| Origins Theology Forum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums. |
 | | 
14th June 2009, 01:08 AM
|  | Senior Veteran
51     
| | Join Date: 20th July 2004 Location: Wichita Falls, TX
Posts: 2,754
Blessings: 67,042
Reps: 17,483,847 (power: 17,493) | | | Wrong Ideas
I recently read this devotional and thought it would apply here. I realize that most people will probably dismiss this and not give it a second thought. But I think there are one or two for whom this is exactly what you needed to hear.
This is a Greg Laurie devotional: Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you.
In America today, we have something that could be described as a new spirituality. It's a revival of sorts—not in the biblical sense of people turning to God, but a revival of all kinds of ancient and weird spiritual concepts and beliefs.
People are spiritually hungry. They are searching for truth. And the problem is, some of this strange theology is finding its way into the church.
We must be very careful to keep our guard up. Don't forget that when the devil misled Eve in the Garden, he did it with partial truth. He did not question God's Word altogether. Rather, he questioned if Eve properly understood it.
We must be careful of the deviant teachings that are out there today. So often, when a new teaching comes along, we will get excited: a new revelation!
I hope this won't disappoint you, but there aren't any new revelations. Everything you need to know about God is already written in His Book. As it has been said, if it's true, it isn't new. And if it's new, it isn't true.
So don't go looking for new revelations. Spend your time instead in learning God's Word, and He will bring fresh understanding of it.
Years ago, the great thinker C. S. Lewis warned us, "If you do not listen to theology, that will not mean that you have no ideas about God. It will mean that you have a lot of wrong ones." I think this is especially important today.
We need to know what Jesus said. We need to know what the truth is. We need to pay attention to doctrine.
__________________
David Cooper: "When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense;therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, literal meaning, unless the facts of the context indicate clearly otherwise." |
14th June 2009, 02:56 AM
| | Newbie
 
| | Join Date: 8th September 2006 Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 639
Blessings: 58,605
Reps: 458,358,390,381,383 (power: 458,358,390,387) | | Since you seem so concerned about the truth I'm guessing you know that the validity of 1 and 2 Timothy are in fact written by Paul at all. If it may not be the true words of Paul then one must take the words said in it with a grain of salt, all in a pursuit of truth (not in blind acceptance of what we are told is truth). Authorship of the Pauline epistles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia |
14th June 2009, 08:48 AM
|  | you are not reading this.
24  
| | Join Date: 18th February 2005 Location: Shah Alam, Selangor
Posts: 8,060
Blessings: 18,357 My Mood 
Reps: 15,461,686,232,085,960 (power: 15,461,686,232,100) | | Thanks for the encouragement vossler, here's my thoughts on it. Originally Posted by vossler  We must be careful of the deviant teachings that are out there today. So often, when a new teaching comes along, we will get excited: a new revelation!
I hope this won't disappoint you, but there aren't any new revelations. Everything you need to know about God is already written in His Book. As it has been said, if it's true, it isn't new. And if it's new, it isn't true.
Over here in Canberra I work with a parachurch ministry (Overseas Christian Fellowship) that serves to spread the gospel among international students and build them up in God's Word. We have always had trouble defining ourselves and our role, particularly in places where OCF co-exists with churches that run thriving university ministries such as Sydney and Melbourne. After all, our weekly meetings have a service order that's not unlike a church meeting: we have songs of praise, announcements and prayer, bible study time, and refreshments afterwards. And regrettably, there have (very sporadically) been "turf wars" at times when churches have seen OCF as a threat to their ministries.
What is the Biblical model of a parachurch ministry? Part of the answer must be that there is none: there isn't really a Biblical model of a local church, either (what more "parachurch" ministries!). For in the days of Acts and the Epistles local congregations were really simply all Christians from the same location. There would have been only one church in each city or perhaps in each suburb: not five or six with different ideologies and doctrinal quirks (and a pantheon of parachurch ministries in the same place). So there is no one simple example where, say, Paul did something and we can all point to him and say "That's how it should be done!"
One of my holiday projects (other than spending time with the girlfriend =) and wasting time on the computer) is to work from the Bible to discover what it has to say on the matter. Is it new revelation? No. But will it be new teaching? Certainly - to me at least. I don't think I've ever heard anything from anyone else on how to work out conflicts with local churches, what exactly a parachurch ministry is, what the theology of working in such a ministry is.
We must never confuse seeking truth with preserving the status quo. When Jesus came and ministered on Earth it was the sinners who sympathised the most and it was the moral guardians, the social conservatives, who were most offended by Him - it was them who nailed Him to a cross and continued to hound His followers after that. The revelation that He was coming was old revelation, of course, but it had to be re-applied in new ways (now that the Messiah was actually here, instead of simply being someone to wait for); Jesus never rejected the old revelation, but used it in new teachings, and that the Pharisees could not accept.
And so it is with science. I have an 1800-year-old precedent in not taking the Bible literally, but science itself has not been around that long. So the church needs a coherent theology of science, of dealing with the fact that created nature seems to manifest God's goodness by way of extreme regularity that in many cases seems to exclude supernatural activity and that in some cases seems to contradict many of the more wooden, dead readings of the Bible. Should it be based on old revelation? Of course! But new circumstances often require new responses.
An apple tree can grow larger, and reach higher spots, and bear newer, sweeter apples, without ever ceasing to be an apple tree. So also doctrine must grow and bear new fruit.
__________________ And who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars?
- Origen, 215AD [De Principiis 4.1.16]
... to insist that the rising of the sun is figurative while the rising of the Son is literal is also hypocrisy.
- Geraldus Bouw,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
14th June 2009, 02:57 PM
|  | Legend
  
| | Join Date: 2nd March 2004 Location: Toronto
Posts: 11,849
Blessings: 61,096
Reps: 12,567,898,174,147,644 (power: 12,567,898,174,166) | | Originally Posted by MattLangley Since you seem so concerned about the truth I'm guessing you know that the validity of 1 and 2 Timothy are in fact written by Paul at all. If it may not be the true words of Paul then one must take the words said in it with a grain of salt, all in a pursuit of truth (not in blind acceptance of what we are told is truth). Authorship of the Pauline epistles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Why would one need to take the words with a grain of salt? If it is inspired scripture it is inspired scripture no matter who wrote it. Perhaps the Church Fathers erred in attributing the letter to Paul, but did they also err in commending its teaching and including it in the canon?
__________________
"Either we've got to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy - and then admit that we just don't wanna do it." Steve Colbert |
14th June 2009, 06:10 PM
|  | Senior Veteran
29 
 | | Join Date: 6th March 2006
Posts: 6,088
Blessings: 53,526
Reps: 18,889,155,825,852,136 (power: 18,889,155,825,864) | | Originally Posted by MattLangley Since you seem so concerned about the truth I'm guessing you know that the validity of 1 and 2 Timothy are in fact written by Paul at all. If it may not be the true words of Paul then one must take the words said in it with a grain of salt, all in a pursuit of truth (not in blind acceptance of what we are told is truth). Authorship of the Pauline epistles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Heck, most of the Bible likely wasn't written by the people originally identified by the Church. I hardly see this as a reason to doubt Scripture, though. What matters isn't who wrote the books, but the words the books contain.
__________________
"There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well." -- creation scientist Dr. Todd Wood |
14th June 2009, 07:09 PM
| | Senior Veteran
51
| | Join Date: 20th July 2004 Location: Wichita Falls, TX
Posts: 2,754
Blessings: 67,042
Reps: 17,483,847 (power: 17,493) | | It's good to see you were encouraged by my post. I certainly wasn't expecting that.  Originally Posted by shernren We must never confuse seeking truth with preserving the status quo. When Jesus came and ministered on Earth it was the sinners who sympathised the most and it was the moral guardians, the social conservatives, who were most offended by Him - it was them who nailed Him to a cross and continued to hound His followers after that. The revelation that He was coming was old revelation, of course, but it had to be re-applied in new ways (now that the Messiah was actually here, instead of simply being someone to wait for); Jesus never rejected the old revelation, but used it in new teachings, and that the Pharisees could not accept.  So the church needs a coherent theology of science, of dealing with the fact that created nature seems to manifest God's goodness by way of extreme regularity that in many cases seems to exclude supernatural activity and that in some cases seems to contradict many of the more wooden, dead readings of the Bible. Should it be based on old revelation? Of course! But new circumstances often require new responses.
No problem with the essence of what you wrote here, it's just the application as to where the disagreement happens. An apple tree can grow larger, and reach higher spots, and bear newer, sweeter apples, without ever ceasing to be an apple tree. So also doctrine must grow and bear new fruit.
I'm a bit uneasy with this statement. Doctrine growing could imply that it changes and I don't concur with that.
__________________
David Cooper: "When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense;therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, literal meaning, unless the facts of the context indicate clearly otherwise." |
14th June 2009, 07:11 PM
| | Senior Veteran
51
| | Join Date: 20th July 2004 Location: Wichita Falls, TX
Posts: 2,754
Blessings: 67,042
Reps: 17,483,847 (power: 17,493) | | Originally Posted by gluadys Why would one need to take the words with a grain of salt? If it is inspired scripture it is inspired scripture no matter who wrote it. Perhaps the Church Fathers erred in attributing the letter to Paul, but did they also err in commending its teaching and including it in the canon? Originally Posted by Mallon Heck, most of the Bible likely wasn't written by the people originally identified by the Church. I hardly see this as a reason to doubt Scripture, though. What matters isn't who wrote the books, but the words the books contain.
What are you two trying to do, get me to believe you guys fully support the Word of God? 
__________________
David Cooper: "When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense;therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, literal meaning, unless the facts of the context indicate clearly otherwise." |
14th June 2009, 07:33 PM
| | Newbie
| | Join Date: 8th September 2006 Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 639
Blessings: 58,605
Reps: 458,358,390,381,383 (power: 458,358,390,387) | | Originally Posted by gluadys Why would one need to take the words with a grain of salt? If it is inspired scripture it is inspired scripture no matter who wrote it. Perhaps the Church Fathers erred in attributing the letter to Paul, but did they also err in commending its teaching and including it in the canon?
If they made that error then why would you -not- question the other possibility. Also there are many different views on what "inspired" means to them, rather just a human response to the divine or God using a man like a puppet. |
14th June 2009, 07:36 PM
| | Newbie
| | Join Date: 8th September 2006 Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 639
Blessings: 58,605
Reps: 458,358,390,381,383 (power: 458,358,390,387) | | Originally Posted by Mallon Heck, most of the Bible likely wasn't written by the people originally identified by the Church. I hardly see this as a reason to doubt Scripture, though. What matters isn't who wrote the books, but the words the books contain.
Wait a second... isn't your point that those who wrote the books inspired by God? If those people are in fact not the people you thought they were then why would you not question the validity of them? Your argument could suggest that even if it was a bunch of drunk satanists that wrote the bible then the content is the only thing that matters? As I said in my previous post many people have different views on how to value scripture. I personally take it for what it is, books written by many different people of ancient israel as there response to the divine. You obviously don't, there is not one single view on this. |
14th June 2009, 07:53 PM
| | Legend
| | Join Date: 2nd March 2004 Location: Toronto
Posts: 11,849
Blessings: 61,096
Reps: 12,567,898,174,147,644 (power: 12,567,898,174,166) | | Originally Posted by MattLangley Wait a second... isn't your point that those who wrote the books inspired by God? If those people are in fact not the people you thought they were then why would you not question the validity of them? Your argument could suggest that even if it was a bunch of drunk satanists that wrote the bible then the content is the only thing that matters?
That's basically what Martin Luther said: Christ is the Lord and King of the scriptures. . . . All sound books agree in this, that they witness to Christ. That is the proper test by which to judge all books, whether they preach Christ. . . . That which does not preach Christ is not apostolic though it came from St.Peter or St.Paul. Contrariwise that which preaches Christ would be apostolic even though it came from Judas or Annas or Pilate or Herod.
as cited in The Word and the Way: Personal Christian Faith for Today, United Church Publishing House 1962 (Sorry I don't know the original source.)
__________________
"Either we've got to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy - and then admit that we just don't wanna do it." Steve Colbert | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
