7 Day creation- literal or figurative?

You asked, "What do you know about biblical cosmology?" I have a doctorate in theology. Also, itis well documented, Oz, that the Bible presents a flat earth, as was common in many ancient cosmologies. There are at least 70 references to the flat earth in Scripture, such as Ps. 103:8. For that reason, in the 19th century, Rev. Samuel Rowbotham became famous for writing a book a book titled "Earth Be Not a Globe." The reference to Calvin can be found in his commentary on Genesis, which I am pretty sure is available online. The express purpose of theological discussion groups is for individuals to address the assumptions underlying their belief system. It's not enough to say you believe something, you have to say why.

Hoghead1 said:

Well, first let me ask you a question? How do you know that anything you say about Scripture is actually true? You assume it is and has to be inerrant. Why? You are simply holding here the inerrancy theory of Scripture. It is a human-made, possibly fallible theory. When tested out, it doesn't work, due to the large number of contradictions in Scripture alone. But then again, Scripture never claimed that it was all inerrant, to start with. Inerrancy people assume God dictated Scripture to purely passive scribes who wrote it all down just as God said it. Where is your evidence? Scripture never describers the process of inspiration. See, all we are dealing with here is your theory of how God should operate. But who's to say you are correct? There are other options. Maybe God works through evolution. Maybe God is content with an errant Scripture. That being the case, we should rest content with the matter.

Click to expand...

Hoghead1,

Let's examine some of your statements here:

1. 'You are simply holding here the inerrancy theory of Scripture. It is a human-made, possibly fallible theory'. From where did you get that view? Where is your evidence? Please provide the evidence that inerrancy is a fallible human theory and not a biblically-based teaching. You have not provided one piece of evidence to support your non-inerrant view.
   
2. 'When tested out, it [inerrancy] doesn't work, due to the large number of contradictions in Scripture alone'. Where is the evidence for that statement? What study have you done into the alleged contradictions and their association with the doctrine of inerrancy? You gave no evidence here, but you are free to dump your view on Ted but you want him to provide evidence (stated in another post to Ted).
   
3. 'Scripture never claimed that it was all inerrant, to start with'. Who said so? Hoghead1 said so??? What is the teaching on inerrancy? Does Scripture teach it? These are important questions that need answers, but you seem to be assuming (without evidence) that inerrancy is false.
4. 'Inerrancy people assume God dictated Scripture to purely passive scribes who wrote it all down just as God said it'. This is a false statement. The dictation theory and inerrancy are not coincident. Dr Paul D Feinberg, a supporter of inerrancy, in his article, 'The meaning of inerrancy' explained: '"Does the doctrine of inerrancy demand mechanical dictation? Those who oppose the doctrine often seek to push inerrantists into this mold; but this is unnecessary and unfair. I think that the proper way to express the biblical teaching on the process that produced the inspired texts is concurrence. That is, God and man so cooperate that the product was God's Word in human language. The author's style and personality, as well as the distinctive characteristics of the language in which he wrote, are evident in the autographs. How could this be done? The closest that one can come to an answer is the statement found in 2 Peter 1:21, but beyond that it must be admitted that what took place was a miracle, just as was the virgin birth' (Feinberg 1979:282). Second Peter 1:21 (ESV) states, 'For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit'. Therefore, your view that those who promote inerrancy assume the dictation theory of Scripture is found to be false in this citation from Feinberg. I support inerrancy of the autographa but I certainly do not promote the dictation theory of inspiration. See also Joel Williams article, 'Inerrancy, Inspiration, and Dictation' (1995).
   
5. Your view is that 'Scripture never describers the process of inspiration'. We have enough information about the process in that 'all Scripture' is theopneustos (breathed out by God), in 2 Tim 3:16-17 and those who produced Scripture were men who were carried along by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21). We don't need any more information on the process. God gave adequate details for those of us who want to believe God.
6. Your claim is that 'all we are dealing with here is your theory of how God should operate'. No, we are dealing with those who have exegeted the Scriptures to arrive at a biblical understanding of the nature of the authority of Scripture. You don't agree with inerrancy, but what you have done here is unfair. You claim you are correct and Ted is wrong, but you have provided no specific evidence to refute Ted's understanding of the inerrancy of Scripture.
   
7. You end your post with your hypothetical: 'But who's to say you are correct? There are other options. Maybe God works through evolution. Maybe God is content with an errant Scripture. That being the case, we should rest content with the matter'. That's nothing more than your assertion, with several maybe's. Why should we 'rest content' with your view when it conflicts with what God has stated that He is the God of truth who does not lie - which means God is not promoting 'ifs' and maybes'.

Deut 32:4 (NIV) affirms, 'He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he'. Since God's works are perfect, why should his works in Scripture in the autographa be less than perfect?

Psalm 33:4 (NIV) reveals, 'For the word of the Lord is right and true; he is faithful in all he does'.

Hebrews 6:18 (NIV) states, 'God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope set before us may be greatly encouraged'.

So God's works are perfect and it is impossible for Him to lie. An inerrant Bible in the original manuscripts makes sense when we consider the nature of inspiration, theopneustos, and the nature of God who is perfect and tells the truth (does not lie).

You are coming to this forum with an agenda that opposes inerrancyand you have dumped your presuppositions on Ted. That is not only unjust, but you have done it without telling him up front that your view is to impose your anti-inerrancy, anti-authoritative scriptural presuppositions on his post. In Scripture, we have evidence of the God of truth who tells the absolute truth.

Oz

Works consulted
Feinberg, P D 1979. The meaning of inerrancy. In N L Geisler (ed), Inerrancy, 265-304. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

Hoghead1 said:

You asked, "What do you know about biblical cosmology?" I have a doctorate in theology. Also, itis well documented, Oz, that the Bible presents a flat earth, as was common in many ancient cosmologies. There are at least 70 references to the flat earth in Scripture, such as Ps. 103:8. For that reason, in the 19th century, Rev. Samuel Rowbotham became famous for writing a book a book titled "Earth Be Not a Globe." The reference to Calvin can be found in his commentary on Genesis, which I am pretty sure is available online. The express purpose of theological discussion groups is for individuals to address the assumptions underlying their belief system. It's not enough to say you believe something, you have to say why.

Click to expand...

HH,

By appealing to your doctorate in theology means that you have used the appeal to authority logical fallacy. You have not dealt with the issue at hand. You get yourself into trouble because I also have a doctorate in theology

You have your Bible reference wrong. This is what Ps 103:8 (ESV) states, 'The Lord is merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love'.

As for Rev Samuel Rowbotham, he was a Masonic Jesuit who lived from 1816-1884 and was notorious for promoting a flat earth view. By using him as an example to try to denigrate creationists as flat earthers, you have committed a hasty generalization logical fallacy.

Isa 40:22 (NIV) refutes your idea of the Bible promoting a flat earth: 'He [God] sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in'. How does 'the circle of the earth' harmonise with the flat earth view that you want to promote in association with biblical cosmology?

You state, 'The reference to Calvin can be found in his commentary on Genesis, which I am pretty sure is available online'. That's for you to provide the reference and not for us to have to go searching for it. It is poor scholarship when you claim that it is in Calvin's commentary on Genesis and you don't provide an exact reference for the point you are trying to make.

You claim: 'The express purpose of theological discussion groups is for individuals to address the assumptions underlying their belief system. It's not enough to say you believe something, you have to say why'. Not so. The express purpose of a Christian forum on the Internet is to address the issues raised by the poster and not to impose one's theological views on the post - which is what you did to Ted.

I happen to agree with you that Christians ought to indicate why they believe something. That's what you did not do in relation to your response to Ted. In the 2 replies I gave to your reply to Ted, you did not provide the evidence you required of Ted. I consider that to be hypocrisy.

Oz

Hoghead1 said:

Well, first let me ask you a question? How do you know that anything you say about Scripture is actually true?

Click to expand...

I can check it out using the criteria of historicity for any document to determine the accuracy and reliability of that document. Other scholars have already done some of this this work.

Dr Paul Barnett, a historian and exegete, has done this in his many publications on the historical Jesus including:

1. Paul Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History (Leicester England: Apollos/IVP, 1997); also,
2. Paul Barnett, Finding the Historical Jesus (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009);
   
3. Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1987);
4. K A Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003).

There are numerous other publications that have dealt with the truth and reliability of the Bible or parts of the Bible.

Oz

Hi hoghead,

Look, if you're at the point in your 'christian' walk where you are still questioning the 'truth' of the Scriptures, then you and I have no foundation to build upon.

The Scriptures, according to Paul in explanation to Timothy, are God breathed. They were written by godly men as they were led by the Holy Spirit to write the things that they wrote. Some of them didn't even have a clue what they were writing about when they wrote, especially as concerns prophecy.

Take Daniel as a for instance. Daniel lived during the late 600 early 500 B.C. period of time on the earth. His life, according to the record of Scripture would have been about 610-560 or so B.C. Daniel was given a prophecy which he handed down to us. That prophecy was to begin when a certain document was to be written. That document wasn't written until well after Daniel's death. Daniel had no earthly idea that there would be any decree written to restore and rebuild Jerusalem.

At that time Jerusalem lay in ruins from being overrun by the armies of the king of Babylon. Daniel had no idea that Jerusalem would even ever be rebuilt. Certainly not that there would ever be some written decree.

How did Daniel know these things? Because, as Paul tells us, he was one of those godly men led along by the Holy Spirit to write the things that he wrote.

The author of the Scriptures is God. The writers of the Scriptures were just ordinary men in whom the Holy Spirit of God made known to them the truth that God wanted to be recorded and written down.

The Scriptures do not come to us as just some collection of obtuse writings of some ancient culture as some believe. The Scriptures are the work of God communicating to His created the truth of all that He has done. All that He has done that we have the life that we live and all that He has done to make a way that we might receive and enjoy the promise of that life eternally.

If, as a christian, you don't understand that basic premise of the Scriptures, then yes, I can fully understand why you believe that the issue we are discussing here is up for grabs. Yes, I can fully appreciate why you would believe the wisdom of man over the wisdom of God. You honestly have no understanding 'of' the wisdom of God. That's something that you will have to sort out for yourself. It requires the Holy Spirit to discern the truth of the things of God. Sadly, this is exactly the mantra that I have been proclaiming. So very many, many christians don't believe God.

They want to believe that they are partakers in the promise of eternal life, but believing all that God has made known to us, after all, the Scriptures contain over 700,000 words, isn't accepted as a part of what God asks of those who love Him. And, of course, it seems obvious that you're not willing to allow the evidences found in the Scriptures as viable evidence regarding this issue. Your response is that God didn't write a 'science' book and you're right. God wrote the truth, nothing but the truth.

So, now that I have answered your question, can I expect your answer to mine? It would seem only fair.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Hi hoghead again,

You know, you throw out this information that you have a doctorate in theology to bolster the idea that what you believe must be the truth. Friend, you are just like Nicodemus. He had given of his earthly life to study and know all that he could know about God. I'm certain that as a member of the pharisees he could likely recite the Scriptures backward he had studied and pored over them so much. Yet, for all of his great knowledge; for all of the countless hours of his life that he had given over to study the Scriptures known in his day, which, by the way, I'm fairly certain that he believed all that was written in the Scriptures was the truth, he just didn't have any understanding of all that he had long studied and pored over. Jesus said to him, "You are Israel's teacher and you do not understand these things?" Notice please that the statement is posed to him as a question. Jesus seemed to be amazed that a man who had done all that he had done to know his God, didn't have any understanding. Go, and find out what this means.

That may be expected of a 'christian' with just a new or shallow faith, but a man who proclaims he has a doctorate in theology? Go figure.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

miamited said:

The Scriptures, according to Paul in explanation to Timothy, are God breathed. They were written by godly men as they were led by the Holy Spirit to write the things that they wrote. Some of them didn't even have a clue what they were writing about when they wrote, especially as concerns prophecy.

Click to expand...

Speaking about Biblical Thruth,can you find a verse in the whole Bible saying that Jesus will come to take His Faithfull Believers out of the Earth to Heaven BEFORE the Tribulation?Pointing to the verse saying that we are not appointed to God's Wrath is not a promise of being taken to Heaven before the Tribulation.

Do you believe than Jesus' prayer in John 17 is addressed also to us living in 2016?

John 17:15 My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but ...
I pray not that you should take them out of the world, but that you should keep them from the evil.


John 17
12While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.
13 And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves.
14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.
16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.
19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.

Riberra said:

Speaking about Biblical Thruth,can you find a verse in the whole Bible saying that Jesus will come to take His Faithfull Believers out of the Earth to Heaven BEFORE the Tribulation?Pointing to the verse saying that we are not appointed to God's Wrath is not a promise of being taken to Heaven before the Tribulation.

Do you believe that Jesus' prayer in John 17 is addressed also to us living in 2017?

John 17:15 My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but ...
I pray not that you should take them out of the world, but that you should keep them from the evil.


John 17
12While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.
13 And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves.
14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.
16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.
19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.

Click to expand...

Hi riberra,

#1 No. #2 Yes.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

I don't mind responding to you,Oz, but you need to make it clear what your relationship is with Ted. Are you going top be his mouthpiece? After all, you did butt in, which is OK, of course.
To answer your questions:
Ted's stated beliefs shouted out the inerrancy of Scripture. And I said it is a human-made theory, because that is exactly what it is. Scripture never claimed it is inerrant. Even if it did, you shu0old want to check it out, as Scripture was written by fallible human beings,

It is well known that there are about 100 major contradictions in Scripture. One example is the two contradictory creation accounts in Genesis. Another is who killed Goliath. 2 Sam. 21:19 says Elhanan did. Another is how many pilgrimages did Paul make to Jerusalem. Acts gives 5; Paul gives but three.

I brought up the dictation theory because, in point of actual fact, many do hold that God dictated Scripture word-for-word. I said that Scripture does not describe the inspirational process, simply because it does not. What does it mean to be moved by the Spirit? Does this mean you are no longer human and subject to error? Scripture does not go into these matters. 2 Tim. 3:16, which you refer to, says, "All inspired Scripture has its use for teaching,,," It says nothing abut the actual process and makes no claim for inerrancy, either.

You brought up about giving page numbers for Calvin. I do not have the time to look up page numbers.

Yes, we are dealing with "those who have exegete Scripture," and for tat very reason, we are dealing with how various human beings have interpreted Scripture. Maybe they are right, maybe they are wrong. We should check things out. For example, all you did was cite Feinberg's theory of divine inspiration. I'd want to check out his material a lot closer before I decided whether I agree or not. Note: that is Feinberg's theory.

Point 7 overlooks the fact that while God may be perfect and always tell the truth, human beings most certainly are not perfect and do not always tell the truth.
Yes, I got the verse wrong. It should be Ps. 103: 12. That would work fro east and west, given a flat earth with four corners;, but won't work for our earth, because there is no East or West Pole. East and West bleed into one another.

The passage in Isaiah is referring to the fact that the sky looks like a dome covering the flat earth. At the top of the dome sits God.

No, I did not commit a logical fallacy by appealing to authority. You put me on the spot as to what my credentials were and I simply answered you. You say you, too, have a doctorate in theology. Interesting. Mine is from the conjoint program between the University of Pittsburgh and Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. I'm curious where yours is from. You say I'm in trouble because you have a doctorate. I don't see what trouble that would be. I always enjoy talking with educated people.

I definitely did not say creationists were flat earthers. As I recall, I brought up Robowtham in a discussion with someone who had questions abut why I said the Bible has a flat earth.

I am not imposing my views on Ted on any one else. I am simply stating my response to the topic at hand. I try and give evidence for what I say. However, I may not always satisfy the reader; so OK, ask me to give more information.

Miamited, you are working out of a right-wing position. OK, fine. But not all Christians are on the right or should be. Not all Christians hold with the inerrancy of Scripture. If anything, I find the inerrancy notion a kind of bibliolatry. Basically, I hold with the "Confession of 1967," which states that, " The Scriptures, given under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, are nevertheless the words of men, conditioned by the language, thought forms, and literary fashions of the places and times at which they were written." Divinely inspired it may be, the Bible has human finger prints all over it and then it is no surprise if its cosmology shows up short or that there are contradictions, etc. You seemingly end your post with he notion that Christians have to believe in an inerrant Bible, and that if they don't then they don't believe in God. As such, commenting on another's Christianity is not appropriate in a theological discussion.

Hoghead1 said:

Miamited, you are working out of a right-wing position. OK, fine. But not all Christians are on the right or should be. Not all Christians hold with the inerrancy of Scripture. If anything, I find the inerrancy notion a kind of bibliolatry. Basically, I hold with the "Confession of 1967," which states that, " The Scriptures, given under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, are nevertheless the words of men, conditioned by the language, thought forms, and literary fashions of the places and times at which they were written." Divinely inspired it may be, the Bible has human finger prints all over it and then it is no surprise if its cosmology shows up short or that there are contradictions, etc. You seemingly end your post with he notion that Christians have to believe in an inerrant Bible, and that if they don't then they don't believe in God. As such, commenting on another's Christianity is not appropriate in a theological discussion.

Click to expand...

Hi hoghead,

Well, I will only repeat what I said in starting my discussion with you. If we are not in agreement on the validity of the truth of the Scriptures, then you and I really have no basis for discussion. Our worldviews are different. What we believe about God and His ability to work through men to accomplish His purposes is different.

I must say though, it baffles me why someone who doesn't believe in their source of study would spend the time and money in seeking a doctorate in that field. Your position would seem to be that we really can't know that anything in the Scriptures is true. Because there are, you believe, contradictions in the Scriptures, then you really can't have any assurance that any of it is the truth. It's written by men. How do we know what parts they got right and what parts they didn't.

Was Jesus really the Son of God who died for our sin, or is that just something the men of that era wrote to bolster some position or understanding that they desired to propose? How do you know? BTW you still haven't answered my question. Should I just understand that you aren't going to? You should probably change your name to Nicodemus; a man who gave of his life's work to know and understand the things of God, but apparently didn't.

Also believing in God is not the same as believing God. Agnostics believe in God, but they don't believe He can be understood by men. Many people believe in God. They know in their heart of hearts that God is out there somewhere.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Ted, your last sentence is insulting and totally uncalled for in a serious theological discussion. Also, I did not appreciate the crack about my education. So, I am not going to respond any further to this post of yours. Please abider by the rules.

Again, Ted, your Post 206 is totally disrespectful and inappropriate here.

Hoghead1 said:

I don't mind responding to you,Oz, but you need to make it clear what your relationship is with Ted. Are you going top be his mouthpiece? After all, you did butt in, which is OK, of course.
To answer your questions:
Ted's stated beliefs shouted out the inerrancy of Scripture. And I said it is a human-made theory, because that is exactly what it is. Scripture never claimed it is inerrant. Even if it did, you shu0old want to check it out, as Scripture was written by fallible human beings,

It is well known that there are about 100 major contradictions in Scripture. One example is the two contradictory creation accounts in Genesis. Another is who killed Goliath. 2 Sam. 21:19 says Elhanan did. Another is how many pilgrimages did Paul make to Jerusalem. Acts gives 5; Paul gives but three.

I brought up the dictation theory because, in point of actual fact, many do hold that God dictated Scripture word-for-word. I said that Scripture does not describe the inspirational process, simply because it does not. What does it mean to be moved by the Spirit? Does this mean you are no longer human and subject to error? Scripture does not go into these matters. 2 Tim. 3:16, which you refer to, says, "All inspired Scripture has its use for teaching,,," It says nothing abut the actual process and makes no claim for inerrancy, either.

You brought up about giving page numbers for Calvin. I do not have the time to look up page numbers.

Yes, we are dealing with "those who have exegete Scripture," and for tat very reason, we are dealing with how various human beings have interpreted Scripture. Maybe they are right, maybe they are wrong. We should check things out. For example, all you did was cite Feinberg's theory of divine inspiration. I'd want to check out his material a lot closer before I decided whether I agree or not. Note: that is Feinberg's theory.

Point 7 overlooks the fact that while God may be perfect and always tell the truth, human beings most certainly are not perfect and do not always tell the truth.
Yes, I got the verse wrong. It should be Ps. 103: 12. That would work fro east and west, given a flat earth with four corners;, but won't work for our earth, because there is no East or West Pole. East and West bleed into one another.

The passage in Isaiah is referring to the fact that the sky looks like a dome covering the flat earth. At the top of the dome sits God.

No, I did not commit a logical fallacy by appealing to authority. You put me on the spot as to what my credentials were and I simply answered you. You say you, too, have a doctorate in theology. Interesting. Mine is from the conjoint program between the University of Pittsburgh and Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. I'm curious where yours is from. You say I'm in trouble because you have a doctorate. I don't see what trouble that would be. I always enjoy talking with educated people.

I definitely did not say creationists were flat earthers. As I recall, I brought up Robowtham in a discussion with someone who had questions abut why I said the Bible has a flat earth.

I am not imposing my views on Ted on any one else. I am simply stating my response to the topic at hand. I try and give evidence for what I say. However, I may not always satisfy the reader; so OK, ask me to give more information.

Click to expand...

This is a red herring logical fallacy.

Please learn to address what I wrote. Also learn to back quote so that I know to which of my posts you are referring.

I have no relationship with Ted. This is an open forum where any of us can reply to anyone else.

Hoghead1 said:

Ted, your last sentence is insulting and totally uncalled for in a serious theological discussion. Also, I did not appreciate the crack about my education. So, I am not going to respond any further to this post of yours. Please abider by the rules.

Click to expand...

Hi hoghead,

I'm truly sorry that I have offended you so deeply that you would withdraw from the discussion. My intentions are merely to get those who claim the banner of Christianity to think and consider their understanding. To hopefully make their faith and trust in our Creator, Sustainer and God more rock solid. I really was hoping that you'd finally answer the question that I put to you regarding your obvious faith in the reliability of Mr. Calvin's testimony concerning what he believed about God and the creation, but I guess that's out of the question at this point.

You see, HH, I take very, very seriously Jesus' statement to his disciples concerning the day of his Father's judgment. He didn't say to them, "Well, there will be a few of you who follow after me doing great miracles and works in my name that I will cast away from me on that day." No! He told them that there would be 'many'. So, it is my understanding that there will be many on the day of God's judgment who will, while having lived upon the earth, professed and done what appear to us to be great things in the name of Jesus who aren't going to make the cut. My mind simply asks the question, "who will these people be and how will we know them?" I mean, let's be sober thinking for a moment. According to Jesus' description of the things that they will be doing, these will be people who had and displayed a great faith in Jesus. They depended upon him to do things for them. They obviously believe in Jesus. They proclaimed his name before the people. According to Jesus they will be proclaiming that they have driven out demons and performed great miracles in his name. How can people who do such things not be seen upon the earth by others as great men of God?

Now, you say you have a doctorate in theology of which I have no doubt. Surely you have studied this singular piece of Scripture. What conclusions have you come to about 'who' these people are and what it is in their lives that they have lived upon the earth that will disqualify them for the race?

For me, the very first group of people that I find might be partakers of this group of many believers, would be people who while knowing about Jesus, believing in him and who and what he is, don't believe all the truths of God. The second would be people who also have a strong faith in the power and abilities of Jesus, but yet dabble with continued sin throughout their walk. They have never repented of their sinful nature.

I am a man who takes very seriously the words of the Scriptures. When I read Jesus' words that there will be many people just like me, who even seem to have a faith that is stronger than mine in their ability to perform miracles and drive out demons, I want to try to understand what it is about them that makes them unknown to the Lord. I want to know this because I don't want to find myself in that crowd of many believers. And, if I know the answer, I want to be used of God to warn those who may be on that path rather than the straight and narrow one that Jesus said we must follow.

The way is straight and narrow and 'few' there be that find it. What are the many parameters of that straight and narrow way, that we must follow in order to remain on it and not find ourselves on the broad way. Is it just not believing in the one true God like we find among muslims and Hindis and those who follow other religious practices? Or, would it also include those who Jesus describes to his disciples who do know Jesus and do proclaim his name in performing great works, but don't really believe God? They believe in a god. They believe that a supreme and sovereign god does exist and that He has a Son named Jesus who died for their sin, but they enjoin with the world in teaching against the truth of what God has revealed to us. They come under the deceptive spell of thinking and agreeing that men have the true answers to 'how' we got here and not God. They do, just as Paul wrote to the Colossians, agree that the truth is based on the natural properties of things and not on Christ.

Paul even brings up, before making that claim, discussion of the creation. He writes to them:

The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.

He tells the Colossians that all things were created through him and 'for' him. This realm of creation was made by God for His Son. It didn't evolve through natural processes, but was simply created by God for His Son. That's the very first thing that Paul writes to the Colossians before making his statement. Then he writes:

He is the one we proclaim, admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone fully mature in Christ. To this end I strenuously contend with all the energy Christ so powerfully works in me. I want you to know how hard I am contending for you and for those at Laodicea, and for all who have not met me personally. My goal is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

This was Paul's work and I believe also mine in this endeavor. My intentions are to admonish and teach others with wisdom; the wisdom that comes from God's word and His Holy Spirit.

Then he writes:

Be careful that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit based on human tradition, based on the elemental forces of the world, and not based on Christ.

Friend, this is the very argument that I am making. Many 'christians' forego God's wisdom and truth in this matter of the 'how' we got here to this point in life on the earth. Rather, they side against the knowledge that it was all created through and for Jesus, but that it was created by the 'elemental forces' of the world. They just are unwilling to believe that it is at all possible that just as God can make water act against its own elemental nature; who can divide the light of the sun and the moon to fall upon the earth in one place and just hundreds of feet away cause that very same light of such great brilliance to be completely and utterly unseen, can simply command that an entire universe appear in all its perfection for the job for which it was created in the matter of mere moments. Six days to be exact.

I'll certainly understand if you choose not to respond. Not accepting my sincere apology. However, it is my heartfelt hope that you will at least read and consider my understanding.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

I don't follow you Oz. I was responding to your posts 202 and 293.

OPK, Ted, apology accepted. I think that many Christians allow their faith to collapse into intellectual ascent to doctrines. This leads them to reject as lost souls, etc., anyone who dares disagree with them. This shows a total lack of respect for their fellow Christians who may hold a different position and a chronic inability to engage in meaningful dialogue. To them, it's more important what you believe than how you live. I, however, love to question, and I find many Christian dogmas do need questioning. Also, I think God considers it more important how a person lives. I believe that as long as a person believes in a truly loving God who is luring us to build a more beautiful world, he or she on the right track. I want to avoid any form of Christian Imperialism, the notion that only Bible-believing Christians are saved.

Among dogmas I question is the inerrancy theory of Scripture, as I previously addressed in my post to Oz. I think the Bible, divinely inspired or not, was written exclusively by males who have a definite racist, sexist agenda in mind, which they did interject into their writing of Scripture. I don't think the OT is a complete revelation of God, as it does depict God in a negative light, as unmerciful, handing down draconian punishments, fostering genocide, supporting slavery, ordaining the killing of the innocent first-born playing favorites, etc. So we have to sift through Scripture very carefully. Another dogma I challenge is the doctrine of election, the notion of the elect and the reprobate. I find this doctrine unbiblical, to start with. I find it fosters nothing but hopelessness. If the vast majority of the human race is reprobate, then chances are so are we and we're doomed. I believe God is a truly loving God and therefore does not coerce people with threats of hell and damnation.
Let me know if you have any questions.

Hoghead1 said:

OPK, Ted, apology accepted. I think that many Christians allow their faith to collapse into intellectual ascent to doctrines. This leads them to reject as lost souls, etc., anyone who dares disagree with them. This shows a total lack of respect for their fellow Christians who may hold a different position and a chronic inability to engage in meaningful dialogue. To them, it's more important what you believe than how you live. I, however, love to question, and I find many Christian dogmas do need questioning. Also, I think God considers it more important how a person lives. I believe that as long as a person believes in a truly loving God who is luring us to build a more beautiful world, he or she on the right track. I want to avoid any form of Christian Imperialism, the notion that only Bible-believing Christians are saved.

Among dogmas I question is the inerrancy theory of Scripture, as I previously addressed in my post to Oz. I think the Bible, divinely inspired or not, was written exclusively by males who have a definite racist, sexist agenda in mind, which they did interject into their writing of Scripture. I don't think the OT is a complete revelation of God, as it does depict God in a negative light, as unmerciful, handing down draconian punishments, fostering genocide, supporting slavery, ordaining the killing of the innocent first-born playing favorites, etc. So we have to sift through Scripture very carefully. Another dogma I challenge is the doctrine of election, the notion of the elect and the reprobate. I find this doctrine unbiblical, to start with. I find it fosters nothing but hopelessness. If the vast majority of the human race is reprobate, then chances are so are we and we're doomed. I believe God is a truly loving God and therefore does not coerce people with threats of hell and damnation.
Let me know if you have any questions.

Click to expand...

Hi HH,

Well, there is evidence that God believes that what we believe may be certainly not more important, but at least as important as how we live. Paul describes to us his own condition that while he had full faith and assurance in the work of the Lord for his sin, he still struggled with sin. Abraham was declared righteous not be any works or particular way of living, but rather in that he believed God.

It's possible, one could argue, that your understanding that what we believe tantamount to how we live could be a misunderstanding.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Hoghead1 said:

I don't follow you Oz. I was responding to your posts 202 and 293.

Click to expand...

Would you please back quote so I know to which of my posts you are responding?

As I said, I'm responding to your posts 202 and 203. Surely, you remember what you wrote there and then can easily see where I am coming from.