order the man and woman to NOT eat the fruit of that tree? Since they violated the order to eat the fruit, they obviously had free will already, before they ate it.
Report comment to moderator
As a preliminary matter, I would note that, besides the trees, Adam & Eve had everything they needed for their physical and emotional well being. However, they were still spiritually immature, as they did not know the difference between good and evil. (There are many places in the Bible that clarify the inability to distinguish good and evil is a characteristic of spiritual childishness, but I won’t list them here for sake of brevity.) The Tree of Knowledge was there for their spiritual growth. Had they resisted the temptation and obeyed God, they would have known evil through resisting evil, and loving good. In this way they would truly have become “like God,” as the serpent put it. See Gen. 3:5. A good picture of this alternate scenario is provided in the second book of C.S. Lewis’s space trilogy, Paralandra, if you’re interested. In any event, Adam & Eve ultimately became acquainted with good and evil by loving evil and hating good. Thus, the serpent told a half-truth, which is always the most dangerous form of lie. The tree’s fruit was not necessarily magical, but it was like an ordinance, a physical means by which a spiritual transaction takes place. God knew that, one way or another — through obedience or disobedience — Adam & Eve would become acquainted with good and evil through that tree, and that this in turn was because of the test he put before them in Gen. 2:17. Hence its name.
Report comment to moderator
ConanTheLibrarian 12.22.09 AT 2:47 PM
Pastor: I’m asking you. I can’t see any purpose other than to put humans in danger of hell when they otherwise would not have been (according to Christian belief.) That’s one reason the story doesn’t make sense to me. I’m asking you to explain whatever it is I’m missing.
DJ: Why then would God order the man and woman to NOT eat the fruit of that tree? Since they violated the order to eat the fruit, they obviously had free will already, before they ate it.
–
ConanTheLibrarian – God’s Word does not come out an explains why the tree was there. I have heard some explain it like this. God put the tree there to see if Adam and Eve would pass the test of faithful obedinece to God. He knew that they wold fail, but He had hope they would not.
Again This is what I herd.
Now what I believe. God want man to freely chose to service Him. So how can man freely chose if not for a test. The tree was the test.
Report comment to moderator
Conan,
If I tell my son not to drive the car on the bridge…but there is no car, and there is no bridge, does he have the ability to chose to obey me? I don’t think so, at least not the demonstrable ability. He can think or even say, I’m going to drive the car on the bridge, but there is no way to actually demonstrate obedience or disobedience.
The tree was that demonstrable opportunity to show obedience or disobedience…to show the Creator love and respect, or rebellion and rejection. At least that’s how I’ve always viewed it. I could be wrong; I’m no theologian. Buzzy has a good insight on the subject.
Report comment to moderator
PastorRoy: God put the tree there to see if Adam and Eve would pass the test of faithful obedinece to God. He knew that they wold fail, but He had hope they would not.
So he put it there knowing they would fail (and that billions upon billions of souls would be damned to eternal hell because of it) but put it there hoping he would be wrong?
Sorry, that still doesn’t make sense.
Now what I believe. God want man to freely chose to service Him. So how can man freely chose if not for a test. The tree was the test.
Why would you need a test? God is omniscient. He already knew (as you just said) that humans would fail the test. Why would God create conscious creatures just to condemn them for weaknesses that God himself created them to have?
Report comment to moderator
I didn’t see your post, Pastor Roy. I agree. I’ve always seen the tree as representing the opportunity to express tangible obedience or disobedience.
Report comment to moderator
Conan,
God didn’t “condemn them for weaknesses that God himself created them to have,” but for sin. Did God know that they would sin? Yes. Was it necessary for them to sin? (In other words, could they have made the excuse “I couldn’t help myself?”) No.
Report comment to moderator
Now what I believe. God want man to freely chose to service Him. So how can man freely chose if not for a test. The tree was the test.
Why would you need a test? God is omniscient. He already knew (as you just said) that humans would fail the test. Why would God create conscious creatures just to condemn them for weaknesses that God himself created them to have
–
that the joy, God did not condemn us for our weaknesses. He provided us, Jesus, so we can overcome our weaknesses. As for God creating a conscious creatures again that the joy and wonderfulness of God. He wants us to chose Him over our selves and sin.
Adam was tested an failed, Jesus was tested an won.
Report comment to moderator
ConanTheLibrarian 12.22.09 AT 3:25 PM
PastorRoy: God put the tree there to see if Adam and Eve would pass the test of faithful obedinece to God. He knew that they wold fail, but He had hope they would not.
So he put it there knowing they would fail (and that billions upon billions of souls would be damned to eternal hell because of it) but put it there hoping he would be wrong?
Sorry, that still doesn’t make sense
–
ConanTheLibrarian – it is very hard for me to put into written words what I want to say so please forgive me if I my writen upset you./
It is hard for us as humans to understand the relationship between man’s free will and God’s forknowldge. Did God see that man’s free will would cause all of this trouble yes. Did God see the fall of man coming in the garden, yes. Did God see the failure of the OT Law, yes, Did God see the need of sending Jesus to die for the sins of the world yes. Did God see the need to Judge the world due to sin, yes. Did God see this debate between ConanTheLibrarian and Pastor Roy and other, yes
God also saw the love man will have for Him. So God made Adam and Eve.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy – Did God see the need of sending Jesus to die for the sins of the world yes
I would say that’s the crux of the whole matter: it explains the “why” of everything else, including the “why” of Creation itself. Before God created the world, did the angels know of his power, his magesty, and his glory? Yes. Did they know about his grace? No, or at least there is no reason to believe so. After the Cross did they know? Yes, and they could worship him more fully in spirit and in truth, and so can we.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy: It is hard for us as humans to understand the relationship between man’s free will and God’s forknowldge. Did God see that man’s free will would cause all of this trouble yes. Did God see the fall of man coming in the garden, yes. Did God see the failure of the OT Law, yes, Did God see the need of sending Jesus to die for the sins of the world yes. Did God see the need to Judge the world due to sin, yes. Did God see this debate between ConanTheLibrarian and Pastor Roy and other, yes
God also saw the love man will have for Him. So God made Adam and Eve.
Doesn’t the addition of hell throw a wrench into that, though? God also saw the agony of billions of souls suffering torment for eternity … and created us anyway, capable of rebelling. Is a God who would create humanity knowing ahead of time that many would be condemned to never-ending torture, so that some of us would love and worship Him, in any way loving and merciful? Yes, you can say that humans seal their fate by rejecting God, but God didn’t have to create us … or didn’t have to make us quite so easily drawn away from him.
Report comment to moderator
Instead of criticizing God for creating the universe the way he did, wouldn’t it make more sense to spend the time you have been given repenting and seeking forgiveness at the cross? Then you could know you wouldn’t be one of those suffering souls who have rejected the way God has established to come back into communion with him.
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy: If the story made any sense to me, I would. But it doesn’t. I don’t criticize God for creating the universe the way he did; I just don’t believe the story in Genesis is the way he did.
Report comment to moderator
Conan – okay, that makes sense. But then I have just one question: why are you asking Pastor Roy and so forth all of these questions about it? Is it that, right now you just don’t believe the Genesis story, but you might in the future if the explanations you get make sense?
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy — I doubt I would ever believe it as a literal recounting of Creation. It is possible I could be persuaded to believe it as a metaphorical story that imparts truth about our relationship with God.
As it stands, I just don’t see it. It seems to me that a plain reading of the story has God setting humans up to fail, punishing them for failing when He made it inevitable they would, and setting in motion an elaborate plan to bring a Redeemer, meanwhile damning all those who don’t believe the story of the Redeemer.
In some versions, He even damns those who never have a chance to hear of the Redeemer. More compassionate interpretations suggest there’s some special dispensation for those who never heard, but that opens up its own set of problems.
The whole scheme is riddled with logical inconsistencies. And I find that when I start asking questions of those who believe it, they eventually do the online equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting “LA LA LA IT’S TRUE IT’S TRUE LA LA LA LA.”
#171 is a good example of this.
Now, I DO believe in a God. I believe God created the universe, and how it is that God did this is what scientists are discovering through various fields of inquiry (evolution is part of it.) We may never be able to learn the ultimate origin of things because they may be beyond the reach of science, but we certainly can learn how things have progressed since those origins.
However, I also believe that religious systems, including Christianity, are man-made constructs. People take their basic inherent perception of a Spiritual reality — God — and build stories, rituals, theological systems and moral/ethical codes around it, based more on their cultural millieu than on revelation. So we end up with many different religions, mutually contradictory and passionately adhered to by millions. People correctly observe that they can’t all be right, but few people seem to consider the possibility that none of them are right. The perception of a larger spiritual reality leaves a lot of white space, blanks, that religious practices emerge to try to fill.
Report comment to moderator
So then I take it that your answer to my question of why you continue to ask Pastor Roy, Cheryl, and others all of these questions is, essentially, that you’re thinking you might be persuaded into thinking the Genesis account amounts to a “metaphorical story that imparts truth about our relationship with God”?
Report comment to moderator
ConanTheLibrarian 12.22.09 AT 7:23 PM
Pastor Roy: It is hard for us as humans to understand the relationship between man’s free will and God’s forknowldge. Did God see that man’s free will would cause all of this trouble yes. Did God see the fall of man coming in the garden, yes. Did God see the failure of the OT Law, yes, Did God see the need of sending Jesus to die for the sins of the world yes. Did God see the need to Judge the world due to sin, yes. Did God see this debate between ConanTheLibrarian and Pastor Roy and other, yes
God also saw the love man will have for Him. So God made Adam and Eve.
Doesn’t the addition of hell throw a wrench into that, though? God also saw the agony of billions of souls suffering torment for eternity … and created us anyway, capable of rebelling. Is a God who would create humanity knowing ahead of time that many would be condemned to never-ending torture, so that some of us would love and worship Him, in any way loving and merciful? Yes, you can say that humans seal their fate by rejecting God, but God didn’t have to create us … or didn’t have to make us quite so easily drawn away from him.
—
you are right God did not have to create us. He could have made us to blindly follow Him. But that is not what God wanted. He wantd man to chose Him. An God gives man ever chance to make the right chose.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy: you are right God did not have to create us. He could have made us to blindly follow Him. But that is not what God wanted. He wantd man to chose Him. An God gives man ever chance to make the right chose.
OK, but that still means he created us knowing that billions and billions of souls would reject Christ and end up in eternal torment. Or that’s what many Christians believe, although I know some do not.
Would a merciful, loving God create souls that have no destiny execept never-ending torment, because some souls would love Him and come to heaven with Him? Would Love consider that a fair trade-off?
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy: I come here to discuss and debate, as this is a discussion and debate forum. You are not obliagted to engage me, but I do not need any larger purpose. I am always open to having my mind changed. Are you?
Report comment to moderator
Conan – You’re right that you do not need any larger purpose; I was just asking and you had no obligation to answer, just as anyone else here has no obligation to answer your questions. But I would never find out if I didn’t ask.
Report comment to moderator
ConanTheLibrarian 12.23.09 AT 10:22 AM
Pastor Roy: you are right God did not have to create us. He could have made us to blindly follow Him. But that is not what God wanted. He wanted man to chose Him. An God gives man ever chance to make the right chose.
OK, but that still means he created us knowing that billions and billions of souls would reject Christ and end up in eternal torment. Or that’s what many Christians believe, although I know some do not.
Would a merciful, loving God create souls that have no destiny except never-ending torment, because some souls would love Him and come to heaven with Him? Would Love consider that a fair trade-off?
–
God create all souls with a desire to come to Him. We have chosen to reject this desire and replace it with other desire. Again this is the struggle man has with understand through Human means and Human thinking God creating us with this freewill and His foreknowledge. As for Hell is was not created for us but for the fallen angels, man in it’s desire to replace God has chosen to follow the fallen angels to hell.
My heart breaks for people like you. Someone who is so much smarted then me, but lacks understand of God’s Word because you can not see it through all you knowledge.
Report comment to moderator
ConanTheLibrarian – have you ever looked at 2nd Timothy chapter 4 versus 3
Report comment to moderator
Pastor: But God knew before creating us that that would be the outcome. He made the decision that having billions of souls tortured for all eternity would be an acceptable price in return for those souls that would make a different choice, no?
2 Tim 4:3 is the kind of appeal that religious leaders often make — don’t listen to people preaching other ideas, just listen to the doctrine we teach. You can find similar messages in religious texts for Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, etc.
Report comment to moderator
ConanTheLibrarian 12.23.09 AT 11:25 AM
Pastor: But God knew before creating us that that would be the outcome. He made the decision that having billions of souls tortured for all eternity would be an acceptable price in return for those souls that would make a different choice, no?
2 Tim 4:3 is the kind of appeal that religious leaders often make — don’t listen to people preaching other ideas, just listen to the doctrine we teach. You can find similar messages in religious texts for Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, etc.
–
It is hard for us to understand this. I wish I had the answer to give you. It is also most impossible for us with our human minds to fully understand God’s Foreknowledge.
As for 2 Tim 4:3 it is a warning of what is going to happen to the Christian Teaching. An it falls in line with what the Episcopal Church has been doing.
Report comment to moderator
It is, but like I said, any religious system that depends on people believing specific doctrines has similar warnings against apostasy. You believe this one because you believe the Bible is the Word of God, but really it’s no different from any other religious text that warns believers against falling away.
Report comment to moderator
ConanTheLibrarian 12.23.09 AT 11:51 AM
It is, but like I said, any religious system that depends on people believing specific doctrines has similar warnings against apostasy. You believe this one because you believe the Bible is the Word of God, but really it’s no different from any other religious text that warns believers against falling away.
–
As Christian God’s Word warns us of such actions.
Report comment to moderator
But Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Muslims and others also have warnings in books they believe to be God’s Word against such actions.
For example, a Mormon would find this warning against arguing over doctrine in the Book of Mormon, 3 Nephi 11:28-29:
28 And according as I have commanded you thus shall ye baptize. And there shall be no adisputations among you, as there have hitherto been; neither shall there be disputations among you concerning the points of my doctrine, as there have hitherto been. For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of acontention is not of me, but is of the bdevil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.
Muslims have several sharp warnings against apostasy in the Koran, such as this one: He who disbelieves in Allah after his having believed, not he who is compelled while his heart is at rest on account of faith, but he who opens (his) breast to disbelief– on these is the wrath of Allah, and they shall have a grievous chastisement. (Sura 16:106)
And there are many other examples. You just pick one to believe and the others to disbelieve, but so do they.
Report comment to moderator
ConanTheLibrarian – the issue is they are not of God and you know this is what the Christian belives
Report comment to moderator
What I’m getting at is, how do you know you’re right and they’re wrong?
The answer usually ends up being a big circle … you know it’s true because the Bible says it .. how do you know the Bible is right? … because it’s the word of God … how do you know it’s the word of God? … because it says so … but several other holy books of different religions also say they are the word of God … yes, but the Christian is right and the others are wrong … how do you know? … because the Bible says it.
(repeat)
Report comment to moderator
ConanTheLibrarian 12.23.09 AT 1:14 PM
What I’m getting at is, how do you know you’re right and they’re wrong?
The answer usually ends up being a big circle … you know it’s true because the Bible says it .. how do you know the Bible is right? … because it’s the word of God … how do you know it’s the word of God? … because it says so … but several other holy books of different religions also say they are the word of God … yes, but the Christian is right and the others are wrong … how do you know? … because the Bible says it.
(repeat)
–
then I guess then we are done
Report comment to moderator
Presuppositional apologetics and Cornelius van Til come to mind.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor: Yes, that’s usually the point where the Christian gives up. Because there really is no answer other than “Well I just believe it,” is there?
I’ve been asking people all my life and so far I’ve not heard a better reply.
My own religion, Unitarian Universalism, encourages people to explore any and all religious ideas that seem promising, and believe those that make sense to the inidividual, without insisting on any creed or set dogma. So we have Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, pagans, Deists, humanists and uncommitted seekers all worshiping side by side, and no one saying “Believe this or you’re going to hell.”
Report comment to moderator
ConanTheLibrarian 12.23.09 AT 1:49 PM
Pastor: Yes, that’s usually the point where the Christian gives up. Because there really is no answer other than “Well I just believe it,” is there?
I’ve been asking people all my life and so far I’ve not heard a better reply.
My own religion, Unitarian Universalism, encourages people to explore any and all religious ideas that seem promising, and believe those that make sense to the inidividual, without insisting on any creed or set dogma. So we have Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, pagans, Deists, humanists and uncommitted seekers all worshiping side by side, and no one saying “Believe this or you’re going to hell.”
–
Conan, as a Pastor you come to a point, when you see that no matter what you say, or how you say it. It will not make a different at that moment in that person life to keep the debate going on. You question are good ones, your issue is you are trying to use man thinking to understand think that we are not able to understand. Now the Church you go to is not a Christian Church. An your posting does show the impact of their teaching in your life.
Again my heart breaks for you.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, that is Christianity’s great offense, isn’t it – its exclusivity. BTW, Islam is also an exclusivist religion. I wonder, do you get on Muslim blogs and tell them that UU is superior to Islam because nobody in a UU church is saying, “Believe this or you’re going to hell”?
Report comment to moderator
Not to mention that your position appears internally inconsistent. You seem to suggest it’s better to accept all religious viewpoints without asserting that one is “more true” than any other, and that an exclusivist one is therefore inferior to an all-inclusive one such as UU. However, in doing so, you’re implying that UU does not really accept genuine Christianity that actually believes in the Holy Trinity and the veracity of the Bible, including Jesus’ words, “I am the way, the Truth, and the Life, noone comes to the Father but by me,” and in the doctrine of hell for unbelievers. You can’t have it both ways: either you accept “exclusivist” Christianity as equally valid with other religious viewpoints (which you obviously don’t), and therefore must give up your position that the UU inclusivist model is superior, or you hold to the UU position with the caveat that the only exception to universal inclusivity is genuine Christianity (and any other exclusivist religion such as Islam). So which is it?
Report comment to moderator
Conan, as a Pastor you come to a point, when you see that no matter what you say, or how you say it. It will not make a different at that moment in that person life to keep the debate going on. You question are good ones, your issue is you are trying to use man thinking to understand God’s think which we are not able to understand. Now the Church you go to is not a Christian Church. An your posting does show the impact of their teaching in your life.
Again my heart breaks for you.
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy: BTW, Islam is also an exclusivist religion. I wonder, do you get on Muslim blogs and tell them that UU is superior to Islam because nobody in a UU church is saying, “Believe this or you’re going to hell”?
No, but that’s only because my background is Christian, and that’s where I have the knowledge to engage in debate. I don’t know enough about Islam to really address the specific issues.
Exclusivity wouldn’t be a problem if there were a really compelling reason to think it was justified, but I just don’t see one. Every exclusivistic religion has arguments for why it’s the true one and others are false. Christianity is no better or worse than the others in that regard.
And you’re right, UU inclusion does rule out exclusivistic beliefs. That’s the nature of inclusion.
Report comment to moderator
…without insisting on any creed or set dogma. So we have Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, pagans, Deists, humanists and uncommitted seekers all worshiping side by side.
Multiple other problems with this. (1) Worshiping who? If the answer is God, then who is God and what is he like and what kind of worship does he require, if any? Any answer to those questions involves getting into theology, and hence, doctrine (sometimes disparagingly called “dogma”). It is impossible to answer these types of questions without some kind of doctrine about God. Maybe UU just decides not to answer such pesky questions….?
(2) That kind of universalism shreds the Christian doctrine of the Cross. Under Christianity, Jesus submitted to the Father and died on the Cross to take onto himself the punishment for the sins of all believers, as the sole means of remission of their sins. Thus, UU and genuine biblical Christianity are irreconcilable. To be a UU, you simply have to reject Christianity. You may say the reverse is true as well, and it is. I’m just saying we don’t claim to be all-inclusive, and are honest about that. UU does make the claim of universal inclusivity (as shown by the quote above from Conan), but upon careful examination it cannot be seen as an honest claim.
Report comment to moderator
Conan- sorry, we cross-posted. I did not realize you accepted that UU rules out biblical Christianity; other UU’s that I’ve met have not been that honest.
Report comment to moderator
And you’re right, UU inclusion does rule out exclusivistic beliefs. That’s the nature of inclusion.
Then I think you’d agree with me that inclusion can never be total; it must be partial at most because it rules out exclusivistic beliefs.
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy:
Multiple other problems with this. (1) Worshiping who? If the answer is God, then who is God and what is he like and what kind of worship does he require, if any? Any answer to those questions involves getting into theology, and hence, doctrine (sometimes disparagingly called “dogma”).
And we leave that to the individual to determine. UU worship is not about “who,” it is a reverence for life, for the world we live in, for love, for service of others. What we believe about God is left to us to explore and determine for ourselves, rather than being told what to believe. So when we sing “Spirit of Life,” one of the best UU hymns, to me it’s to God the giver of life, but the person standing next to me may have a different idea of what the Spirit of Life is.
It is impossible to answer these types of questions without some kind of doctrine about God. Maybe UU just decides not to answer such pesky questions….?
Right. As a religion, UU encourages “a free and responsible search for truth and meaning” (one of our Seven Principles) but does not tell us what the answer must be.
We agree on Seven Principles:
•The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
•Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
•Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
•A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
•The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
•The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
•Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.
and six sources:
•Direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder, affirmed in all cultures, which moves us to a renewal of the spirit and an openness to the forces which create and uphold life;
•Words and deeds of prophetic women and men which challenge us to confront powers and structures of evil with justice, compassion, and the transforming power of love;
•Wisdom from the world’s religions which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life;
•Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God’s love by loving our neighbors as ourselves;
•Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit.
•Spiritual teachings of earth-centered traditions which celebrate the sacred circle of life and instruct us to live in harmony with the rhythms of nature.
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy: Then I think you’d agree with me that inclusion can never be total; it must be partial at most because it rules out exclusivistic beliefs.
Of course.
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy: I did not realize you accepted that UU rules out biblical Christianity
Well, it rules out the only-Christians-go-to-heaven Christianity, sure. But I know a number of UUs who are Christians (I am too, for that matter) of a more universalistic variety. And while it is true that Christian universalism isn’t the mainstream position, it IS a recognized subset of Christianity. Both the Unitarians and the Universalists were originally Christian denominations before they merged to form the UU Association in 1961. UU has grown to embrace more than Christianity since then, but that is its roots.
Report comment to moderator
Conan – thanks, I appreciate the information.
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy (and anyone else interested), you might like to look over this site: Unitarian Universalist Christian Fellowship.
Report comment to moderator
it IS a recognized subset of Christianity – by who not the Christian Community.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy: Unitarians and Universalists are both historically Christian denominations. I think what you mean is, not accepted by the narrow subset of the “Christian community” that you agree with. I have seen you do this repeatedly: You define the “Christian community” as only those who agree with you on some specific points, and decide that all others are not “real” Christians.
That allows you to say silly things like all the Christians are leaving the Episcopal Church, even though in reality the Episcopals are Christians who just disagree with you on some issues.
Report comment to moderator
Conan, UU principles and sources allow members to make it up in their own finite minds as they go along, worshipping creation more than the Creator. Theirs is a small “g” god, both silly and presumptuous. You are wasting your time debating your small-minded points here. I wish you a 2010 full of Truth instead of the narcissistic lies you’re swallowing. I pray that God’s Holy Spirit touches your heart and mind. Otherwise, I think you have no business here. You’re not winning any souls for your god. Godspeed!
Report comment to moderator
Nana: Not quite. We believe that individuals can and should develop their own beliefs. We are united through our shared principles and desire to be better human beings, rather than our beliefs about God. This makes it a different approach than most religious organizations.
Rather than being told what to believe, we are given tools to aid us in our own search. UU is a religion that respects its members and doesn’t feel threatened by a diversity of theologies worshiping together under one roof.
I have as much business here as anyone. And I am not trying to “win souls.” UUs have no desire to convert anyone, since we believe that people should follow the religious paths they find to be compelling and fulfilling to them. I am just trying to explain what UU actually is.
Report comment to moderator
ConanTheLibrarian 12.26.09 AT 1:11 PM
Pastor Roy: Unitarians and Universalists are both historically Christian denominations. I think what you mean is, not accepted by the narrow subset of the “Christian community” that you agree with. I have seen you do this repeatedly: You define the “Christian community” as only those who agree with you on some specific points, and decide that all others are not “real” Christians.
That allows you to say silly things like all the Christians are leaving the Episcopal Church, even though in reality the Episcopals are Christians who just disagree with you on some issues.
—
sorry but you are wrong Unitarians and Universalists are not view as part of the Christian Community.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry Pastor, but if you think that, you have a very bad understanding of the history of Christianity. Or, like I said, you define it so that you can decide who is and isn’t part of it.
Either way, you’re wrong.
Report comment to moderator
ConanTheLibrarian 12.28.09 AT 11:16 AM
Sorry Pastor, but if you think that, you have a very bad understanding of the history of Christianity. Or, like I said, you define it so that you can decide who is and isn’t part of it.
Either way, you’re wrong.
-
sorry when you pick up books on searching for Christian Churches Unitarians and Universalists are not listed. But when you pick up books on the listing of cults and false religions , they are listed in those books.
Report comment to moderator
ConanTheLibrarian when you go into Christian Books Stories you will have a hard time finding any writters from Unitarians and Universalists Church the reason is they are not view as being of Christ.
Report comment to moderator
“They are not viewed as being of Christ” by the group of Christians who think as narrowly as you do. They very much are part of the tapestry of Christianity to anyone else. And your books listing “cults” are generally written by similarly narrow-minded people who think anything they don’t like is a “cult.”
I have no hope of talking you out of your bigotry on this point, but nevertheless, it is a fact. Unitarian Christians and Universalist Christians have been part of Christianity since the beginning.
Report comment to moderator
ConanTheLibrarian 12.28.09 AT 1:57 PM
“They are not viewed as being of Christ” by the group of Christians who think as narrowly as you do. They very much are part of the tapestry of Christianity to anyone else. And your books listing “cults” are generally written by similarly narrow-minded people who think anything they don’t like is a “cult.”
I have no hope of talking you out of your bigotry on this point, but nevertheless, it is a fact. Unitarian Christians and Universalist Christians have been part of Christianity since the beginning.
–
agan you reveal your heart by making this statement “I have no hope of talking you out of your bigotry on this point, ”
“Unitarian Christians and Universalist Christians have been part of Christianity since the beginning.”
The Christian Community do not view them as part of the Christian Church. It is not my view alone it is the view of the Bible Believing Christian Community
Report comment to moderator
I’d be wary of basing what is and isn’t “of Christ” on whether it can be found in a christian bookstore.
Yikes.
SG
Report comment to moderator
“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers, and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables”
2nd Timothy 4:3-4
Report comment to moderator
I charge you therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His Kingdom: Preach the Word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers, and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. But you be watchful in all things, endyre afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.”
2nd Timothy 4:1-5
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy: agan you reveal your heart by making this statement “I have no hope of talking you out of your bigotry on this point, ”
And you reveal your heart every time you take it on yourself to decide who is and is not in the “Christian community.” And your ignorance of Christian history is manifest.
Unitarians as a recognizable group emerged in Transylvania in the sixteenth century, around the same time as the rest of the Protestant Reformation. So Unitarianism is as much a legitimate part of Christian history as any other Protestant denomination. However, the actual core beliefs of Unitarianism go back to the very beginning of Christianity — until the Roman Catholics formulated the doctrine of the Trinity and denounced the Unitarian view as heresy, there were several ideas about the relationship of Christ to God that were held to by various groups of Christians, and the unitarian and trinitarian views co-existed.
Universalism is also a strand of theological thought that has always been present within Christianity. Some of the earliest Church father, including Origen and St. Gregory of Nyssa, taught it.
So, you’re just wrong. These are not necessarily widely shared theologies, but they have always been part of the Christian world.
Report comment to moderator
ConanTheLibrarian , ha, ha, again you can say that you are part of the Christian Community all day long. the facts is Unitarian Christians and Universalist Christians are not view as part of the Christian Community.
Report comment to moderator
ConanTheLibrarian – why do you think the Christian Community do not view the Unitarian Christians and Universalist Christians as part of the Christian Community
Report comment to moderator
Pastor: I don’t agree with you that they are not part of the “Christian community.” So your question is meaningless.
Report comment to moderator
The Unitarian Universalists, being the organization that was created in 1961 with the merger of the Unitarian and Universalist churches in America, is indeed no longer a specifically Christian religion, although it does have Christians who are part of it.
Maybe you are confusing the modern Unitarian Universalists with the historic Unitarian and Universalist Christians?
Or maybe you just really don’t know what you’re talking about.
Report comment to moderator
ConanTheLibrarian 12.28.09 AT 6:06 PM
Pastor: I don’t agree with you that they are not part of the “Christian community.” So your question is meaningless.
–
Wow, since the Christian Community views it different then the way you do so my question still stands
Pastor Roy 12.28.09 AT 6:01 PM
ConanTheLibrarian – why do you think the Christian Community do not view the Unitarian Christians and Universalist Christians as part of the Christian Community
as for breaking them into two different groups you did that your self.
Report comment to moderator
Here “ConanTheLibrarian 12.26.09 AT 1:11 PM
Pastor Roy: Unitarians and Universalists are both historically Christian denominations.”
–
Or maybe you just really don’t know what you’re talking about.
Report comment to moderator
as for breaking them into two different groups you did that your self.
This is rapidly becoming a waste of time, but once more:
Unitarian Christians and Universalist Christians have existed as long as Christianity has existed. The Roman Catholic Church marginalized both of them, but with the Prostestant Reformation, they re-emerged as strong and vibrant Christian denominations.
This is documented history. I didn’t make it up, and your ignorance of it doesn’t make it go away. Nobody is “breaking them into two different groups,” they always were two different groups.
They still are, for that matter. There are still Unitarian Christians and Universalist Christians who are not part of the Unitarian Universalist Association. The UUA is no longer specifically Christian, but its roots are deep into these two strands of Protestant Christianity.
With that, I’m done. You are showing no interest in learning and I am rapidly losing interest in trying to educate the willfully ignorant.
Report comment to moderator
There are still Unitarian Christians and Universalist Christians who are not part of the Unitarian Universalist Association. The UUA is no longer specifically Christian, but its roots are deep into these two strands of Protestant Christianity.
–
This statement is what makes it no longer a Christian group. An why the Christian Community have rejected them.
an I am sorry but you are the one who is not interest in the turth but are being very willfully ignorant of the facts.
Report comment to moderator
Ah. So it turns out this whole time, you’ve been completely misunderstanding what I’ve been saying. the HISTORIC Unitarian and Universalist denominations are Christian groups. The modern day Unitarian Universalist Association is not. I think I’ve been pretty clear about making clear which I’ve been talking about, but you’ve jumbled it all together.
If you are really a pastor, I certainly hope your reading comprehension is better than what you’ve demonstrated here.
Report comment to moderator
Conan,
I’ve been following your conversation with Pastor Roy with interest, particularly since my uncle was a Unitarian. He and his wife taught the preschool class at their UU church for years. I asked one time what they taught, since I couldn’t imagine what topics one would teach in Sunday School in a church with no agreed on doctrines. He explained that at that age they mostly focussed on taking care of the earth and being treating other people nicely. And of course they sort of set the stage for teaching the kids religious tolerance, though I don’t know how much they could teach explicitly about it at that age.
Anyway, I wanted to comment that I also thought you were talking about the modern day UUA being Christian. I even went so far as to look up various listings of Christian denominations to see if they listed Unitarians; the only one that did was a wiki (I forget which one). And I do consider my reading comprehension pretty good, so I’d give Pastor Roy a break on that one.
Report comment to moderator
ConanTheLibrarian 12.28.09 AT 7:17 PM
Ah. So it turns out this whole time, you’ve been completely misunderstanding what I’ve been saying. the HISTORIC Unitarian and Universalist denominations are Christian groups. The modern day Unitarian Universalist Association is not. I think I’ve been pretty clear about making clear which I’ve been talking about, but you’ve jumbled it all together.
If you are really a pastor, I certainly hope your reading comprehension is better than what you’ve demonstrated here.
-
that is not what you have been saying. “So, you’re just wrong. These are not necessarily widely shared theologies, but they have always been part of the Christian world. ” “And while it is true that Christian universalism isn’t the mainstream position, it IS a recognized subset of Christianity’
Report comment to moderator
Pauline,
In #252, I described how the Unitarian and Universalist theologies grew up as part of Christianity, and how the American organizations representing them merged in 1961 to form the UUA.
Pastor Roy seems to have gotten off track right there because I said that Christian universalism is a recognized subset of Christianity. I was referring there to precisely what I said — Christian universalism, as espoused by Origen, Gregory of Nyssa and many other early church fathers, and as has existed ever since. I was not referring to Unitarian Universalism, but Pastor Roy seemed to think I was.
In #256, trying to clarify, I again referred to the historical Unitarian and Universalist Christians. In #263, I again spoke of the entirety of Christian history, and the place of Unitarian and Universalist strands of Christianity within it.
In #268 I even traced the history of the Unitarians to the 16th Century, and in #272, fearing I was being misunderstood, I stated that the UUA does not consider itself a Christian organization.
Pastor Roy has not seemed to understand that Unitarian Christians and Universalist Christians are not the same thing as Unitarian Universalists. OK, I can understand that because people who haven’t specifically studied the history have no reason to know much about it. But after someone who does know tries to fill you in, to continue to insist on what you originally thought moves from not knowing to not wanting to know.
And in #279, Pastor Roy makes clear that he still doesn’t get it.
So, if you can give me any hints on how I could be more clear, please do. But I think I have been.
Report comment to moderator
Conan, Jesus claimed, “I am the way, the truth and the life; no man comes unto the Father but by me” (John 14:6). That claim excludes anyone who claims to be a Christian but is willing to be “open” to other ways to God. You simply can’t follow Jesus but claim all paths are equally valid; Jesus doesn’t allow such a choice.
This point is interesting, however: “•A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;” Now I’m wondering: Once a person finds the truth (as asserted above in John 14:6), is he still welcome there? Or is it only the “search” for truth, and not truth itself, that is welcome? In an American understanding of things, when we say we value “the pursuit of happiness,” one assumes that happiness itself is a good thing, and not merely its pursuit. Here I suspect the search for truth is said to be good, but actual success in that search is seen as bad. That’s a pretty untenable position, and actually makes this point a meaningless lie.
May your own search find more success.
Report comment to moderator
Conan,
I suspect the confusion started because in #252 you were talking about people in UUA who are Christians, then went on to explain the Christian roots behind the UUA. To me, and probably to Pastor Roy, that seemed to suggest that you were using the historical roots of the UUA, plus presence of Christians in it today, to show that it remains part of the Christian community.
The rest of your points did deal specifically with the historical aspects, which so far as I know are accurate, from my knowledge of church history. But I read them all with the (mistaken) assumption that the purpose of your citing that history was to show that the UUA today remains in the Christian community.
So are you saying that Christians who are part of the UUA are not part of the Christian community?
Report comment to moderator
Pauline 12.29.09 AT 8:11 AM
Conan,
I suspect the confusion started because in #252 you were talking about people in UUA who are Christians, then went on to explain the Christian roots behind the UUA. To me, and probably to Pastor Roy, that seemed to suggest that you were using the historical roots of the UUA, plus presence of Christians in it today, to show that it remains part of the Christian community.
–
Pauline that is how I saw it. An I have been clear that the Christian Community today do not see then as part of the Christian Community due to comments like this “There are still Unitarian Christians and Universalist Christians who are not part of the Unitarian Universalist Association. The UUA is no longer specifically Christian, but its roots are deep into these two strands of Protestant Christianity.”
Report comment to moderator
“The rest of your points did deal specifically with the historical aspects, which so far as I know are accurate, from my knowledge of church history. But I read them all with the (mistaken) assumption that the purpose of your citing that history was to show that the UUA today remains in the Christian community.” Pauline – that is how I saw it also
Report comment to moderator
Let’s give it one more go, starting fresh.
In the early centuries of Christianity, unitarians and universalists were part of the mix of beliefs. There were no formal creeds or doctrines yet, and various forms of Christianity prospered in various places. Unitarians differed from trinitarians by believing that Jesus, divine though he is, is not God. God is a unity, one, not a trinity, in the unitarian view. Universalists believed that Christ’s sacrifice was necessary for salvation, but that it applies to all persons, not just to believers or God’s elect or any other special group.
When the Roman Empire became officially Christian under the Emperor Constantine, the Roman Catholic Church gained the power to formulate doctrine and impose it on all of the Christian world. It was in the Fourth Century that the Church decreed the Trinity and limited atonement to be necessary and declared unitarian and universalist beliefs to be heresy. From then until the Protestant Reformation, anyone who held those views would have to be silent or else risk excommunication … or worse.
With the Reformation, they re-emerged as Christian denominations. Even among the Protestants they were minority groups, and not entirely free of persecution, but they existed and in some places were strong.
By the middle of the 20th century, their strength among Christian denominations had dwindled to the point that two groups decided to merge. That was the American Unitarian Association and the Universalist Church of America, which merged in 1961 to form the Unitarian Universalist Association.
Now, the UUA has evolved and become much more than a minority Christian group. By accepting wisdom from the world’s religions, by accepting humanism and having atheists among our members along with believers from various religious backgrounds, by not requiring assent to any creed, we’re obviously not a Christian denomination — and no UU would say we are, nor have I. But our roots ARE in two historic Christian denominations, which was the point I was trying to make all along.
There are a few possible points of confusion which I will attempt to address.
1. There are still Christian Unitarians and Christian Universalists who are not UU. These are people who find retaining the Christian nature of Unitarianism or universalism to be important and don’t like the broader approach of the UUs. The American Unitarian Conference is one such group, as is the Christian Universalist Association. (I’ve been warned that the spam filter here holds up posts with more than one link, so I encourage anyone interested to use Google to find the above groups, if interested.)
2. On the other hand, there is a Unitarian Universalist Christian Fellowship for those within UU who consider themselves Christians. However, UU Christians are probably too inclusive to be part of Pastor Roy’s vaguely-defined “Christian community,” so their existence may be irrelevant to him or others here.
Does that clear things up?
Report comment to moderator
Now, the UUA has evolved and become much more than a minority Christian group. By accepting wisdom from the world’s religions, by accepting humanism and having atheists among our members along with believers from various religious backgrounds, by not requiring assent to any creed, we’re obviously not a Christian denomination — and no UU would say we are, nor have I. But our roots ARE in two historic Christian denominations, which was the point I was trying to make all along.
–
Ok, so the UUA were at one time a Christian denominations, but they have abound their first love to follow false teaching. This is another reason teh Christian Community does not see them as a Christian Group no matter what their past was like.
Report comment to moderator
CherylD: Well, John’s gospel claims Jesus said this. Did he really? And if he did, what exactly does it mean?
This point is interesting, however: “•A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;” Now I’m wondering: Once a person finds the truth (as asserted above in John 14:6), is he still welcome there? Or is it only the “search” for truth, and not truth itself, that is welcome? In an American understanding of things, when we say we value “the pursuit of happiness,” one assumes that happiness itself is a good thing, and not merely its pursuit. Here I suspect the search for truth is said to be good, but actual success in that search is seen as bad. That’s a pretty untenable position, and actually makes this point a meaningless lie.
Many UUs have developed their beliefs are not actively searching anymore, although I think it’s the nature of liberal religion to always be interested in and open to new ideas or things to consider. There’s no problem with finding what you seek, if you really do.
However, we do insist on the right of others to find different answers, and if what you believe requires you to consider people who disagree to be damned, there might be a problem. People who believe that have no shortage of churches to go to where they will find like minds, though.
Report comment to moderator
On the other hand, there is a Unitarian Universalist Christian Fellowship for those within UU who consider themselves Christians. However, UU Christians are probably too inclusive to be part of Pastor Roy’s vaguely-defined “Christian community,” so their existence may be irrelevant to him or others here.
–
Sorry again it is not my vaguely-defined “Christian community,” It is the view of the “Christian community,” which you have a problem with.
Report comment to moderator
ConanTheLibrarian – However, we do insist on the right of others to find different answers, and if what you believe requires you to consider people who disagree to be damned, there might be a problem. People who believe that have no shortage of churches to go to where they will find like minds, though.
–
the problem again is that view comes into conflict with God’s WOrd
Report comment to moderator
Just to be clear, Pastor, I don’t have any problem with not being part of your vaguely-defined “Christian community.” You didn’t reject us, we rejected you. God is much, much bigger than your narrow group that you think are the only ones “saved.”
Report comment to moderator
ConanTheLibrarian 12.29.09 AT 11:36 AM
Just to be clear, Pastor, I don’t have any problem with not being part of your vaguely-defined “Christian community.” You didn’t reject us, we rejected you. God is much, much bigger than your narrow group that you think are the only ones “saved.”
–
Again it is not my narrow group, it is God’s narrow group. God is much, much bigger – but God Word is the standard which has revealed Himself to man.
Report comment to moderator
Well said, Pastor Roy, in 291.
Report comment to moderator
For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. (Ro 8:29-30)
Yippee!..
..foreknow..predestinate..called..justified..glorified
Add in some others from Ephesians and Jude..
Chosen..sealed…preserved…
conan…you’re invited..
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. (Ro 10:13)
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!