Believing the Bible: A Place To Start or Stop?

203 thoughts on “Believing the Bible: A Place To Start or Stop?”

1. This site is really nice
   ——–
   pharel
   The Bible

   LikeLike

2. “Benji — I looked — don’t know why — but I looked.”

   God Bless you surfnetter,

   Benji

   LikeLike

3. Dave D:

   >You have publicly slandered my name…

   Actually, you didn’t use your name till this post, so that’s a fail.

   Nothing he said to you was personally insulting, but what you said to him was. You’re free to disagree.

   Moderating my blog comments isn’t slander. I’m the umpire. You can argue balls and strikes as long as I want to put up with it.

   But no one came to the game to listen to the argument.

   ms

   LikeLike

4. Emerging Catholic — It is quite paradoxical, isn’t it? The task is to be a free thinking spiritual being and yet it seems we have these men (and some women) of the Magisterium who seem to spend much of their time deciding for us what we can and can’t think.

   I am of the mind of Joseph Campbell on this, when he compares religion to a marsupial pouch “womb with a view”; the Goal is to one day leave the safety of the “pouch”.

   Or, as is oft heard in 12-Step circles —

   “Religion is for people who are afraid of going to hell; spirituality is for those who have already been there.”

   LikeLike

5. Pingback: Emerging Catholic

6. Tim O
   I herd a quote once that went something like “God is shallow enough for children to wade in him and deep enough for scholars to dround in him”

   LikeLike

7. Incidentally. The article that started this all out was quite enjoyable. I have savored watching your theories play out in the discussions ensuing.

   As a young Christian. I have a really difficult time considering myself to be as worthy of God’s grace as many of you seem to be. Surely I cannot be as worthy as the Christian wordsmiths who have earned my respect throughout this blog.

   Yet I continue to struggle in spite of the arguments. It seems to me that regardless of whether you are Young World, Old World, etc. The fact remains, the bible is for the educated and the uneducated, alike. It is written for the common person as well as for the uncommon person. The word of God does not come with a study manual. Interpretations of the bible, including ancient translations of the text are all creations of man, not of God. Our opinions are fallible and errant.

   The bible is the word of God, to me. It was intended for me. It was intended for you. If the word of God causes me to repent, seek Christ, seek only to do God’s will, there is no manner of commentary that will come between me and my understanding of the word of God.

   I have a lot to learn about the bible, yet I have hope in the promises God has made. I have faith in Christ, and I know what is required of me. I have faith that God will complete the work he has begun in me.

   This being said I will probably never understand the entire bible. This is of no consequence to my salvation. God does not need to reveal Himself to me in order for me to have faith he created me.

   Stay with me here. I am trying to bring it full circle. From my humble perspective, it would seem that many of you are so tied up with rhetorical positioning that you missed the point that even though man’s heart heart is always sinful all of the time, you were able to learn enough of God’s word to leap out into the world of this blog to boldly attempt to defend your understanding of God’s word it as if it belonged to you, alone.

   The bible, therefore, may currently be your anchor, but at some point, you will fall, and it will become a starting place.

   I, for one, thank God every day for this.

   LikeLike

8. Wow. I made it all the way to Feb 9, 9:05 PM. IM: That was a long ride.

   Unfortunately I need someone to explain to me, a common, confused wanderer whether this dog ever caught it’s tail?

   T.O.

   LikeLike

9. Benji — I looked — don’t know why — but I looked.

   Does the guy who wrote that know exactly what kind of a pin that the myriad and precisely numbered angels were dancing upon in antiquity? %~)

   LikeLike

10. This thread nearly immediately became all about creationism, young earth, and Genesis. Why?

    Perhaps because Secular Humanism has become the Other that Protestants compare themselves to?

    I’m probably butchering some of what I’ve read in Alistair’s “Christianity’s Dangerous Idea”, but it seems that Protestants at times have a tendency to identify themselves by what they’re not. In the early years, it was “We’re not Roman Catholics”. Nowadays, in Western Christianity, it’s “We’re not secular humanists” (which is perhaps why it is now easier for us to be friendly with the Roman Catholics). And given how integral Darwinism is to secular humanism, belief in YEC becomes a definite “I’m not a secular humanist” badge.

    And if this is so, perhaps what is called for isn’t putting down the YECs, or defending them, but concentrating on putting our focus, not on the things on earth that we’re not, but on the One we’re called to follow.

    LikeLike

11. Surfnetter,

    Click to access gee_vos.trueandtruth.pdf

    I hope you will consider taking a look.

    Grace to you,

    Benji

    LikeLike

12. Wow Michael another excellent post, you’re on a roll.
    When you described the second Christian I thought of St Francis De Sales. He was reputed to be especially charitable and empathetic in speech.

    LikeLike

13. “believe it or not more pastors believe in evolution than secular scientists”

    Of course you have to define the term. Evolution is one of the most overloaded terms in the US just now. Similar to health insurance. Very few people in the general population who use the term are referring to any form of insurance. What they really mean is health CARE.

    LikeLike

14. First thing to keep in mind about Intelligent Design:

    Are we talking ID, the heir to a 400-year-old tradition of Natural Theology? Not so much science as a philosophical foundation for science?

    Or…

    Are we talking ID (nudge nudge wink wink know what I mean know what I mean), the latest coat of camouflage paint for Young Earth Creationism?

    LikeLike

15. “then shortly after I started stumbling over all sorts of scientific evidence for a young earth”

    I and some friends went looking and came up empty. Well we did find a lot of claims but they were all suspect at best and just plain wrong most of the time. But that was what I and some others found.

    Do you have a link to somewhere that I could see what evidence you’re refering to? I suspect that iMonk doesn’t want this thread to devolve into a list of science arguments.

    LikeLike

16. Interesting post

    I have a feeling that what you are talking about relates to the Nicolaitan Spirit spoken of in Rev:2:15 , This is especially timely as today I was at a gathering where a prophet (who has twice before prophesied judgment over the church which came to pass) prophesied that this spirit is now under judgment, world wide. Church be warned

    Regarding the young/old earth issue I wondered about that until one day I just prayed for God to show me the truth, then shortly after I started stumbling over all sorts of scientific evidence for a young earth

    A couple of years ago The Chalcedon Foundation ( I believe ) did a study where they polled 10,000 pastors and 10,000 secular scientists on their belief in evolution, believe it or not more pastors believe in evolution than secular scientists

    LikeLike

17. Anna A,
    Speaking for myself and from what I’ve seen, but not for every Catholic. I’m not all that concerned with the “how” God did it. I just care that God did it.
    If the world took only six days to make. Thats great! If God took six billion years to make the world. Thats great! I don’t care that much about how God did it. I’m just prase his name he did.

    But some say this way or that way goes against the Bible. Maybe. All I know is that most people don’t understand Shakespeare. The english is too old. But at the same time, a book that is 4000 years old(give or take). Everyone clames to understand a translation of that 4000 year old book.

    LikeLike

18. Mr. Spencer,

    I could not find a link to email you so I post this assuming you will moderate it. Forgive me if you think it’s out of line.

    I understand that it is your blog and therefore you can do with it what you like and ban who you like. However, you have publicly slandered my name by accusing me of something I did not do. I responded to him in the tone I perceived him responding to me…yet only one of us got called out.

    You said “Since you’ve called your conversation partner about every insulting term I can think of short of profanity…” I went back to read my posts just to see what names I had called him. If I had resorted to simply shouting insults, I need to repent. It is NEVER (well, almost never) my intention to insult people without being in kind.

    I found “arrogant” in my Feb. 6, 4:17 post which I don’t believe was aimed at him specifically, but the whole host of those who take the attitude described that Creationists are “anti science” or “nuts”. I did accuse him of playing word games, because he liked to focus on my use of one word while ignoring the rest.

    I accuse him of word games again latter.

    You have publicly slandered my name by accusing me of something I did not do. I responded to him in the tone I perceived him responding to me…yet only one of us got called out.

    “I’ll keep trying to correct you even if you tell me to stop playing word games.”

    “and I’ll not relinquish that term to anyone who happens to mangle it out of all recognition.”

    “DaveD, I should simply retreat into my erroneous, flippant, game-playing ways and let your serious declaration stand without further challenge.” The sarcasm wasn’t insulting at all.

    Referring to my arguments as “questionable”, “waiting to fall like a single line of dominoes.” “begging the question” Certainly, these weren’t insulting.

    However, my responses were.

    David DeVore

    LikeLike

19. Unless, of course, someone on this planet has succeeded in creating lifeforms out or inert organic material.

    Don’t think they did that one yet, either ….

    LikeLike

20. Philosophy is a humanity in any college curricula. Anyway, we/re talking the physical sciences. And quantum physics is based on repeatable results only. The theories are based on those results.

    But one example of empirical results never a science makes. They only have one planet, my friends. One planet, no science …. 🙂

    LikeLike

21. When was it that philosophy stopped being refered to as a science? I know it use to, but I have no clue when it stopped.

    LikeLike

22. Surfnetter

    Yes indeed! Plus, quantum physics would have to leave the science classroom too. They have some pretty wild theories. Multiverses, anyone? 🙂

    LikeLike

23. Maybe this has been tried already — if someone has info on it please let me know —

    The Intelligent Design case where the court ruled that ID couldn’t be taught in science class because it was philosophy and not science was based on the argument that the existence of God could not be scientifically proven. I believe a case could be successfully argued in a court of law that the Darwinist Origin of Life theory is also philosophy and not science. In order for it to be science there must be more than one example of the process repeating itself, and preferably many examples. There is only one planet that we know of that has generated, supported and/or sustained life. It is therefore not science that life on earth was generated randomly by natural forces.

    A successfully argued case would either relegate the Darwinist theory of the Origin of Life to philosophy class with ID, or both would have to be taught side by side in science class.

    LikeLike

24. Adam the Catholic,

    The culture that is so very concerned about young earth creationism, etc. is the kind of evangelical one where I used to live. My best girl friend is still very much involved with that kind of thinking, ie. that if God did NOT create the earth in 6-24 hour days, then that causes the whole Bible to be discredited.

    If you were born and raised Catholic, I can understand your confusion, because it doesn’t seem to be on Catholic screens at all. (Just one of the many differences that I noticed when I converted.)

    LikeLike

25. Anna A,
    I was taught differently growing up. My dad was a biologist and taught all of us kids that if God created the world and all the scientific laws. It’s imposable for science to disprove the existence of God. But he also pointed out that that didn’t meen science would proove his existence eather.
    We use to talk about why science may not proove God’s existence if it could not disprove it. I haven’t wrapped my brain around it, but he has alwase said it has something to do God being outside of time. Usualy by this point I’m picking my brain up off the floor.

    I don’t think the big problem is going with “Believe it, its the Bible.” I think the problem is with people not understanding what “it” is. This is getting long so I’ll use an example to make my point. Today we understand the phrase “It’s raining cats and dogs” to meen a whole bunch of water is falling from the sky. 2000 years from now will people debate how literal to take that phrase?

    LikeLike

26. I think the notion God being an ‘intelligent designer’ is way too limited. He’s much more than a Super Engineer of Everything. He seems to me to be more of an artist and story teller than a designer.

    Evolution by design seems to be a very inefficient system, by mechanical standards. Evolution as an art, however, is so sublime it blows my away.

    How do you design love?

    LikeLike

27. “It seems to me that while belief in a young earth isn’t required in order to be a Christian, belief in Intelligent Design is.”

    Any person who believes in God believes in the concept of “intelligent design,” but that is not the same thing as affirming Intelligent Design as a scientific theory. ID is not a valid scientific theory. It is at best a philosophy about science. The difference is analogous to that between methodological naturalism (science) and metaphysical naturalism (philosophy).

    This gets back to the modernist downfall of upholding scientific rationalism as the only real arbiter of truth. It is so pervasive that a lot of us Americans have no idea that there is any other way for our brains to work. Once people are ensnared in that trap, then of course they need a scientifically provable God to maintain belief. ID is just YEC 2.0. Once it falls apart as just a ‘God-of-the-gaps’ theory, they’ll either fall back on a shred of something else (theistic evolution?) or just become atheists.

    LikeLike

28. Adam the Catholic,

    You asked why people tend to try to make the Bible as a science book. I think that one reason is that they were taught that way. I remember when I first was taught the theory of evolution, that my Sunday School teachers couldn’t help me correlate it with what I was learning in school. Nor could my mother. The main response that I recall is “Believe it, its the Bible.”

    Other, more speculative reasons, could be fear of the unknown, fear of science and the intellect, and the idea that the body and the physical world is a second class citizen. The only first class citizen is the soul/spirit.

    To Oloryn,

    I had not heard of the diffence in learning styles, expressed that way. I will remember it, hopefully, and I am sure that I will find it useful. Thank you

    LikeLike

29. It seems to me that while belief in a young earth isn’t required in order to be a Christian, belief in Intelligent Design is.

    If evolution occurred, but without an intelligent force behind it, then Genensis and christianity have no basis.

    If there is no intelligent force behind evolution then you have to embrace pantheism if you still want to be religious.

    NOVA will broadcast an exposé on Intelligent Design on Tuesday, February 10, 2009 on your local PBS station.

    The documentary centers around the Dover trial, a fairly recent US District Court of Pennsylvania opinion which, in essence, ruled that Intelligent Design is Christian fundamentalist creationism merely by another name.

    LikeLike

30. I wonder how God feels about these two Christians? Of course He loves them both, but what is His take on all this? OK maybe a silly question, but a starting point.

    I would think God must love Christian A for his faith. His faith in the Word of God. His faith that the Word will unlock hearts and transform people – after all it did so for him, so why not others? Maybe Christian A has some tragedy in his life, and felt swallowed up by a whale like Jonah and now it’s time to shout the truth to the citizens of modern Nineveh. This is raw, simple faith, and God must love that, after all, isn’t this what we are asked to do? Proclaim from the rooftops. Nothing lukewarm and wishy washy here.

    I would think that God also must love Christian B for her wisdom about how best to communicate the Bible. Maybe Christian B is like Paul – trying to be all things to all people. Starting from the outside perspective.

    Are Christians A and B, just different parts of the Body of Christ or is one right and the other wrong? Or is it the same body part only in better shape, or maybe a little more wrinkled and gray.

    LikeLike

31. Michael, I pretty much agree with you, but developed an odd feeling while reading this post. This is because a long time ago I ran across a theory of learning styles which I have found useful. Google for “The Programmer’s Stone” to find the original. I have questions about where the originator has taken it, but the original concept is at least useful for some insight. He characterizes two method of learning, dubbed “packing” and “mapping” (and the learners as “packers” or “mappers”. “Packers” tend to learn by collecting (or accumulating) little “packets” of information. “Mappers”, by contrast, tend to learn by making mental maps of information. The originator of the concept seemed to think that most people seem to be packers, and I’d have to agree with him. I’m definitely a mapper, and part of the usefulness of the concept was that it helped me understand my own differences with most people. It’s also far easier to organize teaching along packer lines than mapper lines, which makes encouraging the packer learning style very tempting.

    With this in my background, you can probably imagine my feelings while reading this post. You’ve essentially ‘mapped’ (sorry, couldn’t help it) the above concept into two models of Christian interaction, even to the point of using some of the same terminology.

    In my mind this leads to a few questions. How much does some of what we see to be ‘spiritual’ differences basically boil down to things like this differences of learning style thing? I can see a lot of parallels – lots of packers have no idea that any other learning style is possible, which easily leads to thinking the mappers are just being rebellious. Complicating this, “Why?” in the mouth of a packer may very well be rebellion, refusing to accept the particular information packets that are being directed at them, while “Why?” in the mouth of a mapper is likely to be an attempt to gather more information to improve their mental map of the information packets being directed to them, to make it easier to remember.

    On the other side, mappers are likely to be tempted to castigate packers as ignorant or inferior, to ” baptise” mapper thinking and make those who don’t (or, in some cases, can’t) use it second class citizens.

    LikeLike

32. I’m new here and I’m enjoying the points of view.

    I find it interesting how some people want the Bible to be more than what it was intended to be. (yes,I believe it’s the inspired word of God) Under the insporation of God, the Bible is a book writen by people of faith for people of faith. It may just be me, but I don’t get why some people try to turn the bible into a science book. An all in one, stop when you get to this far, do not pass go, do not think any more on this topic type of book.
    I just don’t get it.

    LikeLike

33. “This thread nearly immediately became all about creationism, young earth, and Genesis. Why? — Urban Otter

    Because Young Earth Creationism IS now The Gospel, that’s why.” — Headless Unicorn Guy

    Yes, I’m beginning to see that now. I had no idea how important YEC has become until I stumbled onto this site. Boy have my eyes been opened.

    DaveD, it seems that you are saying that in order to interpret the Bible correctly, you must take all the verses at face value. If it says “day” in Genesis, it must mean one 24-hour block of time. To believe anything else is to deny the accuracy of Scripture, and once you start denying part of the Scripture you might as well go ahead and deny the whole thing.

    But DaveD, I can almost guarantee you that you don’t take the entire Bible literally any more than Joel Hunter does.

    When Jesus said, “I am the vine, you are the branches,” do you believe that he meant, “I am a long skinny plant that twines around things”? I bet you don’t. You probably interpret this to mean something like, “I am like a vine.”

    When Jesus passed the bread around at the Last Supper and said, “This is my body,” do you believe he really meant “This bread, this bread right here, it is my physical body”? You probably don’t. It is likely that you believe Jesus meant something along the lines of, “This bread, it represents my body”.

    When Jesus said, “My body is real food,” do you believe that he meant, “You should chew up and swallow my physical body, just like you eat bread”? Probably you don’t. It is more likely that you believe that Jesus meant this metaphorically, not literally.

    See, now the question can be asked of you: if you aren’t going to take Jesus’ words literally, why would you bother taking anything else literally? Why not just arbitrarily decide for yourself what verses are true at face value and which are metaphorical, allegorical, hyperbole, or poetical speech?

    And then it could be asked of you, “If you aren’t going to take Jesus’ words to mean exactly what he said, when are you going to start believing him?” Then you would be in the same position that you have put old earth creationists or evolutionists in. You would be trying to explain that not every word in the Bible is to be taken at face value, not even the words of Jesus. Then you could be accused of failing to follow Jesus because if you really followed him, you’d “BELIEVE WHAT HE SAID!”

    I think you must see the problem here. You can’t believe that others of having a deeply flawed Christianity because they don’t take Genesis literally when you yourself do not take the entire Bible literally either. If you allow the possibility that the Lord himself did not intend everything he said to be interpreted literally, you have to allow that God might not intend for Genesis to be interpreted literally either.

    LikeLike

34. Imonk, you seem to be on the mark. Too many people try to make the Bible an end rather than a means to an end. Once they understand the Bible they are satisfied. However, to understand the Bible is not necessarily to know God. God wants the Bible to lead people to discover God. It is not just a history book or a science text. It is a relational story of how God has interacted with humankind over centuries. It was not intended to be used as a club to strike down heretics or unbelievers but to reveal God’s hand in people’s lives to the end of enjoying relationship with God that leads to transformation of life to a life that never ends. The Bible is one resource to help seekers find that life and that relationship. Let’s appreciate if for that purpose.

    LikeLike

35. I do need to read slowly, so thanks for that reminder.

    The name’s ‘Joel’, btw.

    I’ve ignored no point. I’ve challenged you justify your assumptions. I’ve claimed you’re begging the question. You appear to be unwilling to so. That’s fine, you’re free to do so, but reasoned discussion ceases. You are the one claiming to have the answers. So I ask simple questions, like is the creation narrative intended to be read as a documentary description. You seem to think it is. I think that it is a mistaken way to read it, because Genesis 1-3 doesn’t present itself as that kind of narrative.

    You accuse me of adding things to the narrative. How hypocritical and absurd of you.

    You ought to read what I’ve written to you more carefully. I didn’t say that you had added things to the narrative. I said (implied) that you had read more into the narrative. You keep insisting that to be faithful to God and the Bible we must believe that Genesis 1-3 teaches the means God used in creating. But I don’t think you’re listening to what the text actually says–literally, right there in black-and-white on the page, taken at face value–because of the kind of information you derive from it. Great theologians have made the same mistake, too (Luther deriving geocentrism from Joshua 10 and Eccl 1:5), so I’m not calling you stupid. You’re just wrong about the claims you’ve derived from Genesis 1-3 (like Luther was about Josh 10). I’ve given you the reasons I think you’re wrong. Would still be glad to go over those if you’d like.

    You won’t answer it though. You’ll hem and haw and try to divert attention away from this very question as you have from the start. (…) Did God form man with His own hands or not?

    No. (Do I win a steak dinner?)

    You’re wrong because the Bible doesn’t say God made Adam with his hands.

    God doesn’t have hands. Jesus said God is spirit (Jn 4:24). Paul says that Jesus himself is the image of the invisible God (Col 1:15).

    LikeLike

36. DD:

    Pretty much the most personally insulting post I’ve ever allowed on here, and that with a record amount of editing. Don’t try again, because you are done in this thread. Since you’ve called your conversation partner about every insulting term I can think of short of profanity, I don’t know why he would answer you.

    For the record, I’m certified to teach AP English. You make the following equation:

    “symbolic (allegorical, emblematic, figurative)”

    In the study of literature, symbolism is not allegory, not is it “figurative.” Each of these terms has its own use and contribution. Each is used in the Bible. Check the book of Psalms for many examples.

    I read one commenter say that he considered Gen 1-3 metaphorical, which would mean, by the way, that he considered Genesis 1-3 to be an image that describes something completely real.

    Example: Robert Frost refers to “leaves that curled up and hissed.” The leaves are real. They aren’t a snake, but the metaphor of a snake describes an aspect of the real.

    Now, we’re done for this thread.

    ms

    LikeLike

37. Josh,

    I have used no confusing terms.

    The word literal means: “in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not FIGUARATIVE or METAPHORICAL” That is how I read and understand the Creation account. I have mangled nothing. You don’t get the option of “relinquishing” anything to me as you never had a grasp of it in the first place. Yet, you have obsessed over that word while steadfastly [Mod Edit} ignoring the point.

    You accuse me of adding things to the narrative.[Mod edit] You are the one defending the idea that even though the Bible says “then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.” it doesn’t really [Mod edit] mean that. What it means is that over billions of years monkeys turned into man. One is literal, the words mean what they say. The other view means that the account is not an accurate portrayal of how man came to be but is representative or is symbollic [sic] (allegorical,emblematic, figurative).

    These are dictionary definitions and thesaurus entries for these words. [Mod edit]

    If the Creation account does not mean what it says (dirt, hand, breath) and the events did not happen at least close to the way described, why believe Jesus’ life, miracles, death and ressurection when it is just as likely to be inaccurate and simply illustrating some idea?

    Science says that those things can’t happen either, so why not relegate those to the level of metaphors and good examples? I can’t get much more clear than that. I’ve said so repeatedly but you ignore the point to try to prove how much smarter you are than I.

    You won’t answer it though. [Mod edit]. There has been no “substantive questions and arguments” just ways to not answer: Did God form man with His own hands or not? If you say “Not, because some scientists say so.” the next question is “Why believe in the ressurection, most scientists say that’s not true either.”

    DD

    LikeLike

38. “Surf, Still waiting for that “really” special revelation you must be receiving [cough, cough, cough…]”

    Benji — Just click on my handle, and look around.

    LikeLike

39. The Bible is like a telescope. If a man looks through his telescope, then he sees worlds beyond; but if he looks at his telescope, then he does not see anything but that. The Bible is a thing to be looked through, to see that which is beyond.

    — Henry Ward Beecher (1813-1887)

    LikeLike

40. No — I’m not outside on my roof right now. 🙂

    LikeLike

41. On the subject of the literal interpretation of Scripture:

    Paul wrote — “yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written…” Rom. 3:4

    And what is sometimes printed in red, so as to confer special literal interpretation, the words of the Word of God Incarnate, “What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops.” Mat. 10: 27

    He didn’t say, “What someone heard whispered in his ear thousands of years ago, was written down by someone else, then copied numerous times over the Centuries, and then was preached and interpreted to you by a televangelist, that you proclaim from the housetops.”

    No — He said what He said and meant just that.

    Again — “Let every man be a liar, but God be true.”

    LikeLike

42. DaveD, you wrote,

    For the record, I did not refer to Imonk’s answer as “a lie”. You seemed to think so in your response….or maybe it was just late and I misread.

    You misread badly.

    My point was that in the creation account is a lie, what does it matter what the question it answers is?

    You’re begging the question. You’re assuming that your interpretation of the creation account is the truth. So anyone who isn’t agreeing with your interpretation you can then dismiss (as you have done with my attempts to engage you with substantive questions and arguments) as false. The problem is you haven’t made a convincing case for the criterion you’re using to ascribe “true” to the meaning of Genesis 1-3. And judging by your repeated assertions of what we must believe about Genesis 1-3, I have inferred that your criterion is that the creation account must be read as documentary description. Do you agree?

    You are still wanting to play word games over the use of “literal”. I get it, you have a mad on for using the word incorrectly. Get over it and move to the real point: If the creation story is to be taken as mere myth or symbolism, what else in the Bible can we take that way?

    Sorry, can’t get over it. If I’m riding in a car with you and you insist that a “Stop” sign says “Turn left now!”, I’ll keep trying to correct you even if you tell me to stop playing word games. Being clear and precise with words helps communication and might actually lead to progress in understanding one another. You (and others) are throwing lots of words around that you are using in confused and obscuring ways, especially ‘literal’ and ‘symbolic’.

    In point of fact, I do read the creation narrative literally, and I’ll not relinquish that term to anyone who happens to mangle it out of all recognition. I also believe that Genesis 1-3 tells the truth about divine creation. What I do not believe–and I stand with Augustine, the Church Fathers, and wiser Christians than me–is that I’m entitled to read more into the narrative, and especially not that it tells us the means of creation, beyond “God did it.”

    LikeLike

43. Thanks for a great topic Mr. Imonk.

    Looking at Christ’s life and ministry, can anyone be convinced that He teaches us to go out and assault people with our KJV study bible ?
    Or to share The Good News without first having love, compassion and a genuine interest in the people we are evangelizing ?

    Your example #2 is a great illustration of using honey to encourage people to be curious about CHrist. Curiosity opens ears and hearts.

    Example #1 , the Vinegar Model, a great way to create mistrust and closed minds. Example #1 is the self-important CHristian that “forces Religion on everyone” .

    LikeLike

44. This thread nearly immediately became all about creationism, young earth, and Genesis. Why? — Urban Otter

    Because Young Earth Creationism IS now The Gospel, that’s why.

    Christ got thrown under the YEC bus some time ago.

    The thing is, neither of them seem to understand that the Bible is written in words, and words require interpretation. You just can’t say, “The Bible says!” and stop, as if that settles the matter. — Urban Otter

    Someone I overheard at a party was Army Intel in Iraq. He spoke of talking to Iraqis and how even the most educated and Westernized seemed to have this “wall in their mind”. You could reason with them only so far; sooner or later you would reach a point where “you could see the wall slam down in their mind”, after which there was only “IT IS WRITTEN! IT IS WRITTEN! IT IS WRITTEN! AL’LAH’U AKBAR! AL’LAH’U AKBAR! AL’LAH’U AKBAR!”

    Saying “The Bible Says!” and stopping (which settles the matter) is just the Christian version of this same dynamic. The wall in the mind slams down, after which there is only “SCRIPTURE! SCRIPTURE! SCRIPTURE! SCRIPTURE!”

    LikeLike

45. “But to say the sun literally stood still?”

    To say that a man actually physically rose from the dead? And had called several other people back to life?!

    Why is it reasonable to believe the Almighty creator of the universe is capable of doing one, but not the other?

    DD

    LikeLike

46. “One can cite Early Church Fathers on both sides of the issue. There are some who are clearly young-earth creationists. Meanwhile, there are others who clearly are not, and see the early chapters of Genesis as painting a vast poetic panorama. Some even went as far as considering it to be an extended allegory.”

    im — I guess Eastern Orthodox is out, too. 🙂

    LikeLike

47. “The Bible isn’t supernatural.”

    I don’t think you mean that. Don’t you mean rather that it isn’t magic? If it’s inspired by God, then by definition it is supernatural.

    “No wonder it’s only a hop, skip and a jump from that to “spiritual warfare” – warring angels and demons in the air around us who influence our lives, a concept any ancient pagan would be familiar with.”

    Spiritual warfare in the NT relates to an experience with which I personally am familiar — the individual and corporate fight to be obedient to God against my/our own sinful nature and circumstances. Paul’s metaphorical weapons are totally apt. He makes clear that this fight has a spiritual dimension with real spiritual beings.

    If our Pentecostal friends take it to excess, it is a matter of degree rather than kind (with exceptions*). I might blush at the idea walking through houses holding up a cross “binding the strong man,” but I prefer that to the view that there is no struggle at all, at which point the faith is reduced to a nice self-help program at best.

    *The exception being when one attributes all one’s sins to the demons rather than one’s personal choices. This can lapse into the most insidious kind of Gnostic dualism.

    LikeLike

48. im — Before I couldn’t be Catholic and you liked C.S. Lewis.

    What changed …? 🙂

    LikeLike

49. Patrick — I have no problem with the warfare-in-the-air. Theologians don’t go far enough with that. I believe that angels are involved with every process, both spiritual and physical. The pouring out of the bowls by the angels of Revelations could very well be the proliferation of pollutants and greenhouse gases we are producing ourselves, causing the very calamities prophesied.

    It’s not magical thinking or literal Scriptural cosmology the Bible is getting at — it’s Spiritual focus, I think.

    LikeLike

50. >I do believe that God inspired all of Scripture. I also believe that God inspired C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien.

    I do believe God sent you here to show me that I will never, ever in a million years be Catholic.

    Wow. Wow. Wow. Wow. Wow.

    LikeLike

51. I’m more and more convinced that YEC-or-nothing-ism is an attempt to believe in magic, rather than God. The Bible itself becomes nothing more than an artifact or talisman – it’s mystical book that, thanks to God’s ancient magic, tells only the Truth on every page. I don’t care how you want to theologize it, that’s magical thinking. The Bible isn’t supernatural. It doesn’t have to be magically true about science or the End of the World in order for us to follow Jesus.

    No wonder it’s only a hop, skip and a jump from that to “spiritual warfare” – warring angels and demons in the air around us who influence our lives, a concept any ancient pagan would be familiar with.

    LikeLike

52. “My stance is clear, that once we relegate part of the Bible to “fiction that illustrates a real world need” then there’s no reason not to lump it all there.”

    I’m curious as to commentary on this one:
    1 Kings 7 23
    “Then he made the sea of cast metal. It was round, ten cubits from brim to brim, and five cubits high, and a line of thirty cubits measured its circumference.”

    And
    Joshua 10:12-13
    “At that time Joshua spoke to the Lord in the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over to the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel,

    “Sun, stand still at Gibeon,
    and moon, in the Valley of Aijalon.”
    13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped,
    until the nation took vengeance on their enemies.
    Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stopped in the midst of heaven and did not hurry to set for about a whole day.”

    I can come up with all kinds of ways this appeared to Joshua to happen, especially given the rocks from the sky in the previous verse. But to say the sun literally stood still? As a friend of mine said, “relative to what reference point?”

    LikeLike

53. Dave – I have to admit to liking the Harry Potter series, so, yes, I agree that Bishop Kallistos Ware does look and sound a bit like Dumbledore. Now to make sure he does not eat the wrong flavor of magical jelly beans!

    To the rest – One of the advantages of believing in Holy Tradition and in highly respecting, and actually reading, the Early Church Fathers is that it also provides quite a perspective on the range of acceptable Biblical interpretations. There are many things over which the Early Church did NOT pronounce itself and left open to belief various possibilities. Creationism was one of the matters on which they did not pronounce themselves.

    One can cite Early Church Fathers on both sides of the issue. There are some who are clearly young-earth creationists. Meanwhile, there are others who clearly are not, and see the early chapters of Genesis as painting a vast poetic panorama. Some even went as far as considering it to be an extended allegory.

    What did they seem to agree on? That there was nothing before the beginning except God. That God did not manipulate an existing something but created de novo. That, in some way, God created Adam and Eve. That it is God who is in control of his creation; it is not independent of God. That God will deal further with his creation at the time of the Final Judgment. That regardless of your belief about those early chapters, it did not impact the historicity of the later chapters or the truth proclaimed in them.

    However, unlike too many modern young-earth types, the Church never condemned or harassed or despised or thought less of those who were not young-earth believers. That is a lesson that is worth learning.

    LikeLike

54. IM…>>>After a moment, one of the Christians present begins to speak. He speaks longer. His tone is different. He’s quoting verses…and more verses.

    Imonk…you are so right about the wrongness of the scenerio above. Lovers of God and his ‘lost’ children approach those ‘lost’ with a tone of love and deeds of caring. They remind of the loving redemptive act of Christ. They remember their own ‘lostness.’ The self-righteous use the preachy, judgemental, and ‘pounding’ of select verses. Also, the ‘lost’ can’t be won unless the spirit of God draws them. So the scenerio above is a lose…lose situation. And the #1 so outnumbers the #2. That’s why ‘Love never fails’. Few who truly are brought to a spiritual encounter with the Christ….seldom reject its wholesome deliverances.

    LikeLike

55. “Elijah must come first.” “He will turn the hearts of the children back to the Fathers.”

    Joseph — The faith that you describe above is the Faith of the Fathers. All Abraham had was the presence of the One True God in his life. Abraham heard His voice, believed what He heard was true and then acted upon that belief. For this he was rewarded with many confirming proofs and future promises for his progeny.

    DaveD — In order to have the faith you profess, you must start with these premises: that God inspired all of Scripture; therefore everything described in Scripture is factual and actually true; and that everyone who believes in God must believe not only the ethical, moral and spiritual basis of all the accounts and stories in the Bible, but also all the background details, even those completely unknown and unknowable to those who originally wrote the accounts, despite what has been discovered since. And the only confirming proofs are other Bible verses (which empirically confirms nothing).

    Abraham had to deal with people who clung to conventional beliefs in that way — they were the pagan idol worshipers, among whom he was the first and only exception.

    I do believe that God inspired all of Scripture. I also believe that God inspired C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien. Don’t think I’d advocate the development of of K-12 science curriculum based on their writings, however.

    Sorry, Dave — I’m sticking with the Faith of Abraham.

    LikeLike

56. Well we’ve now officially persecuted the creationists. Where have I heard that before? Hmmm…about every time they discover another Bible-believing Christian disagrees with them and doesn’t buy their “one option and only one option” approach to Genesis.

    Dave: Read the Roman Catholic Catechism on the inspiration of scripture. Then read it on creation. Whatever creationists may think, the most ancient Christian traditions don’t buy Hamm/Hovind creationism. The most recent Christian sects do.

    All of us believe in creation. Not one denominational confession I know of except the LCMS requires anyone to believe in more than that: God created. The interpretation of texts can and does vary and always has. Theologians playing scientists has always been entertaining.

    I don’t care if not believing the speed of light is hoax gets me laughed at. It’s a matter on which Christians differ. And it’s a prime example of where you can start at the Bible, study the world, come to a conclusion and still have your faith.

    God have mercy on the thousands and thousands and thousands of Christian young people forced out of the faith by being told that it was ICR/Hamm/Hovind Creationism or nothing.

    That’s officially causing one of the little ones to stumble in my opinion.

    ms

    LikeLike

57. The Bible is a faith book, not a fact book. It’s path to God, not a science or history text.

    It’s hard for me to understand those who say that if one single iota isn’t literally and factually true then all Christianity must collapse.

    Because 1) it’s pretty easy to google up scriptural inconsistencies and contradictions and 2) here I stand, a Christian, with my faith not shaken one bit by wrong historical record.

    My faith does not rest on a book. My faith rests on God. I don’t follow Jesus because his resurrection proves He was the son of God and therefore I had better follow Him or else. I follow Him because He is a presence in my life.

    LikeLike

58. Josh,

    For the record, I did not refer to Imonk’s answer as “a lie”. You seemed to think so in your response….or maybe it was just late and I misread.

    My point was that in the creation account is a lie, what does it matter what the question it answers is?

    You are still wanting to play word games over the use of “literal”. I get it, you have a mad on for using the word incorrectly. Get over it and move to the real point: If the creation story is to be taken as mere myth or symbolism, what else in the Bible can we take that way?

    My stance is clear, that once we relegate part of the Bible to “fiction that illustrates a real world need” then there’s no reason not to lump it all there. There are all sorts of theological ideas that hinge on the truth of God making us out of dust.

    If God did not create us but Adam was simply the first evolved monkey we have two problems. 1: In the very first book of what we considered God’s revelation of Himself, He LIES. What ramifications are there from that?

    Two, if God did not create us but found us, then the atheists I have encountered are right: it’s a might makes right scenario. He has no legitimate claim over our lives or to judge us, but because He’s more powerful than any of us, we have to go along with it.

    I don’t care if believing in Creation gets me laughed at. There is science to back up the idea but it almost always gets ridicules simply because it begins, not with the idea that there is no God, but with the belief that there is. If someone else finds it easier to believe in a theory that even it’s creator said was anti- God, so be it.

    DD

    LikeLike

59. “If there was no death in the Garden, where are all these lush gardens and immortal animals in Iraq? Looks like a desert to me.”

    Hmmm… lush gardens and immortal animals, hidden in the desert… sounds like the premise of another Hollywood summer blockbuster… sign up Brandon Fraser and let’s green-light this baby… whos’ with me?!

    LikeLike

60. Fr. Ernesto,

    this is sort of flippant and off-topic, but I have to say that Bishop Kallistos has one of the coolest voices in the world. I just love listening to his talk. He reminds me of some wise old wizard– a Gandalf/Dumbledore figure. The big white beard helps too.

    I don’t mean any of this disrespectfully. I’m not Orthodox, but I think Kallistos Ware is awesome. Thanks for posting that link.

    LikeLike

61. I’d like to posit that neither Christian 1 nor Christian 2 is truly stopping with the Bible. Christian 1 is simply less conscious of his or her own position within culture, space, time, etc. and how this effects his or her own thinking. I do not believe complete critical objectivity is possible. We can either search for truth, aware of our own limitations and in faith, or we can take our own preconceived (and culturally conditioned) notions as the defacto norm and judge all else by how well it accords with these preconceived notions. I remember being on another forum where some Independant Baptists were arguing about whether or not Augustine and Luther were “saved,” since these men held theological positions which were drastically different than their own. Never once did they think of turning the mirror on themselves.

    I read it suggested that, were it not for having read certain scientists, one would necessarily come to a new earth position. I would like to ask, however, were a person not conditioned by a post enlightenment empiricism as he or she approached the Bible, would he or she necessary come to a new earth position? Shockingly, many of the Church Fathers were old earth or ambivalent and had no problem reading much of the Old Testament metaphorically.

    LikeLike

62. “My point is that FOR ME…not for you, wisdom is found in the Word”

    I guess.

    LikeLike

63. Patrick Lynch
    >>>“Frued’s description of the psychological is clearly given in scripture as the Word records the differences in the motives of man, as well as his predictable behaviors, depending on the ‘high’ spiritual influences on the thinking of man.”
    You really should stop listening to whatever pastor is telling you this stuff.

    Patrick: My degree includes an endorsement in “Mental Retardation.” I used Piaget applications in depth for eighteen years..just didn’t include all that in my comment. My point is that FOR ME…not for you, wisdom is found in the Word. Experience has taught me to recognize inward struggles from outward behaviors. The Bible is helpful in these areas. Also, I’ve never heard a pastor so much as mention Frued. I seek out life and death truths for myself…..from the Father.

    LikeLike

64. Steve – I have to reiterate — Adam didn’t die biologically the “day” he ate of it — he left his body for his eternal rewards some 900+ years later, according to the account. The death he died was separation from God and it happened as soon as he took a bite. God kicked the two of them out of the Garden, lest they eat of the Tree of Life and live forever. Then there would be this race of the immortal “living dead.” Couldn’t have that.

    When Lazarus “died” Jesus told the disciples that he hadn’t died, but was sleeping. He then had to explain to them that — yes — as they understand it, he died. Death for believers is not “the Death” — it is rest in Christ.

    If there was no death in the Garden, where are all these lush gardens and immortal animals in Iraq? Looks like a desert to me.

    Or maybe the Garden of Eden was a state of being that we all can relate to because we all lived it in childhood and all lost it in crossing over to responsible adulthood.

    LikeLike

65. “Anyway, I used to think that Garden of Eden = perfection = nothing ‘bad’ = therefore, no death, no thorns, no carrion birds, no decay”

    This is what is taught by the AIG/Ken Hamm crowd. And much of the SBC seems to have adapted it in full.

    LikeLike

66. First, show me that you believe the Bible by the way you live your life (love God and your neighbor as yourself), and then tell me about it. Better yet, let me read it. If I don’t have one, give me a nice one.

    But please, please, please don’t bang me over the head with it. Don’t insist that you have the correct interpretation. I know that there are many interpretations and that they are all over the map.

    The previous two paragraphs summarize what a non-Christian friend tells people who want to bang him over the head with the Bible regarding what they consider to be his “issues”.

    I agree with him. I try to avoid discussing the Bible with that type of people. Since that causes them to assume I must not know anything about it, some insist on persisting. Actually, I know the Bible quite well, and if pressed hard enough will point out the parts of the Bible that contradict what they are saying. Without exception, this makes them mad, often so mad that they will not speak to me again. Now isn’t that strange as can be? If I don’t agree with your “interpretation” you will punish me by not talking to me? Is that how you interpret Christ-like behavior?

    My observation: religious people love to hit other people over the head with Bible verses. Followers of Jesus live the Bible because they really know and believe what it says. They tell people what the Bible says when those folks ask.

    LikeLike

67. Martha – you asked, “what would death be like before the fall?” I don’t know, but:
    If there was no possibility of death before the fall, then God’s warning to Adam (“the day you eat of it you shall surely die”) would be devoid of meaning. “Death? What’s that?”

    Whatever Adam’s experience or witness of death, it was enough to be consider God’s statement as a kind of warning of consequence. Plus, there was also the “Tree of Life” – perhaps existing there to prolong life? – – and if so, why would this be significant unless there was potential for life to not be prolonged (i.e. death)?

    What Genesis said was that upon eating of the forbidden tree, death would become a CERTAIN outcome for man (“surely die”).

    Anyway, I used to think that Garden of Eden = perfection = nothing ‘bad’ = therefore, no death, no thorns, no carrion birds, no decay (but what about fruit and seeds?), etc. I have since realized that was more like my wishful thinking imposed onto scripture. It wasn’t so much that I had made scripture my “stopping place”; it’s more that I hadn’t really made it my starting place.

    LikeLike

68. Tim W, I see that my comments about the meaning of “literal” and other related terms applies to you as well. With respect, I think you, DaveD and a few others here in the thread are making the same mistakes. I really do commend Lawson Stone’s essay on this subject to you. (He’s a much clearer writer than me!)

    LikeLike

69. “Honestly i don’t know how to be a Christian and still believe in evolution.”

    Change your grammar of Scripture. Rather than reading it in terms of sparse rationality, like stereo instructions, or an account of the geography of Finland, read it from the perspective of Easter. Genesis 1-3 tells us how Creation looks in terms of the Resurrection. Exodus tells us how the Hebrews came out of Egypt in terms of the Passion. Leviticus serves as a juxtaposition to grace. And so on.

    This would have been difficult for me to grasp three years ago. Maybe it just sounds like mumbo-jumbo or a circular argument to readers. The best way that comes to mind right now is a partial derivative in calculus. If you’re not an engineer or mathematician, I’m probably about to lose you. But, here goes. In the real world, functions to measure something depend on several variables at once. You can’t easily do the calculus when you simultaneously juggle all the variables. So you hold all the variables constant except for one and calculate the derivative with respect to that one. The result you get for the partial derivative with respect to one variable is different from that of another, but they both come from the same function. Neither is “wrong;” both are mathematically true.

    Say that reality is the complex function. When we evaluate its meaning in terms of science, it looks one way; when we evaluate it in terms of theology, it looks different. Both are true.

    LikeLike

70. Dowd’s issues are Biblical, Tim. The foundations of the Bible are Theism. The painting is NOT the painter. Dowd is a great guy who does some good work, but he tries to resolve religious tensions that can’t be resolved without foundational compromise. Dowd needs to just become a Buddhist if he’s going to say God is the universe in the process of becoming. The Christian faith is meant way past the breaking point with that premise.

    LikeLike

71. DaveD, I should simply retreat into my erroneous, flippant, game-playing ways and let your serious declaration stand without further challenge. But you contradicted yourself.

    You claim to be in agreement with iMonk’s response: “Why is the world the way it is? (And why is Jesus the only way to rescue and restore it?) That’s it and that’s all.” You then ask rhetorically what does the question matter if the answer is a lie. If you think iMonk’s answer is not a lie, then you are agreeing with him that the truth to which Genesis 1-3 aspires, its literal meaning, is just what iMonk said. But the litany you go on to recite has nothing to do with that, and in fact entails that you disagree with iMonk about the question Genesis 1-3 is answering. Evidently, you believe from the agreed-upon fact of divine creation that any number of theological consequences hinge in addition on the means of that creation. Your chain of reasoning is built on precisely that questionable exegetical move, and the truths you stack up behind it are all waiting to fall like a single line of dominoes. You are insistent on reading the creation narrative as a documentary description, which, I submit for your consideration, is most assuredly NOT a literal reading of the text. Reading it as a documentary description yields a whole different set of questions than the one iMonk stated. You have constructed a system like the Hindenburg, and making the entire structure of Christian belief depend on reading off the means of creation from Genesis 1-3 is like the hydrogen gas that fills it. Again, I would point back to Augustine for a better approach. (Lawson Stone is the originator of the Hindenburg metaphor.)

    Now, I have not been “screaming” at you or playing games with you. In fact, I think some of your defensiveness has been provoked by others who have thrown the “fundamentalist” label around. I think that is unfair to you and such labels often get applied when someone just disagrees with you and would like to take the shortcut and just shame you into silence or capitulation. In the larger context of how the world uses the term, we’re all fundamentalists here because we believe stuff like Jesus rising from the dead happened. So all the flinging of names back and forth is really accomplishing is stating the obvious: we all have lots of strong beliefs about lots of things and they don’t perfectly coincide. So let’s all just admit to being fundamentalists in this sense and proceed to reason together.

    LikeLike

72. I agree. I wish he’d just come out and say so. Still, maybe he is right. For evolution to be true and the biblical idea of God to also be true, then the only theory that allows you to hold to both would be Intelligent Design, which I don’t know much about. Dowd isn’t for Intelligent Design, he is for Evolution. Still, I don’t want to say that he is wrong just because the bible tells me that he can’t possibly be right. Honestly i don’t know how to be a Christian and still believe in evolution. If honesty requires that I give up on being a Christian in the event that the bible and intelligent design are proven false, that can’t be a bad thing. Honesty can never be a bad thing.

    LikeLike

73. “This has also caused me to wonder if Jesus’s resurection (sic) is simply a symbol as well.”

    To a first-century Hellenistic-Judaic mind, the idea of “just a symbol” is incoherent. In that worldview, the symbol invokes its archetype and is real. But since you almost certainly mean to say that it is a metaphor, I won’t belabor the point.

    To borrow from N.T. Wright, if a Jewish person back then were to go around proclaiming that Jesus was resurrected metaphorically in the sense of some kind of spiritual renewal he was experiencing, his fellow Jews might say they were happy for him that he was enjoying such an experience, but why would he call it a “resurrection?” That word had a specific eschatological and BODILY meaning in Second Temple Judaism relating to the reinstitution of the Kingdom.

    I guess if one were to come to the conclusion that Christianity isn’t really true, but that it has some life principles that one still rather likes, one could attach metaphorical values to its stories, but that is not the same faith that the first Christians practiced. It would be a shame to come to that conclusion because one knew no kind of faith besides fundamentalism, and therefore lost faith when the cognitive dissonance therein could no longer be sustained.

    LikeLike

74. Dowd’s religion is pantheism, despite his noble efforts to not appear to be one.

    LikeLike

75. “If the statement about Creation can be taken as simply symbolic, why then can’t we take the Ressurection as symbolic or simply “spiritual”? What becomes the solid rock of our faith? Jesus can’t be. The only records we have of him and his teaching are writings. Writings that may just be symbollic or fabricated to answer questions people had about the world and the way it is and should be.”

    This is basically where i am at. I’ve come to believe that Genesis is a metaphor and not to be taken literally. This has also caused me to wonder if Jesus’s resurection is simply a symbol as well. I don’t know where this is going to lead me, but it seems very unlikely I will ever go back to viewing Genesis as literal.

    I’ve been reading Michael Dowd’s ‘Thank God for Evolution’ and it seems to say that ‘God’ is just a word for ‘the Universe’ – which also consists of a lot of Dark Matter that science can’t account for.

    LikeLike

76. Hi iMonk,
    Hope this does not defer your argument, but let’s use the Bible. The Apostle Paul in Acts would address people that were much more aware of what the word of God said than most people today. I can think of people like Felix where it was said they had multiple discussions. I gather from their encounters that Paul began with scriptures, because I am sure Felix had questions that were about the scriptures, then observed the surroundings for applications and solidified his point by going back to the scriptures.

    My concern is not so much how one starts or where one ends as much as it is the scripture being used appropriately as it was with Paul. Paul was not a “Superman.” He was a man. Yet, he loved God so much that to him it was paramount to know what God had to say more than his own opinions.

    Those in Christ are all students (disciples) of His. I take that to mean what we know today may not be where we land up tomorrow. Peter was not the same man before and after Pentecost for example. But, there needs to be one essential to all of this. That is Christ is the way, the truth, and the life. That no matter where you place your ramp, either to jump off or land upon, no one can come to the Father without first swallowing this truth.

    From there, discussions make for seasoning on your favorite meal. We can enjoy the flavor in the diversity of mankind and our view points trusting fully upon the rest of knowing that is is only by His grace and His mercy that truly saves!

    LikeLike

77. “Most people I know, Christian and not, believe Freud is still THE source for psychological studies.”

    With respect, they’re still wrong.

    “Even in college classes about child development, a quarter to half the time is devoted to discussing Freud’s theories only to throw in their debunking as an aside.”

    That sounds highly impractical, but hey – why not?

    LikeLike

78. Joel, I answered the question/proposal in your first paragraph to clarify the position I was expressing. It is the view taken in Genesis 1-3.

    I agree with imonk’s response.

    I do think you’re playing games here. What does it matter what the question is if the answer is a lie? Either God created man out of the dust of the ground or He lied about it. Evolving from monkeys can not, even with great poetic license can not be contrued as forming man from the dust and breathing life into him. If the statement about Creation can be taken as simply symbolic, why then can’t we take the Ressurection as symbolic or simply “spiritual”? What becomes the solid rock of our faith? Jesus can’t be. The only records we have of him and his teaching are writings. Writings that may just be symbollic or fabricated to answer questions people had about the world and the way it is and should be.

    It’s a slippery slope, it seems to me, when we start to take things meant as history (like Genesis and the Gospels) and relegate them to Symbolic Truth instead of Actual Truth.

    Maybe I’m wrong. Simply screaming that I and those who believe like me are anti science or nuts or ignorant is just arrogant. There is plenty of science on the Creationist side and so far the best rebuttals to it I’ve seen is hand waving by folks who just proclaim, essentially, “There’s no God in Science”.

    Patrick Lynch: Using the Freud thing as “a Christian science-fearing cliche” is supremely arrogant. Most people I know, Christian and not, believe Freud is still THE source for psychological studies. Even in college classes about child development, a quarter to half the time is devoted to discussing Freud’s theories only to throw in their debunking as an aside.

    DD

    DD

    LikeLike

79. M. S. here is that Amen!
    Chaplain Mike, we have a bit of ADD over here, but it proves the bible is the starting point, look what it started.

    LikeLike

80. How’s this for a definition?

    Fundamentalist: Somebody who runs you over with their opinion in the name of theology.

    Shall we update Websters on that one?

    LikeLike

81. sorry, an earlier comment had an alias for me, so DaveD’s last comment was a partial response to me:

    @What’s it like?: I believe that God created the heavens and the earth by the power of His spoken command. I believe that death did not enter the world until Adam sinned.

    You see, here’s an illustration of the problem the original post is all about. DaveD, I didn’t ask you what you believe. So these statements don’t actually respond to what I asked, which was: what is the QUESTION to which Genesis 1-3 is the answer? iMonk gave his reply. What did you think of it? Agree or disagree? How would you formulate the question differently, if at all?

    LikeLike

82. “Does a monkey understand the labels of all the trees within the garden….so he can avoid The Tree of Knowledge or to eat of the one named The Tree of Life?”

    Animals of all kinds have calls or utterances for tree species that are important to them. Apes have been known to come up with their own names for other animals, people, and things.

    As for people, we’re still in the process of naming plants and animals, aren’t we?

    “Does a female monkey travail in childbirth?”

    Mares do.

    etc. etc.

    LikeLike

83. Sorry, that was supposed to be “young earth adherents,” above.

    LikeLike

84. “Piaget’s Developmental Stages are not so profound. He just watched his own kids and came to common sense conclusions. Every parent knows there are differences in personalities and intellectual applications among their various children.”

    Piaget’s Developmental Stages aren’t about ‘differences in personalities’ – they are stages describing progressive psychomotor development and perception. The reason Piaget was profound isn’t because he noticed that “all kids are different”, but it’s that he provided us with a sketch of how they unfold, in terms of their self-awareness, physical capability, and psychology – one that we’ve progressively built on and the science of which has given us everything from advances in early childhood education to early detection for neurological diseases. That’s what theories of cognition are good for.

    In short, Piaget wasn’t so dumb, either. He didn’t “just take time to record his observations” – he structured them in a way we could observe for ourselves, test, and make use of.

    The Bible doesn’t actually give us what Piaget gave us, which is why he did what he did.

    Denying the gifts other people have made to mankind seems prideful to me, even if you want to take credit from them and assign it to God.

    LikeLike

85. Just a comment on a subtlety about evolutionary theory that Surfnetter mentioned. There is actually no such thing as a “Darwinist” theory concerning for the origin of life on earth. Evolutionary theory (classical Darwinist or modern) has never addressed the origin of life or tried to – it addresses only how life changes over time. Surfnetter is correct that we currently have no generally agreed upon scientific theory that adresses the origin of life.

    I mention this only because the “origin question” is often (sometimes intentionally) conflated with evolution in discussions of this type. The fact that evolutionary theory doesn’t and can’t explain life’s origin is a talking point often cited by young earth asherents to “prove” that evolution is bunk. The two issues are actually completely different.

    LikeLike

86. Brian,

    Just saw your latest response. Yes. A living faith has more movement to it than often I am comfortable with. Not that God changes, but my understanding of him certainly has and does. Another reason for us to keep as near Christ as possible don’t you think? I can’t trust in my own moving target of understanding, and I sure as (bleep) don’t trust in anyone elses. A lot of you are even goofier than me. God save the queen and all the rest of us.

    LikeLike

87. I was thinking MDS’ statement about scripture sounded kind of like Robert Barclay who I did quote verbatim.

    Karl Barth is cool, but boring to read.

    LikeLike

88. This relates to the conversation in way that I’ll not take the time to try to work out as it would take too long. If it is a distraction, ignore it.

    Why some hear Christ in a saving way and not others, and the mystery of how it is that God makes the words of scripture alive in a saving way has caused me to think about Camus. His story bears perhaps tangentially, perhaps not, on the points I previously made. He (Camus) wrote with gentleness and wonder concerning the person of Jesus. It was with deep respect that he spoke of Jesus profound uniqueness and goodness as a man, and also with greater sensitivity of Jesus suffering love than many Christians I’ve read. He even, according to a pastor that had conversations with Camus near the end of his life, desired to be a believer. Yet it would appear that he was never able to do so. My heart aches when I read his writing for I see a man who would have come to know Christ had he the power in himself to do so. Trusting in the goodness of God as I do, I maintain hope for Camus.

    For me, this illustrates the utter humility and reverence we must bring, not to scripture itself, but to our dependence upon Christ whenever we come to the Bible.

    LikeLike

89. thanks! best regards 🙂

    LikeLike

90. “Frued’s description of the psychological is clearly given in scripture as the Word records the differences in the motives of man, as well as his predictable behaviors, depending on the ‘high’ spiritual influences on the thinking of man.”

    You really should stop listening to whatever pastor is telling you this stuff. Freud’s account of the mind is NOTHING like anything implied in Scripture, and is actually quite antagonistic in some ways to your “traditional” reading of Scripture – and, besides, is widely considered not-useful in practice nowadays anyhow. Referencing Freud is just not really apropos to any discussion of modern psychology, theory or practice, and referencing Freud (or Einstein or Marx any other “big name” in science.. from 70+ years ago..) wrongly is sort of a Christian science-fearing cliche… It’s a mistake that’s easy to make if you’re just quoting smart people you’ve heard in church, but saying stuff like that sort of marks you out.

    LikeLike

91. “Even today, if a person was stranded on an uninhabited island, as the cloths wore away over time, exposure of the naked body to element extremes….especially that of direct sunlight….would grow hair which would completely cover the whole body. It’s nature’s way of protecting from the elements and so forth. If you don’t believe me…try it :smile:”

    Years of issues of National Geographic are full of images that would seem to testify otherwise.

    I have no idea why you’d believe this.

    LikeLike

92. The general revelation that Romans 1 refers to is “immediate” knowledge–not mere knowledge one in time comes to discover as he observes God’s creation textbook.

    If it isn’t immediate, then Romans could not say all men are accountable.

    Plus, any “reading” of the creation beyond the immediate knowledge needs to be read with Bible lens glasses on instead of taking those off and putting on your own “arbitrary” lens glasses.

    Ya can’t ever justify arbitrariness no matter how many philosophers, doctors, scientists, you want to quote because they are ALL finite and thus do not know everything and hence cannot justify anything since there might be something the “all” don’t know about that might contradict what they think they know with certainty.

    Probably a run on sentence, but I don’t care:)

    It is so silly for any of us to read Genesis 1-3 feeling as if Darwin’s “shadow” is hovering over us.

    Personally, I prefer the hovering of the Holy Spirit–Gen. 1:2.

    If no literal first Adam, why the need for a literal last Adam?

    Surf,

    Still waiting for that “really” special revelation you must be receiving [cough, cough, cough…]

    🙂

    LikeLike

93. “One doesn’t have to know anything of Barth to approach scripture in this way. ”
    I just asked because your position on Scripture echoes his nearly verbatim.

    Which is fine; if I had to define my view as of February 2009 it would Barthian-Methodism-sticking-toe-in-Golden-Horn.

    LikeLike

94. I meant to say “do not see advocated” in my above comment. I don’t want to create any more confusion to the discussion than necessary.

    LikeLike

95. Martha: No, especially since scripture never says it was an apple 🙂

    LikeLike

96. Brian,

    One doesn’t have to know anything of Barth to approach scripture in this way. Most Bible believing churches will teach their people to pray to God for understanding before they begin a reading of the Bible. The Bibles words are ink on paper, and as such no different from any other book without God’s active presence making them alive to someone. They can be read, memorized, studied, and so on, yet this discerning reader may never come to know Christ. Something must occur between the words and the reader only made possible by Christ through the Spirit. The Bible is different from other books in that the Holy Spirit was somehow active and present in its writing, and in that He continues to be present to many who read it today, and will continue to be present in this way until the final consummation of His work. My point is simply that Christ is the one in charge and running the show, not us, our theories, nor a view of scripture I do see advocated by that same scripture, and which I feel too often leads to things that distract the church from its faithful witness of Christ.

    LikeLike

97. Some of you may wish to watch the five minute video by Bishop Kallistos Ware listed below. He deals with the Orthodox and modern thought.

    LikeLike

98. What would death be like before the Fall? Would there have been a physical death, or a form of assumption?

    We don’t know. What we do know is what death is like for us *now*; why we say we believe in the resurrection of the body (if we do believe it).

    Is anyone going to fall over in a swoon if told that the famous apple probably wasn’t an apple at all, but really a pun by the translators? (Latin apple ‘malus’, evil ‘malum’)

    But that there is a breach, a fall, a disconnect between what we are and what we should be – can that be doubted? Even a hard-core atheist materialist can still agree that no, one should not steal/rape/murder.

    LikeLike

99. Many of the comments posted here prove my point. iMonk writes a post to elicit a discussion about how (and how not) to include the Bible in our conversations with non-Christians, and much of it turns into an esoteric theological debate about how to interpret Genesis. Wake up people!

    LikeLike

100. https://internetmonk.com/archive/karl-barth-link

     https://internetmonk.com/archive/mark-devine-on-karl-barth

     I’m actually a fan of the Holy Spirit.

     LikeLike

101. “In contrast to this, the living presence of the Holy Spirit makes alive the words of scripture to a reader open to hearing, and Christ is thereby made alive in her through a vital, life giving, and life forming relationship.”

     So I’m guessing you’re a fan of Karl Barth then.

     LikeLike

102. Internetalias — do you know that some chimpanzees smell more like certain individual humans (analyzed by a molecularly sensitive digital device) than those individual humans smell like any other humans?

     I’m glad that you are so taken with the “science” of the Bible — but if that’s all we had — if that’s all people ever stuck with — where would we be?

     Darwin, Copernicus, Galileo — they weren’t coming up against the Bible — they were up against the conventional interpretation of the Bible. It was the non-negotiability of those interpretations that caused the scandal when these theories were proved correct. They didn’t disprove the existence of God — the situations displayed the level of arrogance of some religious authorities.

     LikeLike

103. Here is a comparative analogy for how God reveals himself to the world and one that I believe makes the obsessive need to believe in Biblical innerancy seem odd. Nearly all Christians would agree God uses human men and women to make Himself known to others. Likewise, most would readily acknowledge the depth of imperfection in those same people. If God is able to use imperfect people to reveal himself, why would he be limited by a less than perfect Bible? By less than perfect, I simply one that is not inerrant as commonly defined. The demand for this kind of innerancy easily leads to honoring (or making an idol of)the book before Christ. The scripture itself becomes a means by which we shield ourselves from the living presence of God. In a well intended effort to honor God, we dishonor him. In trying to protect Him, He is weakened. He is not weakened or limited in Himself of course, but we inadvertently provide the means for ourselves and others to keep Christ at a distance. We make ourselves sovereign through our demand that a particular view of scripture is the key by which God acts.

     What I’m writing here will look to some like liberalism, but is nothing of the sort. Liberalism says the world must be understood according to the rational reasoning of men and women. The argument for innerancy is more nearly related to liberalism than the one I advocate, for it presupposes a sort of enlightenment logic by which scripture must conform to. In contrast to this, the living presence of the Holy Spirit makes alive the words of scripture to a reader open to hearing, and Christ is thereby made alive in her through a vital, life giving, and life forming relationship.

     This way of approaching scripture is, I feel, far more worshipful and honoring to Christ than the commonly held views of Biblical innerancy.

     LikeLike

104. I think part of the problem is in calling the Bible the Word of God. So, some people have made an idol out of it.

     The Bible is not the Word of God. Jesus is the Word of God (John 1). The Bible is according to Barclay (since he can say it better than me):

     “I. A faithful historical account of the actings of God’s people in divers ages; with many singular and remarkable providences attending them.
     II. A prophetical account of several things, whereof some are already past, and some yet to come.
     III. A full and ample account of all the chief principles of the doctrine of Christ, held forth in divers precious declarations, exhortations and sentences, which, by the moving of God’s Spirit, were at several times, and upon sundry occasions, spoken and written unto some churches and their pastors.
     Nevertheless, because they are only a declaration of the fountain, and not the fountain itself, therefore they are not to be esteemed the principal ground of all Truth and knowledge, nor yet the adequate primary rule of faith and manners”

     Robert Barclay, Apology, Third Proposition

     LikeLike

105. Im’s discussion if where, when, how to use the authoritative Word, has to include thoughts related to early earth, Bible history, and so forth. The Genesis account of creation,like Revelations, is not in perfect chronilogical order. One chapter discusses the creation of man..male and female. Another area discusses it again, giving added details. God shows the creation act from different perspetive views so that like perspectives on a blueprint…we get a much clearer view of the thing constructed. Also, spiritual discernment is necessary for accurately interpreting all scripture. Scripture contains more ‘science’ than all the scientist is the world could derive. I love the science seen when the redeemed go up to meet Christ in the clouds. His superior nature simply neutralizes the natural law of gravity and…swoosh…up we go. Scripture says man’s hair ‘is for a covering.’ In the beginning, man was covered with hair. But they were not the lower animal of the ape family. Even today, if a person was stranded on an uninhabited island, as the cloths wore away over time, exposure of the naked body to element extremes….especially that of direct sunlight….would grow hair which would completely cover the whole body. It’s nature’s way of protecting from the elements and so forth. If you don’t believe me…try it 🙂 . The science involved in the rotation of planets, stars, moons and so forth..are magnitism, gravity, inertia…and other clearly observed natural forces at work between, among, and from inside the planets. I suspect the expansive weight if the firely liquid magma inside the Earth is a natural force which aides the continual ‘spinning’ process. Frued’s description of the psychological is clearly given in scripture as the Word records the differences in the motives of man, as well as his predictable behaviors, depending on the ‘high’ spiritual influences on the thinking of man. There is truly ‘nothing new under the sun.’ Piaget’s Developmental Stages are not so profound. He just watched his own kids and came to common sense conclusions. Every parent knows there are differences in personalities and intellectual applications among their various children. As to other famous scientific findings….anyone can observe what makes a dog salivate…and what doesn’t. These folks just took time to record their observations. As for man evolving from monkeys……I DON’T THINK SO. Does a monkey cover himself with leaves because he is naked? Does a monkey have telepathical conversations concerning God’s plan for his destiny with an invited ‘subtle’ guest in the Garden? Does a monkey understand the labels of all the trees within the garden….so he can avoid The Tree of Knowledge or to eat of the one named The Tree of Life? Does a female monkey travail in childbirth? Does a monkey name his offspring Cain, Abel, and Seth. Does a monkey take the best lamb from his flock as a perfect offerning before God> Does a monkey deliberately reject the blood offering commanded by God and take his beautiful fruit offering? Is a monkey jealous over Godly praise of his brother’s offering? Does a monkey build cities such as that built by Enoch. Oh ..come on..folks. I am not descended from monkies. I am descended from Adam and Eve through Noah, his sons and their wives. We are certainly all…brethren.

     LikeLike

106. Surfnetter –

     God’s authority is universal. To say that therefore the Bible has universal authority seems problematic to me, inasmuch as I’m not sure how much use it is to talk about the Bible’s authority over people who don’t understand it and don’t recognize it as being authoritative.

     Some Christians speak as though everything true about God is also necessarily true about the Bible (because the Bible is God’s Word) but I think this causes more logical problems than it solves. God has authority, and the Bible reveals the God who has authority.

     LikeLike

107. Is it possible that the “dust of the earth” that man was created from were the microbes that make up the organic matter that is the soil and that the evolution of the species is how God formed man …?

     The evidence for Darwinist “Origin of the Species” formation of all lifeforms is overwhelming. But the Darwinist theory of the origin of life on earth is just philosophy and not science at all. That’s why they’re so hot on finding life somewhere else in the Universe. It is not science unless they can demonstrate the same independent process on another planet.

     LikeLike

108. DD,

     Excellent post and repsonse.

     I have a few thoughts, and these are not rhetorical or questions that I have formed a concrete opinion on.

     1. Is it possible that the earth could be very old, and that time as we know it, i.e. aging towards death and decay did not begin until the fall? That would leave room for both a long time geologicaly (even though like you DD I don’ think a long time is neccesary for the things we see)

     2. Could number one be true and add the thought that perhaps the animals were dying and the plants were dying, but man was “immuned” from death until the fall? This would leave room for a long age for animals to become extinct.

     Just ideas, but I would like to get folks opinions.

     LikeLike

109. “Do we assume also that if we look around Mesopotamia long enough we will stumble upon an actual mountaintop garden guarded by angels? Why are we able to grasp that the age of the new heavens and the new earth will be beyond anything we can currently understand, but that the account of the age before the Fall can be read like a newspaper article?”

     Excellent, excellent work.

     LikeLike

110. So — dkmonroe — the authority of the Bible only exists among people who believe in its authority.

     But what are the limits of God’s Authority …? 🙂

     LikeLike

111. If I were in a group of Christans and non-Christians having a discussion about anything, I wouldn’t bother injecting the Bible into the conversation unless the Bible was the topic of conversation. I really can’t see the value of hanging a bunch of out-of-context Bible verses in the air to people who are likely to not really grasp them at face value and will also probably be predisposed to doubt my interpretation of them.

     I’m not trying to craft some new ersatz absolute here, but it seems to me that almost any point worth making can be made cogently and intelligently without necessarily invoking the authority of the Bible, especially to people who probably don’t recognize its authority.

     LikeLike

112. Can someone tell me where in the Creation Story does biological death come in as a result of Adam’s disobedience?

     “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: FOR IN THE DAY that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” Gen. 2:17

     Adam lived nearly a thousand years after that. I don’t think by then he saw biological death as a punishment.

     LikeLike

113. “This blog is monitored by my employer and by people who want me off the net and silenced.”

     I always thought those references were to folks like the Wolftracks nut and such. I was not aware that your school was paying the same kind of attention. I apologize, I REALLY don’t want to get you in any trouble. This is one of the few places where real discussions of such things goes on; at least that I’ve found.

     What’s it like?: I believe that God created the heavens and the earth by the power of His spoken command. I believe that death did not enter the world until Adam sinned. If things had been dying for billions of years before that, then blaming death on the actions of one man becomes just another myth to explain why things are like Poseidon sending storms at sea. If death existed before the Fall, then the biggest part of the Curse, one Paul puts considerable emphasis on, is just a natural phenomenon…not a judgment.

     I readily acknowledge the poetry and and quirks of the Hebrew language and way of story telling. There is however a big difference between unusual/unclear story telling and claiming to have done something you didn’t. If evolution is true, then God did not craft man, breathe life into him (because he was already alive as a monkey) and did not bring death into the world as punishment for sin which is the DIRECT cause for the need of Jesus’ sacrifice.(Romans 5:12-14) The Genesis account, therefore, is critical to the entirety of the Bible and the promises therein.

     For the record, I am more of an old earth, new habitability man. I am perfectly open to the idea that the Earth is billions of years old and the 6 days in Genesis is God making the planet fit for mankind. This may be a bit of a disconnect but it is mine. Geologic events live the canyon carved out by the eruption of Mt. St. Helens tells me that billions of years are NOT required for the features we see today. The fact that the Native Americans near the Grand Canyon have a story about how the mother of all was saved from a great flood in a boat and when the waters of this flood ran off they carved the Grand Canyon fits with the Mt. St. Helens evidence. This could mean a young earth. Irreducible Complexity demonstrates that things that can not exist separately could not have evolved separately. And somewhere in the back of my head I do think the platypus is God’s way of blowing Darwin a big old raspberry.

     “these modernist errors manifesting themselves in “YEC” nonsense”

     Modernist? Isn’t the Hebrew calendar built on the concept of starting when the Earth was made? The year is 5769. If anything is a modern error it is the billions of years idea.

     DD

     LikeLike

114. Yes, Brian 🙂

     Even the Big Bang Theory fits. It begins with a “unity” of all matter and energy that somehow came apart forming over time into “all things.” Not only does this match the “formless void” of the Creation Story but also the Kabbalist myth of a unified perfection that broke into millions of pieces.

     And then it also matches the eternal moment of separation of God from God that we see played out in time on the Cross, but was actually a moment in Eternity — Christ crucified from the foundations of all that is.

     Thank you Lord for freeing my mind! 🙂

     LikeLike

115. What I was once taught (by a Southern Baptist pastor, even!) is that an ancient Hebrew, being Eastern, would not approach a subject like a modern Westerner. A Westerner starts with a proposition A. From A, he deduces B. From B, he deduces C. Truth is linear and matter-of-fact.

     To an Easterner, thought works differently. He starts with an idea A. Then he asks, what if we look at A from perspective B? OK, now what if we look at A from perspective C? Truth is radial and contemplative.

     If one looks at the Creation accounts of Genesis in that frame of mind, there really are no problems. Having two separate creation accounts in Genesis 1-2 makes perfect sense.

     Furthermore, these modernist errors manifesting themselves in “YEC” nonsense assume for no good reason that God is bound by temporality and causality. They shrink God to fit in a scientific box. This is no different from what the liberals did. Some assume that the six days of creation have to be on the scientific timeline as we understand it. Why? Do we assume also that if we look around Mesopotamia long enough we will stumble upon an actual mountaintop garden guarded by angels? Why are we able to grasp that the age of the new heavens and the new earth will be beyond anything we can currently understand, but that the account of the age before the Fall can be read like a newspaper article?

     Besides, from the times of the early Church on, the Fathers understood that the proper reading of the Old Testament is Christological. So ultimately the creation story is about Christ because he is the very Word (“Light!” “Land!” “Sky!” etc.) by which all was created, he is the second Adam, through him all creation can be restored to its primeval state, etc.

     (Sigh… sometimes I wonder if I really ought to be Orthodox.)

     LikeLike

116. Truth exists apart from the Bible. Paul went to Athens and was able to debate pagans using the language of philosophy. Truth is bigger than the Bible, just as God is bigger than the Bible. Truth as found in philosophy, apart from the Bible, is still Truth.

     If someone is looking for a way to win the debate, or end the question, it is time to stop thinking.

     LikeLike

117. Imonk – “Surfnetter: I’m failing to see how your post relates to the topic. It appears you are discussing another topic entirely.”

     Last night I started out commenting on your essay and was responding to other posts commenting on my post. I wouldn’t say we got entirely off, though. 🙂

     I like what you have to say, urban otter. I don’t even need the whole Bible to be absolutely true. What difference does it make if there was no actual Garden of Eden, since the story is an absolutely exquisite word picture of the human condition now and how every person moves from the unknowing innocence of childhood to the guilty knowledge of adulthood? How does clinging to the “scientific fact” of the confusion of languages at the Tower of Babel benefit anyone, when it is really a story about the effects of Godless pride and arrogance for all time. And even if some of the Gospel stories didn’t happen exactly as reported, the entirety of the message accurately reflects the nature of the Incarnate Word. Anyone who needs the Bible to be the anchor of God’s Revealed Truth hasn’t allowed himself to meet the Lord he professes to believe in, in my opinion. In my experience, once I met Him, I realized it didn’t matter what archeology or geneticists prove about what actually happened. It’s all True in Him.

     The Scriptures are “a” place — but definitely not the only place — to start, and the place to continually return to as a guidepost but also to revisit because of new levels of understanding reached on the journey to coming into the knowledge of — and becoming like — the Living Word, I think.

     LikeLike

118. Glenn: Why do we think our role is to argue cases and convince jurys? All we’re doing is creating an audience for atheists. Why can’t we see this? Or just believe the research? (THAT’S scientific!)

     LikeLike

119. Ever wonder why so many people would respond and yet NOT mention the rush to judgment of each of the characters and the mass deconstruction of the story?

     I do. Personally, I am drawn to each character in this thinly veiled story that seems to me to speak more about iMonk’s frustrations han it does about any one of the characters used to frame those frustrations.

     And why is it that we are so eager to be the presenters of answers and less eager to live Jesus to the people in this story (and one another?) and so serve Him that others begin to see that He is the answer they’ve been seeking? Perhaps it is just too much to hope that someone would be ready to seek the lost and the seekers as Jesus did?

     Wondering…

     LikeLike

120. kis: This always reminds me of trying to get KJV only types to answer “What was the inerrant English Bible before 1611?”

     🙂

     peace

     ms

     LikeLike

121. I was going to write what Joel Hunter wrote. But he wrote it.

     Funny, I also spend my days teaching the great books in a seminar format.

     Montaigne’s In Defense of Raymond Sebond this week and boy … fitting.

     LikeLike

122. I think it has been mentioned above, there were times in the OT when there was basically NO Bible, not even the law, nothing. See the example of Abraham – without any written scriptures He could live according to God, was found righteous and is mentioned in the NT as an ultimate example of faith.

     Of course today the lineup is rather different. But still, as somebody mentioned above, without the help of God’s Spirit we’re lost. Understanding God is NOT understanding the Bible.

     The very first Christians didn’t have the gospels, the letters were only being written – and they managed somehow in following Jesus… They did nothing else but follow the example that Christ had set before them, the one and only, living, breathing example of God’s Righteousness, the “manifestation” of the Living Word.

     I love the Bible, it is really the bread of life, and I couldn’t go without it. But I also need to live, breathe, walk, see, and not just “eat”.

     LikeLike

123. Michael,

     Given that Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Yale and Princeton all had the gospel of Jesus Christ as their basic foundation, I’d say that the bible is the starting place for Christian thinking.

     LikeLike

124. This thread nearly immediately became all about creationism, young earth, and Genesis. Why?

     It’s a hot-button issue, clearly, but I’ve never understood why Genesis *must* be interpreted to support young earth creationism. In this the atheists and the fundamentalists think exactly alike. The atheists think that since science supports evolution, the Bible is wrong and therefore God doesn’t exist. While the fundamentalists think that since (their interpretation) of Genesis supports young earth creationism, evolution is untrue and anybody who believes in it must therefore be on the road to atheism and hell. That’s simplifying things a bit, but that’s basically how it goes, and the reasoning doesn’t hold up to examination as explained in great detail by someone upthread.

     The thing is, neither of them seem to understand that the Bible is written in words, and words require interpretation. You just can’t say, “The Bible says!” and stop, as if that settles the matter.

     Looking in from the outside, it appears that this young earth creationism problem is going to tear the SBC apart. That’s sad, because that doesn’t need to be the case.

     The thing I’ve never understood is why the dating of the earth would have any bearing on how I live my life *now*. I don’t see that most people are going to be convinced of the validity of Christianity by endless and circular lectures on Genesis using insider terms like “literal” and “inerrant.” It gives the impression that Christianity is some sort of exercise in tricky word games. It’s true that Christianity makes sense, but you’d never know it from many discussions held by Christians.

     I like to think that Christian number 2 in the iMonk’s coffee house scenario was discussing something immediate and pertinent to the non-Christians. If you listen to the non-Christians carefully, they will tell you what’s pertinent to their lives, and it’s usually not going to be young earth creationism.

     LikeLike

125. Michael, you’ve described perfectly the deepest flaw of fundamentalism: an unwillingness in a conversation to engage the other on his or her own terms. And by trying to dump my convictions on people at whatever cost, I’m communicating very clearly that I really care *@#$ about them, no matter how much I verbally profess that I’m only concerned about their spiritual well-being. And I would argue that behind it all is not just blindness about those dynamics but a huge fear that everything I have ever believed is going to crumble and disappear if I choose to do otherwise.

     LikeLike

126. I would think that the Bible is a starting place simply because it is not absolute truth.

     Hold the phone! you say. Got your attention?

     Ok. I believe the Bible is absolutely true.

     Merely semantics? Possibly to some but allow me to articulate.
     My personal belief is that God is the ultimate source of absolute truth in the universe, in fact, He is the essence of absolute truth.
     The Bible, therefore, being written by Him (by men borne along by the spirit yes I know) is true, and cannot have error in it. That would be impossible for the Truth to write a lie.

     But… when someone tells you that the Bible is absolute Truth, what they really mean (from my experience with way to many) is that their interpretation of the Bible is absolutely true. Therefore it becomes a stopping point.
     If the Bible is absolute truth than what is says (or what they think it said) is how it goes.

     But if the bible is true, then that means the truth is somewhere in there, but we may not necessarily understand it automatically, and we may have to do a little search to find it. Where as some of the Bible is pretty clear on it’s meaning, I think that most of us here can agree that much good has come out of in depth study of the scriptures. (Even if much bad has come I don’t think we could render the whole genre of hermeneutics completely useless.) Study that reveals truths that weren’t apparent at a first surface reading. Truths that would have been completely missed if the Bible had been only a stopping point.

     LikeLike

127. werent we promised that we wouldnt have to worry about what to say that the spirit would teach us in that very hour? whatever happened to that?

     LikeLike

128. Why is the world the way it is? (And why is Jesus the only way to rescue and restore it?)

     That’s it and that’s all.

     LikeLike

129. DaveD, since you think your view of Genesis 1-3 and some of the other views mentioned in this thread are incompatible, then perhaps it might clarify the issues in play and at stake if we state our positions without theory-laden terms like ‘literal’. You seem to be using that term in particular in a way that confuses me, for you seem to be conflating “literal” and “factual.”

     To read “literally” means to read a text as it is meant to be read. If it’s meant to be read poetically, then a “literal” reading is poetic. If it’s meant to be read allegorically, then a “literal” reading is allegorical. If it’s meant to be read as a straight-line report of facts, then a “literal” reading is matter-of-fact. And so on. It is NOT “literal” reading to reduce all biblical texts to factual recitations. To do so is to rank one kind of expression above another, as if a “factual” account is truer than a metaphorical description. But that’s an extrabiblical criterion, which, because the Bible consists of books that are meant to be read in different ways, is alien to how the Bible presents itself to us on its own terms.

     So, back to Genesis 1-3 and your worry about how iMonk and others are reading it. Let me ask: how is it meant to be read? If we don’t know that, then we won’t know what demands the text is making on us.

     And to ask the question differently, but in a way that assumes that everyone here believes the text is true: what is the question to which Genesis 1-3 is the answer?

     LikeLike

130. DaveD
     “And yes, Michael, most people who don’t believe in a literal creation story do in fact claim that it is because Science told them it wasn’t true. If that’s not believing “science, not God, is the judge of truth”, I don’t know what is.”

     I and most of my friends who’ve looked into and studied this issue were NOT “told by Science”. We looked at the evidence and data and came to a conclusion other than the one you have. And these are not dummies. But well educated deeply faithful Christians. And we’ve looked at the AIG side and found it incredibly lacking in credibility.

     LikeLike

131. DaveD (and others with a similar viewpoint): since you seem to subscribe to a highly literal reading of Genesis, please explain to me whether God created the plants and animals before or after he created people. In Genesis 1 it’s quite obvious that the plants and animals were created first, and then man and woman (at the same time). However, in Genesis 2 we read that God created Adam at a time when “no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up.” If your position is “believe it all, word-for-word, literally,” what do you do with this? Genesis seems to contradict itself here. What was the “real” timeline for creation? Did the plants and animals come before or after humans?

     My point is that the truths contained in Genesis are on another level entirely than the truths sought for by science. They speak about deeper levels of truth. Biblical truth and scientific truth are two different varieties of truth; we don’t need to reject one in order to affirm the other. By reading Genesis in the same way that we would read a physics or history text, we miss the point, the truth, of the Bible.

     peace.

     LikeLike

132. You’ll never convince a non-believer of the truth of the Bible or of any aspect of Christianity by quoting verses at them. The reason is simple, if they don’t already accept the authority of the Bible, then forming an argument based on the authority of the Bible will be totally unconvincing. In fact, it just makes you sound ridiculous to most secular people.

     My favorite example of this is the oft-repeated bit on a lot of Jehovah’s Witnesses material, meant to convince the reprobate of the inerrancy of the Bible. It goes something like: 1. Everything in the Bible is true; 2. We know this because the Bible is the word of God; 3. We know the bible is the word of God because…it’s written in the Bible! Talk about a closed loop of logic. By this reasoning I can write “thus sayeth the LORD” in my diary and thereby prove that everything in it is the inerrant word of God. They just don’t seem to get that if you don’t already believe that everything in the Bible is true, then the Bible claiming to be the word of God doesn’t necessarily mean anything.

     Besides the poor rhetorical strategy, I think the major problem with people in the Christian #1 mold is that they think they have the answers to everything and to everybody’s problems. Arrogance, I beleive, is the word for that, and it’s no way to convince anyone that you’ve got something (Jesus) they should be interested in. No wonder then, that folks like Bill Maher have such an easy time mocking believers.

     And thanks to the two commenters who posted the St. Augustine bit. Very apropo.

     LikeLike

133. DD: I may need to explain something:

     I teach Bible in a school partially funded by the Kentucky Baptist Convention and supported by thousands of people in the Southern Baptist Convention. It is not a small matter in my denomination to be associated, passively or actively, with denying that Genesis is true. My school trusts me to teach that Genesis is true, and that is what I teach. I do not teach any version of the views you mentioned.

     ms

     LikeLike

134. >…..that those who do not believe in a literal creation as described in Genesis end up playing the “It’s True (capitalization intentional) but not true” Game. If it’s not literally true then it is, at best, symbolism or allegory. At worst it is just pure fiction..

     As long as it’s clear that this is not what I said, nor what I believe, I’m fine.

     DD: This blog is monitored by my employer and by people who want me off the net and silenced. I’m not angry, but I want it clear that I am espousing none of these options you are describing.

     peace

     ms

     LikeLike

135. What I mean by symbolism is the idea that Gen.1-3 is “inspired by true events” but has no actual resemblance to what really happened. That there wasn’t an Adam and Eve, no tree of life, no serpent..that these are all fictional constructs explaining the evil we see in the word. The idea that God may have created everything, but he used evolution to it (completely disregarding the “death came into the world by the sin of Adam” thing) so Genesis contains a truth but is not factually accurate.

     I was very specific to not use the word “you” in my post Michael. I never claimed you did, in fact, hold to any of those opinions. It has been my experience, however, that those who do not believe in a literal creation as described in Genesis end up playing the “It’s True (capitalization intentional) but not true” Game. If it’s not literally true then it is, at best, symbolism or allegory. At worst it is just pure fiction which makes things like the Fall, the Curse, the first prophesy of Jesus all man made things. If they are not factually correct or to be taken literally, then what other things in the Bible can we toss out?

     And yes, Michael, most people who don’t believe in a literal creation story do in fact claim that it is because Science told them it wasn’t true. If that’s not believing “science, not God, is the judge of truth”, I don’t know what is.

     I’m sorry if I made you angry. Again. I seem to do that a lot.

     DD

     LikeLike

136. “In a post modern world where all truth is relevant and”

     I’m going to assume this should have been “relative”.

     LikeLike

137. Underlying the problematic use of the Bible that you correctly point out is the fact that many of the pious simply do not know how to relate to other human beings as human beings and have intelligent, sympathetic conversations with them. Living in the Christian “bubble” has so separated them from real life and relationships with their neighbors that the ability to communicate on the most basic levels has been compromised.

     LikeLike

138. The SBC church we’re leaving teaches kids to be the first person and actively discourages the second. Our kids naturally are the second so their circle of friends has shrunk as it has become obvious they have not “gotten” the program.

     My wife even sees it in her Precepts bible study. When she leaves the script and asks questions that dig deeper than the lesson plan the rest of her group can’t even figure out why she’d want to ask such questions.

     A friend once told me he tends to measure the intelligence of someone by the shades of gray they see in a discussion. A sad observation I’ve made is most people seem to want to see the world in black and white.

     LikeLike

139. >…hyperbole, poetic license, a morality tale or just plain fiction and not have those feelings of “symbolism” rub off on the rest of what the Bible says is true.

     That’s not my position. Not a single word of it. I am not going to spend my time denying terms I never used and concepts I never implied or owned.

     Genesis 1-3 is true. Unless you believe science, not God, is the judge of truth, then I believe I am confidently affirming what Christians believe. If someone wants to start saying I am assigning genre, then let’s talk about that.

     For example, do you believe the poetry in Psalm 8 and Psalm 19 is true? I do.

     If the story of the Prodigal Son is not historical, but is a story, is it false?

     Where did anyone call Genesis or anything else a “tale” or a “fiction?” “Where was it called “hyperbole?”

     Where did anyone suggest that poetry, etc = “symbolism,” and what do you mean by symbolism?

     Why can’t someone say the Bible is true and get the “amen?”

     LikeLike

140. It this really an either/or question?

     There are tons of gray area in what the Bible has to say where we can discuss and imagine and explore. There are also some hard and fast truths that do not have much “wiggle room”. If those of us who believe are to build our understanding of Jesus on the Bible, aren’t there some areas that are, to believers at least, “etched in stone”? Do we really need to have discussions on “Don’t lie” or “Don’t Steal” or are those solid stopping points?

     I don’t expect the non-believer to live according to, or even believe, the Bible. I do not expect other believers to understand submission, drinking, secular music or a myriad of other gray areas the way I do. I do expect a believer to hold to the idea that theft, lying, gossiping, extra-marital sex, murder are sin because the Bible says it CLEARLY. I also expect Jesus to be regarded as the ONLY way to Heaven, not just a good topic for discussion.

     If that makes me one of “those guys”, so be it.

     I also don’t understand how one can relegate the first three chapters of Genesis to hyperbole, poetic license, a morality tale or just plain fiction and not have those feelings of “symbolism” rub off on the rest of what the Bible says is true.

     DD

     LikeLike

141. Surfnetter: I’m failing to see how your post relates to the topic. It appears you are discussing another topic entirely.

     LikeLike

142. Surfnetter,

     You seem to be arguing against a hardcore clergy/laity system.

     Guess what? I don’t like it either.

     I do not see how you get “the ideology that the written word is the repository of Truth has lead to the two tiered system where the ‘truly informed — with titles and degrees to prove it — have the ‘God given task to pull the rest of us back to the ‘true’ interpretations of the words we now can all read for ourselves.”

     How can you say that when the written word contains Matthew 23:1-10?

     LikeLike

143. The whole theology of the Bible as the Living Word for everybody is a thoroughly Protestant creation — there was no Bible for everyone until the printing came along, which lead to the Reformation. Everyone who could read or be read to became his own personal Josiah, rending his shirt when he heard what the Word really taught.

     So instead of a two-tiered system where the clergy kept secret what was in the Scriptures, the ideology that the written word is the repository of Truth has lead to the two tiered system where the “truly informed” — with titles and degrees to prove it — have the “God given task” to pull the rest of us back to the “true” interpretations of the words we now can all read for ourselves. These claim to be able to decipher from the writings what the apostles and the Early Church fathers were saying when they penned their profound and often obscure passages.

     But those old guys never believed what anyone said unless the Spirit bore witness with “signs and wonders.”

     And that’s all I will believe, as well ….

     LikeLike

144. In a post modern world where all truth is relevant and there is more gray than black or white, the Bible must be explained as what it is the collection of truth and wisdom made possible only by God . What a wonderful starting place, perhaps the only starting place to introduce the world to god through Jesus. Isaiah 53, psalm 22, show a view outside of time. The power of Job 38 to humble man, The words of the Sermon on the Mount, these still have a power to open the mind and soften the heart. Yes it has been abused, but the Bible is a tool to reach the lost, it must be made exciting, not intimidating, it is to be experienced, not memorized. It is the story of the relationship of creature to Creator, not a geology text or Sacred Icon. Without it, how will the lost know Jesus , logic? Philosophy? So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ. It is the only way.

     LikeLike

145. I loved this line

     “For one the Bible is a very short anchor; for the other, a kind of map”

     Those words are rattling round in me, making me think. I appreciate that about this blog.You are not at all afraid to say things that stir us up!

     LikeLike

146. surfnetter,

     I am trying to not get sucked into this comment stream:)

     You say “We may call it the New “Testatment,” but He didn’t stay dead ….” like the living Word Jesus might want to change something in the New Testament.

     I am honestly having a hard time even granting that for argument’s sake.

     If what you are getting at [I went to a Moderate college by the way] is that you believe your ultimate authority is the Living Jesus that you follow by “experience”, then–for argument’s sake–why not write the “revelation” you receive in your experience down so that others can read this revelation that is supposedly from the Living word?

     Or is that just something “personal” between you and the Living Word?

     LikeLike

147. Michael said, “I especially won’t believe that God wants me to know the Bible, but not know literature, relationships, beauty, work, sacrifice, science, art and service. I will approach all those things as a Biblically thinking Christian, with a grid of God and the Gospel giving cohesion and hope to all I experience and encounter.”

     Me too, Michael. Very well-said.

     LikeLike

148. SURFNETTER: IMONK’s quest concerning whether the Word is a place to start (beginning) or a place to stop (ending), as well as the ‘stone’ comment from you, has given me the most beautiful insight. You mentioned the suggestion from Satan for Christ to turn stones into bread to satisfy his hunger. Christ immediately revealed that there is a spiritual(nourishment)bread(every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God) as well as a physical bread. The Word is the judge…as the stone tablets were and remain the Law that condemned man as sinful. Isn’t it interesting that the same reference, the stone, cut out without hands, as were the tablets, is what destroys Nebuchadnezzar’s image of a man (worldly rule of wickedness)by striking it on the foot. A disturbing reality is that the physical Bible with its leather, ink, and paper is a mighty instrument of judgement. And it doesn’t matter if one believes its truths or not. It will still remain the ‘stone’ or ‘law’ or God’s written Word. Those who come against it will be broken.

     LikeLike

149. My man surf,

     🙂

     might want to read that again.

     But if you choose not to, no slap is coming your way.

     I only slap Carolina basketball fans [just kidding…]

     LikeLike

150. “I can remember my Gnostic days, of “doing evangelicalism” (as we called it) on campus that we were taught, thus practiced, the belief that the physical Bible had supernatural powers . . . sort of like kryptonite to Superman. So it was more than inerrancy. Just walking down the halls of the dorm and carrying a big, green, padded Living Bible, the evil forces would bifurcate around us.”

     Oh man, that brings back memories.

     LikeLike

151. rote

     LikeLike

152. The only time we ever consider words on a page to be the absolute expression of the will of a living person is after that person is dead, buried and gone — no chance of them coming back and changing something by wrote or interpretation. It’s called a Last Will and Testament.

     We may call it the New “Testatment,” but He didn’t stay dead ….

     LikeLike

153. Some modern Jews so believe in the Written Word that they say the name of God is the perfect vocalization of every letter of the Torah. They believe only a handful of people can do it and those that can can raise the dead by speaking that Name.

     Jesus came to such people and taught that He Himself He Is the One True Expression of God that ever was and ever will be. (They had Him killed for that, btw)

     So what — we are to now believe that because the Bible actually now reports that His Name is Jesus, that we can again go back to finding God in printed words on a page …?

     LikeLike

154. From the plethora of return comments I’d say the Monk has pricked a nerve.

     Since the days of Adam humankind has struggled with the limited light of revelation, shinning dimly at times, through many passages of the Bible. Sometimes that limitation, with regards to our perception of truth, may result from differences of intellect, education, experience, social constraint, science of the age, or innumerable other human factors.

     However we either accept the Bible is fully inspired, sufficient in every way, for revealed propositional truth leading to regeneration of the lost soul or we are of all most miserable and forever lost without hope.

     Why not agree that the Bible is not the totality of God nor is it an exhaustive exposition of all truth scientific or otherwise?

     It is, however, a statement of inexplicable eternal truth, from the Creator, reduced to the simplicity of this finite fallen creation.

     Therefore, whether you believe God is the active agent in some old earth benevolent passive evolution spanning eons, or whether you believe God created the earth in an exact sequence of known increments of devine labor, it would seem such peripheral matters make little difference to the eternal abode of the redeemed soul.

     In summary, seeking points of intersection from the limited Biblical narrative, and human experiential science, is an interesting exercise but can never provide the hungry soul with lasting sustenance.

     Remember it is all about our loving Creator, and His intersection with time and space, in the person of Jesus Christ the Redeemer of lost souls.

     Explore, reason, and search for truth intersections all you wish, but never lose the Anchor of your soul as revealed in the Bible.

     That Anchor is absolutely certain and worthy of your trust in the finished work of Christ the Lord alone.

     LikeLike

155. Benji — So you believe that only unreasoning beings can understand the Scriptures …?

     Hence the face slapping, Bible thumping ….

     LikeLike

156. I believe the Bible is the starting place of thinking in the sense that we begin with the Bible and then reason from it as our foundation–Prov. 1:7.

     If I remember him correctly, I agree with Van Til that reason should be a tool [Van Til used the image of a saw I think] and not be content.

     If you saw upon the right presuppositions, then you saw in a straight line. If not, then you saw in the wrong direction. [I think I have Van Til right with his thinking and saw imagery, but you might want to read him yourself in the book “Christian Apologetics”]

     If you say that reason is content and try and justify that by saying “Well, God did not intend for me to throw my brains out” [or some such thing], then you can position your reason as the criteria by which you interpret Scripture.

     You also can become a slave to whatever “they say” [i.e., the supposed experts].

     I think it is either “I believe in order to understand” or “I understand in order to believe”.

     I think the first option is biblical. I think the second option can lead someone to even reject the Trinity [i.e., “Three…One…that doesn’t make ‘sense’ to me and so I reject it” type thinking].

     Grace

     Benji

     LikeLike

157. Hugh – :I think the Bible is a lens through which we see and learn about God. Too many people would rather worship the lens, however.”

     I see it differently — the Spirit of God is the lens through which we are to understand the Scriptures. Jesus Himself said this repeatedly to those who witnessed with their eyes and heard with their own ears the things reported to us in the Gospels. He told them that they wouldn’t have a clue to any of it until the Holy Spirit was given. “And He will lead you into all Truth.”

     And that’s “ALL” Truth — not just Bible stuff.

     Without the Spirit, we are all hopelessly lost in opinion, in my opinion …. 🙂

     LikeLike

158. I think this is why I enjoy reading your blog. I love the succinct way you have described the differences between the two modes. Thanks for this post 🙂

     LikeLike

159. Internetelias –An interesting sideline to the reference to John the Baptist’s admonition to the Pharisees is that the very place in the Jordan he was baptizing and speaking from is the place of Joshua leading the Israelites across into the Promised Land.

     “So the Israelites did as Joshua commanded them. They took twelve stones from the middle of the Jordan, according to the number of the tribes of the Israelites, as the LORD had told Joshua; and they carried them over with them to their camp, where they put them down.”Joshua 4:8

     Ten of those Tribes were considered “lost” and cut off from the Covenant by the Jews and Pharisees, which was a very important dogma as far as the Jews justifying and retaining their prominent place. So what John was saying to them may not have been about “stones” alone.

     LikeLike

160. I think the Bible is a lens through which we see and learn about God. Too many people would rather worship the lens, however.

     LikeLike

161. One of my teachers once quoted someone (can’t recall whom), saying that “The Bible is divinely inspired, and not divinely informed”. I haven’t decided whether I agree or not, but still, it’s a really interesting point. I also beleive _God’s_ word is inerrant. Does that give way to errors in how it was “distilled” by the writers of the books? Will that “change” the message? Will that cause us to worship “another God” or “another Jesus”, as some put it? I don’t know.

     LikeLike

162. Surfnetter: >>>> Without the active presence and participation of the Living Word, the Written Word is useless dross — with it is always useful and instructive.

     That statement is a KEEPER. Can’t be any clearer than that since the Word is a LIVING PRESENCE. Without the Living Presence….knowledge of scripture just doesn’t happen.

     >>>>>In the right company it is both a start and an end. Otherwise you might as well be slapping them in the face with your leather bound, I think.

     Clear as crystal and a KEEPER also. Problems with much of the Church establishment is the bong, bong, bong, in faces with leather bounds. Now that’s not loving. That cruel.

     LikeLike

163. Surfnetter: Food for thought! (ha). You could make that comparison since the stone tablets containing the Law, when fulfilled by Christ, would become the Bread of Life. But Lucifer likely could have just been trying to ‘sift him as wheat’ since he knew that after forty days….HE WAS HUNGRY. In later scriptures stones were used again e.g as ‘from these stones I could raise up seed to Abraham (paraphrased). Stones are just so solidly ‘earthy.’ And might be reasonably used to make a point of taking something ‘earthly’ and allowing it to become ‘unearthly.’ But I think there would have been no purpose for Satan to speak in parables to Christ. I think he was just HAUGHTY enough to think he might just break Christ down…..over a piece of bread. Now that’s dumb.

     LikeLike

164. Without the active presence and participation of the Living Word, the Written Word is useless dross — with it is always useful and instructive.

     In the right company it is both a start and an end. Otherwise you might as well be slapping them in the face with your leather bound, I think.

     LikeLike

165. Is the Bible a stopping place or a starting place for Christian thinking?

     If there’s ever some Christian thinking, we’ll find out!

     LikeLike

166. I’m definitely down with “starting place,” and usually go farther than that. When speaking with non-believers, I tend not to quote the Bible at all unless asked. Instead, I describe what I understand the Bible to say, usually under label “the majority report of Christians” or sometimes “some Christians, including me” if I’m not sure the first label is accurate. I’ve seen Bible-quoting end conversations in seconds, while I can talk to the same people for hours, explaining the Gospel in biblical terms, while not quoting word for word.

     LikeLike

167. Im – This topic is an appropriate place for me to ask feedback on this, I think:

     I noticed something about the first temptation of Christ by Satan in the desert while reading an Greek/English interlinear NT some years back. The “Word of God” in the Greek that man “lives by” has a triple affirming “proceeding word” connotation. What seemed to emerge was a comparison to the written word — the stones (tablets) that the Devil tempted Jesus to turn into food versus the “Bread from Heaven” — the spoken Word from the mouth of God to each ones heart that we are all to hear and believe.

     Has anyone heard this analysis before? And what do you people think about it…?

     LikeLike

168. Your scenario totally describes my experiences. Both as someone who used to quote the bible as if my interpretation of it was the final word, and as someone who now knows better yet gets accused from time to time of being apostate.

     I still slide into that mindset, though, from time to time. I try to avoid it, but it’s such a convenient shortcut to just quote the scriptures and shut the other person up. Particularly when what they’re saying annoys me. But smacking a person that annoys you with a blunt instrument is never the Christian thing to do; and even less appropriate when that blunt instrument is the Word of God.

     And it may be that the reason I am annoyed is because something in what they’re saying is being used by the Holy Spirit to convict me… and I don’t want to be convicted.

     I keep returning to the fact that studying the bible is meant to change me. Not others. Others won’t change unless they study it for themselves. Quoting verses at them does nothing unless they become motivated to meditate on those verses themselves. “Proving” stuff does nothing unless they want to accept my interpretation, and they don’t.

     LikeLike

169. “Is the Bible a stopping place or a starting place for Christian thinking?”

     It’s a guide, a compass, but it is neither the beginning nor the end. Christ is. Scripture is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, but it is not the end-all be-all of the Christian Faith.

     LikeLike

170. I can remember my Gnostic days, of “doing evangelicalism” (as we called it) on campus that we were taught, thus practiced, the belief that the physical Bible had supernatural powers . . . sort of like kryptonite to Superman. So it was more than inerrancy. Just walking down the halls of the dorm and carrying a big, green, padded Living Bible, the evil forces would bifurcate around us.

     Then, we knocked on a student’s door and asked, “Can I speak to you for a moment?” If we were allowed to come in, we were taught that we must ignore every thing they said and just quote a few pre-determined verses from that Bible. The power was in quoting the verses. Everything the student said was just a “smoke screen” so we were never to respond to their questions . . . just quote the damn verses and get the hell out. So we ignored their science questions and their questions about having sex with their girlfriends. Once the magical verse was inside their heads then God would eat them from the inside out like brain worms, tormenting them to repentance.

     For some odd reason, the students stopped letting us come into their dorm rooms. We knew it had to be persecution, part of the signs that the end times were near . . . you know, leading up to the great tribulation. It’s a wonder the students didn’t tar and feather us.

     We also used the Bible like a Ouija Board, getting deep meanings from a few words, meanings that had nothing to do with the author’s intent.

     That’s why, when I first read Schaeffer’s concept of trying to give honest answers for honest questions seem so bizarre.

     LikeLike

171. @Matthew: “If you were just reading the bible without any knowledge of evolution or carbon dating, you would assume God is telling you exactly how the earth was created. People interpret the story differently because things outside the bible (like certain scientists) tell them to.”

     You describe exactly Martin Luther’s reading of the Bible re did the sun revolve around the earth or vice versa. Said Martin Luther: “People Gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. …This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth.” Martin Luther, without any knowledge of astronomy, believed the Bible _clearly_ taught that the earth was the center of the solar system and all other heavenly bodies revolved around it.

     Trouble was, Luther was wrong. His misreading of scripture was only corrected by “things outside the Bible (like certain scientists)”. When the _scientific_ evidence for a heliocentric solar system became overwhelming Christians had to accept that they had simply misunderstood what the Bible was teaching. Full Christian acceptance of the fact trailed the evidence by a couple hundred years, so maybe in another couple hundred the age of the universe and evolution will be non-issues, just as geocentrism is today. One can only hope. 🙂

     (BTW, there are still Christians who assert believe that the earth is the center of the solar system and the sun revolves around it. They base their belief solely on the Bible. See http://www.geocentricity.com/)

     LikeLike

172. One needs to be sensitive to the group one is with. If you are with believers and unbelievers, then you may respond to a certain topic without using Scripture. If you are only with Christians, then of course, use the Scriptures. Now, if you have friends or family members who claim they are Christians but do not like to deal with topics using Scripture then ….. well, don’t waste your breathe.

     LikeLike

173. “Is the Bible a stopping place or a starting place for Christian thinking?”

     It’s a starting place. Although, many will disagree. I’ve seen the scene that you so vividly describe play out time and time again. And it’s true – to those who take the Bible as an answer book for all of life, someone who actually questions, thinks through, and doesn’t feel like the discussion has to end at chapter and verse seems a very real threat. If we are to reach out with Christ’s love to those who don’t know Him, we can’t come across so arrogantly.

     Jeremiah’s comment said it really well:
     “The conversations and friendships I have had with EX-Christians has persuaded me more and more that the more firmly a person treats Scripture as the stopping place and conversation stopper the more likely I am to find out those people, ten years on, have become atheists. I have had at least one or two friends over the last fifteen years who have led me to this observation. All it takes is to run into a personal struggle or observe a wrong in the world for which their stopping point spirituality has no answers and they abandon it in favor of something else.”

     LikeLike

174. Excellent post. It makes me think of the common bumper-sticker phrase: “God said it. I believe it. That settles it,” which seems to express Person #1’s philosophy. The trouble is, we have to figure out what God *means,* and that isn’t always clear.

     LikeLike

175. Great post.

     I struggle with the inerrancy concept myself because I do not believe that having a Bible in our hand automatically means that we know more about psychology than Freud, Skinner, or Maslow, more about education than Piaget, Erikson or Vygotsky, more about science than Hawking or Sagan…you get the idea.

     LikeLike

176. It is either? Seriously, both people in the story spring from backgrounds which lead them in interacting with the Scripture in their distinct ways. The Bible, really isn’t a starting or ending point for either person. How their community tells them to interact with it is an ending point for one and the starting point for the other.

     LikeLike

177. I see joel got there before me with St. Augustine, so I’ll quote Galileo (who was quoting Cardinal Baronius): “The Bible was written to show us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.” 🙂

     LikeLike

178. Sorry that’s Davis Young, professor emeritus of geology at Calvin College.

     LikeLike

179. In Matthew 7, when Jesus finished the Sermon on the Mount, 28th verse says ‘people were astonished at his doctrine.’ 29 says, “….he taught them as one having authority.” To me..scripture is the beginning and ending authority. But the true meaning of he Word has to be revealed by God. 1 Cor.2:14 “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, for they are spiritually discerned.” There likely are many Bible teachers out there who know little of ‘rightly dividing the Word.’ A wise Bible scholar always presents the Word in context of a group or individual situation. I find comfort in Proverbs 9:9 concerning going forth or the ‘coming back in your face’ teaching of scripture. “Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser: teach a just man and he will increase in learning. 10 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the Holy is understanding.” I believe every word in the Bible. If ever there seems to be a contradiction, I look further. The contradiction is always in my lack of understanding. Not in the errancy of the Word. So, I agree totally with the verses above….that persons have to be open to learning scripture in order for them to ‘learn’ scripture.

     LikeLike

180. Certainly, many are afraid to use the Bible as a starting point because of where they fear the end might be; and that might be a life not tied up in a neat, tidy, little, package. Life is sooooo much easier when you know everything!

     LikeLike

181. I’ve seen atheist sites that do exactly that: take verses from the Bible and argue that God is evil, Christ says he is going to be the cause of violence, and so on – generally with a challenge to Christians: “Hah! Your very own holy book says that!”

     “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]”

     – Saint Augustine (A.D. 354-430) “The Literal Meaning of Genesis (De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim)”.

     Now, if your Young Earth friend wants to argue that St. Augustine wasn’t a Christian, you’re on your own, I’m afraid 🙂

     LikeLike

182. There are times when you can’t even start with scripture. I can remember having a discussion with a young college student about the existence of God. Another Christian student who overheard our conversation, said to me, “Why didn’t you just tell him what the Bible says.” I told her that if the person I was talking to didn’t believe in God, then why would he believe that the Bible had anything to offer the conversation. Once he was willing to consider that there was a God, then he might be willing to consider what God’s word has to say to us.

     Others who start with the premise that there is a God are a lot more willing to consider how the Bible might contribute to a discussion.

     LikeLike

183. Harvard biologist, and leading supporter of Darwinism in the U.S. was also a Christian. He didn’t consider Darwinian evolution a stopping place, but a starting place. In fact, he found a consonance between Scripture and evolution by noting that evolution is not a denial of God’s creation but a map, or step-by-step look at how God had gone about creating.

     If I’m reading you correctly iMonk, you’re suggesting a similar sentiment to Asa Grey, yes? That is, you don’t see Scripture as a denial of continued conversation via literature, aesthetics, music, etc., but as a guide to their worth, usefulness, and applicablity.

     I am not a strident Christian. I used to be when I first became a Christian, but I think that’s par for the course and is a good reminder that becoming a Christian is not a place to stop; discipleship helps a new Christian converse less stridently while still maintaining all the fervor of his/her newfound convictions.

     LikeLike

184. Matthew, before iMonk responds, I hope you don’t mind me giving a partial reply to one of your claims. What iMonk is describing is part of my daily life. I teach the Great Books in a seminar format. And I find one of the most important breakthroughs many students have to make in order to actually engage these texts is to learn how to argue about the text rather than with the text (and consequently, the author). The context in which any true understanding occurs is conversational, and when you are a reading an old book, it is even more important that this structure of reciprocity be respected and intentionally nurtured (C. S. Lewis’s introduction to Athanasius’ On the Incarnation is really good at describing this).

     What iMonk is describing in the context of a group of people conversing is applicable to the context of the individual reader and the text. The reader asks questions of the text, but the text also asks questions of the reader. If the reader is not open to being questioned by the text, and is engaging the text primarily to pursue and extract something from it, then the insights and truth of the text cannot pursue him.

     So now to my point: you are assuming that iMonk’s beliefs about creation, for example, have been formed by a dynamic in which he argued with Genesis 1-3. Hence, you speculate about his beliefs regarding how knowledge is justified, and therefore that he “disbelieves” Genesis 1-3 because he has a faulty criterion for determining truth. The enormous assumption underlying your comment is what the QUESTION is to which the Bible is giving the answer. From this assumption, you then make some bold claims, such as:

     If you were just reading the bible without any knowledge of evolution or carbon dating, you would assume God is telling you exactly how the earth was created.

     This is a prima facie false claim. Counterexample: Augustine. He knew nothing of evolution or carbon dating (nor inertia, heliocentrism and gravity for that matter). But he did not assume that God was “telling [him] exactly how the earth was created.” In point of fact, Augustine said:

     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, (…) and this knowledge he holds 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. (…) 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 these 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.

     I’ve quoted Augustine from David Young’s excellent article here.

     I don’t think it’s an option for the Christian to regard extra-biblical literature and material as unimportant or irrelevant to their understanding of God’s special and general revelation. Given that they must be related, the question is how we are to understand what is their proper relation.

     LikeLike

185. Willoh commented on inerrancy and the age of the Earth.

     The writers of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, one of the the standard statements of the doctrine, purposefully left out any statement on the age of the Earth. Henry Morris of the Institute for Creation Research pushed to have a young Earth inserted into the document as they were writing it. The vote to remain silent on the issue was almost unanimous.

     LikeLike

186. Hmmm. I see a little bit of a different problem with your coffee shop parable. Having encountered some actual people like the one you described, I’m finding it pretty difficult to envision them sitting in a coffee shop with a bunch of people who aren’t Christian discussing serious matters of life.

     That’s really all I have to contribute. I’ve participated in enough of these discussions to recognize that I simply don’t speak the same language as many who want to discuss ‘sufficiency’ and ‘authority’. Even where we use the same words, we clearly mean them in different ways. We may talk, but there is no real communication.

     LikeLike

187. A fascinating post. Is the Bible a stopping place or starting place? I’d have to say both…..
     The fact that we [the church] meet in different buildings at the same time attests to the fact that we intepret, apply, and prioritize scripture differently. And I think there is great wisdom in doing so as the frequent collisions of differing beliefs on the blogs validate.

     Pastor chad’s comments struck me. It seems that the majority of our people want the answers…. without having to grapple with the questions. At times, I make some people very uncomfortable when I try to get them to think.

     One thing I have noticed in my little corner of the world is that the majority of those who might view scripture as a “starting point” eventually find an “ending point”. Many times those “ending points” are not well supported biblically….. so what do you actually have in the end?

     LikeLike

188. Is the Bible sufficient or insufficient? It is not sufficient to teach me about mitosis, quantum mechanics, or crystallization of a magma beneath the surface of the Earth. It is sufficient to point out my sin and to point me to Jesus Christ as the solution for sin.

     I do like the holistic approach of person #2. This person takes both the Bible and the other person seriously. The first person only takes himself and the Bible seriously.

     My experience in the old-earth/young-earth conflict is that the old-earthers take the Bible every bit as seriously as the young-earthers. I am an old-earth creationist, yet I believe the Bible, including the opening chapters of Genesis. I’ve had to wrestle with some issues, but the young-Earther perhaps needs to wrestle with some issues as well.

     LikeLike

189. On a lot of Christian forums, people post threads asking questions to which they already know the answer, eg, “Is premarital sex wrong?” Everyone enters the thread and posts the correct answer and bible verse. For fun I will go in and post the wrong answer on purpose and then sit back and watch as they all gang up on me and tell me I need to get on my knees and read the bible. Such threads are really like spider webs that are used to snare anyone who doesn’t answer correctly.

     LikeLike

190. iMonk,
     Great post. Just this week, I ran across an agnostic who used the Bible the same way as Christian #1 in your example. He quoted Scripture and “proved” his points that God was evil and so on, end of story. Perhaps because of this experience, I would be very wary of someone who seeks to define everything in an ironclad way more now than I was. (I once was one of those people, terrible English I know) The irony was that the agnostic didn’t believe God exists or is real, but was using Scripture as a battering ram against any and all comers.
     It made me stop in my tracks to read your post. Heaven help me, I never want to come across as the “answer man.” Scripture is the start of the journey, not the end of the road.

     LikeLike

191. Sorry Imonk and you know I love your blog, but why stop at Genesis 1-3?

     Why not I Samuel 2, or Exodus 13?

     It seems when we pick a point to start taking God’s word for what it says and that point is determined by our understanding of science instead of our faith in what the word says then we are on the wrong course.

     I’m not saying you have to be a young earth guy to be a Christian, I don’t even think you have to be a young earth guy to be an evangelical ( dispensationalist have it written in their Scofield notes for them) I’m just saying that believing that God spoke this thing into being takes no more belief than believing Christ died and rose, and is coming again on part.

     LikeLike

192. i personaly believe the bible is inerrant. My definition of that , with out error. There are no errors. I believe the Earth is really old. Jesus taught in parables. Why can’t the Genesis stories be used as the greatest teaching tools given to man? People who read Genesis and get the age of the Earth from this book seem to often to be the ones who truly just don’t”get it”. There is no error in the parables of Jesus. There is no error in Genesis.

     LikeLike

193. I wouldn’t use the term insufficient. That’s assuming its the Bible’s job to affirm theories of science, history, etc. The Bible speaks for God and is authoritative. But it is not a place to stop. It is a map to use to live, obey, enjoy, believe, etc. It is sufficient for use, and isn’t confined by the strictures we put on “how” something must be true for us to acknowledge it.

     LikeLike

194. thanks for this post. there are so many times that pastors are looked at as “The Bible Answer Man” (no intended slight on someone who wants to call themselves that) but that is NOT how I view my role. I, as well as all other Christians, are here to spur one another on. We are to encourage debate and wrestling with the issues.

     I cannot tell you how many times I have gotten myself into hot water because I wanted to discuss the “other” side of an issue. Some people just do not want to here it.

     When I stand up to present the Word of God to people, I do not see myself as finishing a discussion, as presenting the final word. I see myself as starting a conversation. Presenting things to people that they may not have thought about and encouraging them to examine the scriptures themselves to see if this is right.

     Our search for “answers” is just another indication of our consumer laziness. We want to know the answers without the struggle, and we want to pay someone to give them to us.

     LikeLike

195. The conversations and friendships I have had with EX-Christians has persuaded me more and more that the more firmly a person treats Scripture as the stopping place and conversation stopper the more likely I am to find out those people, ten years on, have become atheists. I have had at least one or two friends over the last fifteen years who have led me to this observation. All it takes is to run into a personal struggle or observe a wrong in the world for which their stopping point spirituality has no answers and they abandon it in favor of something else.

     I believe that too few Christians argue for the authority of Scripture as the starting point for the Christian life rather than as the stopping point and conversation stopper. Scriptue is more than sufficient to guide us on our journey with Christ and to reveal to us who Christ is … but it is not sufficient as an encyclopedia to answer our questions as so many Christians have employed it, as a checklist of what job to get, who to marry, how many kids to have, which candidate to vote for, etc. Christians are often tempted to employ Scripture to solve problems it never proposes to solve while ignoring it on the issues it speaks most trenchently to … or at least I find that is often my experience.

     LikeLike

196. I’m genuinely curious. Would you then use the term “insufficient” to describe scripture? You seem to be saying that you believe the bible, but only if it’s affirmed by experience and other sources (like the creation story). Nothing in the bible itself explicitly states we should take the story metaphorically. If you were just reading the bible without any knowledge of evolution or carbon dating, you would assume God is telling you exactly how the earth was created. People interpret the story differently because things outside the bible (like certain scientists) tell them to.

     I’m not saying this is wrong. Just thinking through what that would mean about the “sufficiency” of scripture. I disagree with your thinking here, but I’m intrigued. How do we draw the link between using scripture as a “starting point” and using other sources, and when we’re just rationalizing our disbelief of scripture because it doesn’t jive with something outside itself?

     LikeLike

197. IMO Scripture is a journey, not a destination. Unfortunately, the Gnostic Nazis tend to use it as a weapon. And it’s a great temptation to move into that elitist camp because of the power thing that Headless Unicorn Guy just mentioned.
     That said…
     I don’t think we can discount the fact that God may use even the mis-use of His Word to His glory when He chooses.
     But that doesn’t hold us guiltless for doing it.

     LikeLike

198. One thing that I think that the story and the beginning of the post points out well is that we have to realize that when speaking with non-Christians, is that they do not look at the Bible they way we do. To them it may be a book with some good ideas on morality, spirituality, etc., but they do not see it as the Word of God.

     The second Christian here understands that, and engages scripture and the people around in a way where he/she is able to bring God’s Word into the conversation, but where he/she will still be listened to and considered.

     Personally I feel that you a right on how you are looking at God’s Word. It is to be in our heart, engaged, and lived. In many ways I look at it both the starting point AND the ending point, but there is a lot of living in between.

     LikeLike

199. Of course, when the evening is over and everyone is walking out to their car, the first Christian stops the second, reads her more verses and suggests she may not be a Christian.

     (I know….that was ugly. I’m sorry.)

     Yes, it’s ugly, IMonk. It’s ugly because it happens for real.

     Having the Bible forced on you as a stopping place can make you incapable of seeing it as a starting place.

     One kind of Christian seems to feel that the Christian life is “lived” by accumulating Bible passages and talking about them frequently and loudly. (Yes, blogs were made for this kind of person.) This is called “honoring” the Word of God and “living the Godly life.” As a long-time observer, this looks less like living the Christian life and more like turning it into a particular kind of activity that bookish, obsessive, aggressive types are very good at.

     I believe the Arabic word for “Submission” (and all the baggage that brings) is a better description of this particular kind of activity.

     Or, alternatively, the Soviet thoughtstopper “Ees Party Line, Comrade!”

     There’s a reason I cannot hear the word “Scripture” without nausea. Too often it’s been used as The Party Line. Too often Christ has been reduced to nothing more than The Party Line, with Thought Police Commissars there to overhear every word and drag you to Gulag on any pretext.

     Now, by “taking the Bible seriously,” they mean get to the answers by getting to the verses, establish the meaning of the verses and stop there. If you go any further, you’ve abandoned the authority of the Bible and are making a dangerous mistake.

     In my experience, they’re a lot more likely to mean “Thou Shalt Agree With ME 1000%!”

     And it all becomes a domination game/power play, with the Bible nothing more than a cosmic-level weapon in the quest to dominate the other. (Or would Screwtape use the word “Devour” instead of “dominate”?)

     LikeLike

200. All too often the Bible is a stopping place when due to a presupposition a quoted verse (or part of a verse often) is taken to “clearly” mean something. However, anyone who does not share the same presupposition does not see this “clear” meaning. When one does not, the “not a Christian” assumption is all too often made. Also in many responses to blogs, the response consists of numerous Bible quotations that often do not indicate anything to the reader. Christians should use their God given minds.

     LikeLike

201. I’d encourage anyone to go with their none Christian friends to a coffee shop and conduct the experiment described. If I’m wrong, I’d like to know.

     I’m not denying the authority of scripture. I’m just tired of what is done with it.

     LikeLike

202. Thats an interesting dynamic. In my experience when ever a topic comes up I always start the conversation with “The Church teaches…” then expand on it by quoting the Bible if nescesssary.

     However I would say that one you may be being too hard on the person that quotes scripture. May be they really think that is the way to present the faith.

     In my personal opinion of course is tha the Gospel must be lived fist and taught second.

     LikeLike

203. If your goal is to collect “truths” (dogmas) like Boy Scout merit badges, to demonstrate to yourself, other Christians and to God that you are a “good Christian” then the Bible is a stopping place. If your goal is to humbly know the truth, because God is truth, then it is a starting place.

     LikeLike