Christianity as a "personal revelation".

Grumpy Old Man said:

The liberal Christians I've encountered on other forums usually have the following traits;

• Accept evolution to some degree
• Aren't Young Earth Creationists
• Either support gay people, or
• Don't care about the gay issue, or
• Believe it's a sin but thinks the church should leave them alone
• Believe in a separation of church and state (a hot topic in America right now as right wing fundies seem to believe that God chose America for some divine purpose)
• Realize the Gospel is about love and not promoting their own prejudices
• Can't stand Rick Santorum

I'm sure I've missed stuff out. I don't agree with everything Christian liberals believe, but they're far easier to get along with than Fundies.

Click to expand...

First of all, thank you for answering my question. I appreciate it. Secondly, you may not like me, because I disagree with each liberal trait you mentioned in your post.

1) I accept Creationism and reject evolution

2) I am a Young Earth Creationist

3) I do not support the gay movement and I am concerned about how homosexuality is being promoted today.

4) I believe Christians should preach the Gospel without compromise and fear of man, and strive to fulfill the Great Commission. Christians should not sacrifice the true message of the Gospel on the altars of political correctness and tolerance. There should be a correct balance of the biblical teaching of Law and Grace. It should also be done in love (1 Corinthians 13) and Christians should sanctify the Lord God in their hearts, always being ready to give a defense to everyone who asks them a reason for the hope that is in them (1 Peter 3:15-17).

5) I'm not sure what I believe on the subject of separation of church and state (it may be a hot topic today, but I personally don't know if God chose America or not for a divine purpose). I do, however, firmly believe that America needs a widespread revival. I think it's way past time for the Church (true believers in the Lord Jesus Christ) to wake up and become what God created it to be, which is to be salt and light, a city on a hill.

6) I realize the true Gospel is not the watered down, compromised, 'feel good' message that is being preached behind many of the church pulpits today, which purposely omits the Law of God, His wrath against sin, His righteous judgment against sin, and the reality of hell. It's a "feel good" message, not intrusive or confrontational, and it certainly doesn't make one confront their own sinful nature before God. It is this omission of God's moral Law from the Gospel that causes a false conversion and leaves a person ignorant to the true nature of sin. And that is what I believe and what I preach.

7) I don't have a stance on Rick Santorum.

I'm sorry if you've had trouble with Fundamentalists on this site or in general.

RedeemedandForgiven said:

First of all, thank you for answering my question. I appreciate it. Secondly, you may not like me, because I disagree with each liberal trait you mentioned in your post.

1) I accept Creationism and reject evolution

2) I am a Young Earth Creationist

3) I do not support the gay movement and I am concerned about how homosexuality is being promoted today.

4) I believe Christians should preach the Gospel without compromise and fear of man, and strive to fulfill the Great Commission. Christians should not sacrifice the true message of the Gospel on the altars of political correctness and tolerance. There should be a correct balance of the biblical teaching of Law and Grace. It should also be done in love (1 Corinthians 13) and Christians should sanctify the Lord God in their hearts, always being ready to give a defense to everyone who asks them a reason for the hope that is in them (1 Peter 3:15-17).

5) I'm not sure what I believe on the subject of separation of church and state (it may be a hot topic today, but I personally don't know if God chose America or not for a divine purpose. America needs a widespread revival, IMHO. I think it's way past time for the Church (true believers in the Lord Jesus Christ) to wake up and become what God created it to be, which is to be salt and light, a city on a hill.

6) I realize the true Gospel is not the watered down, compromised, 'feel good' message that is being preached behind many of the church pulpits today, which purposely omits the Law of God, His wrath against sin, His righteous judgment against sin, and the reality of hell. It's a "feel good" message, not intrusive or confrontational, and it certainly doesn't make one confront their own sinful nature before God. It is this omission of God's moral Law from the Gospel that causes a false conversion and leaves a person ignorant to the true nature of sin. And that is what I believe and what I preach.

7) I don't have a stance on Rick Santorum.

I'm sorry if you've had trouble with Fundamentalists on this site or in general.

Click to expand...

Nicely stated, Redeemed!

Believe the Impossible said:

Nicely stated, Redeemed!

Click to expand...

Thank you, sister. God bless you.

Grumpy Old Man said:

does the fault lie with the Bible in that it can often give conflicting messages in different books?

Click to expand...

What you're observing, is that G-d "gives us enough rope to hang ourselves with." (With apologies if that saying isn't in use or understandable on your side of the pond)

Grumpy Old Man said:

I know Bible contradictions aren't a hot topic on this forum, but I think the fact there are so many Christian denominations built on different interpretations of scripture is a clue that there may be conflicting doctrinal ideas in the Bible.

Click to expand...

Again, this isn't the basis for most denominational splits.

Grumpy Old Man said:

Even topics such as salvation can be controversial for some Christians (once saved always saved, or not).

What I'm trying to say is that Christianity to me seems like a case of "tell me your truth, and I'll tell you mine". Perhaps I should abandon the belief that there can objective truth in the Christian religion.

Click to expand...

There are 2 different factors in play here:

1) Christ IS the objective Truth in Christianity!

2) (2 Peter 3:16) As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

Basically, this is saying (among other things) that human closure is the tendency to make stuff up when otherwise we'd need to be comfortable with saying "I don't know." There ARE things that border on what can be known ...

Grumpy Old Man said:

Fundies just focus on all the things God is supposed to hate (usually based on their own prejudices).

Click to expand...

GOM pegging the irony meter again!

Grumpy Old Man said:

The liberal Christians I've encountered on other forums usually have the following traits;

• Accept evolution to some degree
• Aren't Young Earth Creationists
• Either support gay people, or
• Don't care about the gay issue, or
• Believe it's a sin but thinks the church should leave them alone
• Believe in a separation of church and state (a hot topic in America right now as right wing fundies seem to believe that God chose America for some divine purpose)
• Realize the Gospel is about love and not promoting their own prejudices
• Can't stand Rick Santorum

I'm sure I've missed stuff out. I don't agree with everything Christian liberals believe, but they're far easier to get along with than Fundies.

Click to expand...

by your def I'm a liberal (The word is used to mean many other things though)

Anyway, the post immediately before this one (# 18) uses different words to say what I've been telling you, since our first exchange.

Grumpy Old Man said:

Constant fear of judgement actually causes more "sin", not less. A person motivated by fear and guilt will commit sin in order to feel good about themselves, then they feel guilt and fear for having committed that sin, and once again they need to feel good about themselves so they sin again.

It is very rare that a man, or women, will get free from this, or similar, addictions through the Fundie message of fear and wrath.

Click to expand...

That first section I snipped there may be the most insightful thing I've ever seen you post. It's spot on, really. And yet you then go and ruin it with the second statement I included here?

Your prejudice is showing. And you have reason for it! You are relating your experience, based on what you were taught, within specific circles. And yet the "personal revelation" side of things, was that mixed in? Or abandoned?

Grumpy Old Man said:

Paul acknowledged in Romans 7, in his very descriptive struggle with the Law, that the Law has no power to set a person free. In fact, the Law made him sin more. I'm surprised more Christians don't realise this.

Click to expand...

Why do you think I constantly try to divert your attention away from what you're focused on, so you can be free to ponder Grace? It really is as simple as, most of your concerns cloud your vision from even being able to consider the Grace of God! And who do you think is behind that?

And yet, which direction do we "point to," to point you towards His Grace? There is a necessary step of removing obstacles ...

Grumpy Old Man said:

My own "personal revelation" before I left Christianity you mean? I was actually trying to work that out.

Click to expand...

Yup. It seems to me that by just taking other people's word for what Christianity is all about, they "poisoned the well." Do you think that's possible?

It seems to me you reached a point where your Faith couldn't grow any more. Kinda like a potted plant who's roots need more room ...

Grumpy Old Man said:

However, I just couldn't (and still can't) seem to align the Christian faith (and in particular the Bible) with what I know now with respect to evolution, science, archaeology, history, etc. I've studied a heck of a lot this last year and the picture I'm getting is that there is a lot in the Bible that just isn't true. How am I supposed to maintain faith in the face of this? Ignore all the evidence and pretend God is still the same as I thought he was?

Click to expand...

That last sentence there: "out of the mouth of babes." Really - that IS your answer! "How you thought God was" needs to be replaced with, "who / what other people told you He is." And now you could be in a more mature position to sort all that out; but drawing hasty conclusions isn't a good idea, and fortunately it's not necessary

Again, apophatic theology: now you know more about what He is NOT. This indeed challenges both (y)our intellect and (y)our Faith, esp wrt your statement "a lot in the Bible that just isn't true." It shouldn't be too difficult for you to be convinced that needs to be changed to "what you formerly thought certain passages meant, must be incorrect." Many cultures use fables to make their points. OT needs to be looked at that way, and you admit you have a hard time with this.

My .02: you need to sort out the NT first. If / when you need more variety, you admit you never really dug into Psalms. What makes those interesting is what David was doing when he wrote each. Take Psalm 23 for example, and then place that in context with Goliath. Psalm 31, with his armed protection of the city of Keilah, who in turn outed him to Saul. Fascinating stuff, in a profound sort of way. This will tell you FAR more about who G-d is than ... 99% of what's on the net. What about Proverbs? Man, there's some useful stuff in there, and I find it also contains the "keys" to opening up much understanding of the rest of Scripture.

But it's the NT you need to come to terms with. You have me curious about how my understanding of anything might be changed if 2 Peter were never included. Feel free to slice and dice as you see fit, but what's left is all the stuff I've never seen you address

Grumpy Old Man said:

Or accept that the Bible is somehow a flawed book but can still guide us to God?

Click to expand...

If I may: it is ONE way we can be drawn to Him. If you insist on using the term "flaws," bear in mind that the biggest limitation is our humanity! Each individual person had to write something; yes, even Moses. How closely do you think what was first written mirrored their own understanding? There's our first limitation, or flaw. Next you have whatever changes got made to the text, and then translation; but the big thing is still our own preconceptions. And those are fed by what we've been taught!? And you've already come to realize you sat under poor teaching.

That list of "flaws" is enough to throw things out of whack, don't cha think? Hopefully pondering this will give you increased appreciation for Jesus, whose humanity didn't separate Him from the pure Truth of G-d Himself.

Grumpy Old Man said:

Also, and I'm sure you're aware of this from our previous encounters, I just don't see God as good any more. I'm still undecided on whether he's sadistic, but I'm convinced he isn't "good". The Old Testament (and parts of the New) reveal a very capricious, violent God who has little value for human life. I'm not sure, any more, how to relate to such a deity.

Click to expand...

I appreciate your honesty here!

Have you ever lost something important, and been afraid you'd never get it back? This happened to me recently; with 2 different very small (but expensive) items. And the real concern wasn't even the cost, but how to go about replacing them? Anyway, yesterday I found one, and just this morning I found the other. And I wasn't even looking for them at the time! After finding this second item, this morning I was immediately reminded of the parable of the lost coin, and that that is how G-d looks at US! (Especially when we are wayward against Him.)

I outright challenge you to read even just one Gospel, preferably John, and to maintain the attitude reflected in your words in that last snip. I don't think you can do it! Of course, that is NOT the proper frame of mind to approach the Bible with, but still, I think you get my idea.

Grumpy Old Man said:

I suppose you could say that Christianity is like a painting; everyone will get something different out of it. Perhaps I'm trying too hard to see the painting as a whole, rather than take whatever meaning I should from it and just be content. I don't really know any more. In fact, the more I learn, the less I do know. All I seem to have are more and more questions.

Click to expand...

This is a SURE sign of learning! And I'm going to tell you something you won't like. (A real change of pace, I know )

You can't just "be done with all this." G-d is moving in your life. He is active, towards you! Your appropriate response right now, is to use caution. Admit to Him you don't know what to do with all this, or how to relate to Him. Go ahead and tell Him that His people don't have the answers you need. Compare yourself to Peter, who had a revelation from the Father that Jesus is the Christ. Heck, even doubting Thomas got that! If He is truly no respecter of persons as His Word claims, He's got some 'splainin' ta do ... (Do note, that effort on your part will still be required. I submit it has more to do with your "heart condition" than it does your intellect. I wish "heart condition" were easier to explain, but you could study on the Greek word "nous." The Orthodox teaching on the concept is vast!)

Grumpy Old Man said:

The liberal Christians I've encountered on other forums usually have the following traits;

• Accept evolution to some degree
• Aren't Young Earth Creationists
• Either support gay people, or
• Don't care about the gay issue, or
• Believe it's a sin but thinks the church should leave them alone
• Believe in a separation of church and state (a hot topic in America right now as right wing fundies seem to believe that God chose America for some divine purpose)
• Realize the Gospel is about love and not promoting their own prejudices
• Can't stand Rick Santorum

I'm sure I've missed stuff out. I don't agree with everything Christian liberals believe, but they're far easier to get along with than Fundies.

Click to expand...

Here's the definition used by the CF liberal forum:

1) They believe that Jesus never shut out anyone based on age, race, gender identity, religious affiliation (or lack thereof), sexuality, or political views. If you are reading this you are welcome here.

2) They affirm that all people everywhere share the worth that comes from being unique children created in the Image of God. These members do not make moral judgments on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. - do not view homosexuality or sexual reassignment as sin or unnatural.

3) WWMC members believe that God has shown that we all "see through the glass darkly" (I Cor. 13). It is therefore impossible for any human to fully know God's will, and therefore have a monopoly on the truth. They believe the Bible to be a valuable resource, but not free from error.

4) The members here believe God is merciful and loving: When we judge God's children (whom we all are) we transgress against God's express command. When we who are finite judge others, we presume on an infinite God's throne, His mercy and justice. Such judgments go against our beliefs. Further, we believe it is contrary to the teachings of Christ to judge, or have an opinion, on the final destination of any soul or group of souls. Such decisions are solely up to the Lord, our God.

Click to expand...

So you are welcome. Even conservative Christians are welcome. What isn't welcome is attacking other Christians, particularly young people who came to the group for personal support and end up on the receiving end on condemnation. Or (as in all CF groups) challenges to the basic principles of the group. Actually, most members of the liberal forum would probably be OK with friendly debates of basic principles, even though technically it violates the rules. The problem is that the conservatives we see are the unfriendly ones (since the friendly ones have the courtesy to stay away).

Of course there's a basic problem with "liberal", because it's become a catchall word for anyone who isn't conservative. So it includes both people like me, who are fairly orthodox Christians (I'm actually a Calvinist, sort of) but want to use the best in modern science and Biblical scholarship, and people who regard all philosophies as equally right.

In fact, the more I learn, the less I do know. All I seem to have are more and more questions.

Click to expand...

You are certainly not alone in that. I'd claim that this is the real start of wisdom.

Grumpy Old Man said:

My own "personal revelation" before I left Christianity you mean? I was actually trying to work that out. After studying evolution and science the Bible became meaningless to me, in the context that I was a Biblical-literalist. I suppose it's a contradiction that, whilst still being a literalist, I had turned quite liberal in my faith (similar to the points I outlined earlier in this thread). However, I just couldn't (and still can't) seem to align the Christian faith (and in particular the Bible) with what I know now with respect to evolution, science, archaeology, history, etc. I've studied a heck of a lot this last year and the picture I'm getting is that there is a lot in the Bible that just isn't true. How am I supposed to maintain faith in the face of this? Ignore all the evidence and pretend God is still the same as I thought he was? Or accept that the Bible is somehow a flawed book but can still guide us to God?

Also, and I'm sure you're aware of this from our previous encounters, I just don't see God as good any more. I'm still undecided on whether he's sadistic, but I'm convinced he isn't "good". The Old Testament (and parts of the New) reveal a very capricious, violent God who has little value for human life. I'm not sure, any more, how to relate to such a deity.

And this leads me back to this thread. The Bible is no longer reliable for me. And it is actually a cause for division in Christianity as everyone has their own version of Jesus, made up from whatever bits of the Bible they prefer. I suppose you could say that Christianity is like a painting; everyone will get something different out of it. Perhaps I'm trying too hard to see the painting as a whole, rather than take whatever meaning I should from it and just be content. I don't really know any more.

Click to expand...

I feel for you. The problem is that the Bible comes from many sources with varying degrees of understanding God, spread over a thousand years or so. To me the best model for the Bible is that God worked with Israel, throughout its history but particularly in the person of Jesus, but that the Bible represents not something he dictated, but their reports of their interactions with him. Their understanding varied in accuracy.

But I, at least, am a Christian. So I think Jesus' teachings are the key. After all, he critiques some of the OT, so you can't take all of it at face value and be his follower. For me, everything else matters only to the extent that it's coherent with Jesus' teaching. Including Paul. So in practice that puts the Synoptics at the heart of my belief. (I assume I don't need to explain that particular choice.) While the Synoptics are surely not verbatim transcripts, sane critical scholarship seems to see them as giving us a pretty good view of what he said and did.

Of course Jesus' method of teaching allows a certain degree of flexibility in understanding him. Some of this is almost certainly intentional. But I believe moderate critical views of the Synoptics give us enough what Jesus was about for most purposes. Probably the most prominent exponent of this currently is N T Wright, but there are many others. The people with whom I differ most significantly reject the critical approach. This means almost by definition that they are more committed to traditional views than to following evidence. While many of them are fine Christians, that's not an approach I can take and remain me.

Part of the key is that we can't expect to get out of Jesus or the Bible direct answers to every question we have. Many of them are legitimate questions. Do we baptize infants or not? Is there enough difference between our situation in the 1st Cent to change our judgement on slavery, homosexuality, or whatever? I believe the "power of the keys" was intended to let the Church make decisions like this, based on Jesus' principles. (The power of the keys is a Jewish concept, referring to the authority of a rabbi to making interpretations of the Torah.) At the moment we have multiple churches, and so multiple decisions. But I think that's still authority that Jesus left to us. It's hard to see how he could have done otherwise, since he could hardly dictate answers to every question that would ever be asked (though Hari Seldon somehow comes to mind), and I don't think doing so would have fit with his purposes even if it were possible.

There are a number of churches that following similar principles to mine, basically the so-called "mainline churches," as well as some of the newer critical evangelicals (e.g. McLaren). Despite coming from somewhat different traditions, I think you'll find a common approach to Christianity and common judgement on many matters. I would have no problem being a member in any of them.

If you have specific issues you're wrestling with, you might want to bring them up in the liberal forum. But there's a limit to what any Biblical theology can do, liberal or conservative. In the end, you have to accept that there are things beyond what the scientific method can currently explain, and you have to accept that God is concerned with developing responsible people, and is willing to tolerate a fair amount of unpleasantness in order to give us an environment where this is possible. That need not imply, however, that 90% of the human population is going to end up being tortured eternally by God.

I think I can agree with you here. The Bible is less a book dictated by God, and more a book about God. It's quite possible that many of the stories in the OT are a result of Israel's attempt to understand itself in light of its religion. I suppose the Psalms are the best example of this as they clearly reveal the internal struggles of those who believed in God. The same could perhaps be said of the OT prophets; they were witnessing Israel's destruction and wrote down what they saw and what they believed.

Perhaps I've gone off on a tangent, but my view of the Bible has changed a lot recently. I used to think it was the literal and inerrant word of God. Now, I merely think it was inspired, in that the authors were writing about God, not being dictated by God, similar to the way in which a love poem is inspired by the object of one's affection.

I'm beginning to see Biblical inerrancy as dangerous now. It's dangerous because the only way one can maintain such an attitude towards the Bible is to close one's mind to so much evidence. I've also learned that Biblical inerrancy is quite a recent doctrine. The early church weren't literalists and throughout much of history most Christians read much of the Bible as symbolic. Biblical inerrancy seems to have sprung up as a response to Darwin in the last 150 years.

Click to expand...

I posted earlier, in one of your previous threads, on how good it is to see you here again. I haven't had the pleasure since before the holidays and I will risk repeating myself, but I do hope all is well with you. I am particularly happy to see your progression in your struggle. I see you have come from the atheistic worldview to the agnostic one, and your language seems to reflect a drift toward resolution with Christianity as a whole. Perhaps some of your struggle is with Christians themselves and not Christ?

In addressing the dictation view of inspiration; you are quite right to reject dictation:
Divine dictation. The dictation view states that God dictated the words of Scripture and the men wrote them down in a passive manner, being mere Amanuenses (secretaries) who wrote only the words they were told to write. This claim would render the Bible similar to the Koran which supposedly was dictated in Arabic from heaven. Although some parts of the Bible were given by dictation (cf. Ex. 20:1, “Then God spoke all these words&#8221, the books of the Bible reveal a distinct contrast in style and vocabulary, suggesting the authors were not mere automatons. The beginning student in Greek will quickly discover the difference in style between the gospel of John and the gospel of Luke. John wrote in a simple style with a limited vocabulary whereas Luke wrote with an expanded vocabulary and a more sophisticated style. If the dictation theory were true, the style of the books of the Bible should be uniform.

The Moody Handbook of Theology.

If I may, I would offer this view of inspiration as an introduction to the theology of inspiration of the Bible: Inspiration may be defined as the Holy Spirit’s superintending over the writers so that while writing according to their own styles and personalities the result was God’s Word written—authoritative, trustworthy, and free from error in the original autographs.
The Moody Handbook of Theology.

It truly is unfortunate that conservatism and liberalism are such antagonistic camps, since we serve the same Christ. I try not to make my views appear as the only valid ones in comparison to the liberal mind set or any one else who follows Christ but adheres to other theologies, but sometimes I forget that I represent someone other than myself and I am ashamed.

As I have studied the Bible, I have found that in many respects the origination of the different doctrines, dogmas, and biblical mindsets or worldviews, in the modern church, are parallel to the development of the Jewish Talmud.

What I mean by that is, it was during the intertestamental era that the Talmud was developed which was the "traditions of the elders" (Mark 7:3).
The Talmud was a collection of the traditions and the interpretation of those traditions into separate elements called the Gemara, Mishna, and so on. These traditions were meant to be interpretations that would help in the following and understanding of God's commands, but turned into stumbling blocks as the New Testament shows. With the different factions like the Pharisees and the Sadducees (conservatives and liberals) and others, instead of the Talmud and the traditions helping people understand God and getting closer to Him, they kept the people disconnected from Him. The Sadducees by the way rejected the Talmud and the teachings of the prophets, accepting only the Pentateuch as "God's Word" so to speak.

Nothing much has changed, has it GOM (Grumpy Old Man). We still place our own views, biases, pride, insecurities, and pretty much all of our sinful attributes ahead of Christ's message. Perhaps we, and I include myself, forget that it is not our arguments that change hearts and minds, but rather the Holy Spirit. I hope His message of salvation in its purity is what you can grasp and believe, because that is the purpose of His death and the proof of His love for you.

Bottom line: the only eternal matter of choice is Christ. May God bless you, GOM

Grumpy Old Man said:

The Bible is less a book dictated by God, and more a book about God.

Click to expand...

Yes! Now you're getting it. It is also about how we can have a relationship with Him. I won't say that every single thing included is for that purpose, but a very important question to ask, is why any one certain thing was included, when so many other things happened that aren't included.

Grumpy Old Man said:

It's quite possible that many of the stories in the OT are a result of Israel's attempt to understand itself in light of its religion. I suppose the Psalms are the best example of this as they clearly reveal the internal struggles of those who believed in God. The same could perhaps be said of the OT prophets; they were witnessing Israel's destruction and wrote down what they saw and what they believed.

Click to expand...

Can I say heaven's doors just flung open for you? That's figurative of course, but I don't think it's an overstatement.

Grumpy Old Man said:

Now, I merely think it was inspired, in that the authors were writing about God, not being dictated by God, similar to the way in which a love poem is inspired by the object of one's affection.

Click to expand...

Bingo! And this is the value of hermeneutics: to see what the author was referencing, and how his audience would have understood what he wrote. Just never let that close your mind to what else might be going on in the same section.

Grumpy Old Man said:

The early church weren't literalists and throughout much of history most Christians read much of the Bible as symbolic.

Click to expand...

True enough, but there is still the danger of "over-spiritualizing everything." The Bible poses an endless challenge, to be sure. Which sections are meant to be taken in any physical sense? And which are deeper, and detached from the surface meaning?

So you see, it's really not about Christians disagreeing with one another. It's about remaining Faithful to what He has shown to each of us. And of course that can be done, while keeping a mind open enough to appreciate another's POV.

I'm aware of your response is to someone else, but I feel like I would answer some of your arguments.

Grumpy Old Man said:

And what exactly is the message of the Gospel in Fundie eyes? You also say it should be preached in love, but this is almost never the case. They're too busy fighting gay people, atheists, and evolution to feel any love for anyone.

Click to expand...

We don’t fight gay people or atheists. We fight the homosexual lifestyle which is an abomination to God (Leviticus 18:22) and we fight the lies of evolution and we preach the gospel to the lost as commanded by Jesus Christ in Mark 16:15. We are commanded to be the salt and light of the world (Matthew 5:13), not the teddy bear of the world or whatever you would consider to be comfy.

Grumpy Old Man said:

I keep hearing about how America needs revival. You do know that up to 76% of Americans consider themselves Christian (link for proof)? I suspect you'll say that most of these aren't "true" Christians. What you really mean is that they're probably not your particular type of Christian, theologically or denominationally speaking.

Click to expand...

America doesn't need revival. It needs repentance. After repentance we can talk about revival.

Grumpy Old Man said:

This is the problem with the Fundie message and is the reason why no one cares to listen any more. They say (and you say) you want to preach the Gospel in an attitude of love, yet you focus on God's anger and judgement. No wonder the likes of the Health and Wealthers are sprouting megachurches everywhere. Christians are after more than hell and hatred these days; they want their faith to be real and to produce real results. The likes of the Southern Baptists just can't offer that, which is why their pews are emptying year after year and they're having to re-brand themselves to stop the flood.

Click to expand...

It wouldn’t be love if you weren’t willing to preach entire gospel since a watered down gospel is no gospel at all. You need to start telling the sinner why he’s a sinner and the consequences for sinning before you can tell him the good message. Also the concern of a Christian isn’t to fill up their pews with people, but to preach the bible in its interity.[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

Grumpy Old Man said:

Also, you seem to believe that this constant message of fear and judgement will "make one confront their own sinful nature before God". This doesn't actually work. It's been proven that fear is a poor motivation technique and often produces negative results (God should know this since he apparently created the human mind). Constant fear of judgement actually causes more "sin", not less. A person motivated by fear and guilt will commit sin in order to feel good about themselves, then they feel guilt and fear for having committed that sin, and once again they need to feel good about themselves so they sin again. Just look at the inappropriate content addiction section on this forum for proof of this. It is very rare that a man, or women, will get free from this, or similar, addictions through the Fundie message of fear and wrath.

Click to expand...

No one is trying to scare anyone, but hell among other things should scare you if you’re going there. People will only confront their own sinful nature if God grant them repentance (Acts 5:31 and Acts 11:18). Also, it’s a good thing to fear God since it’s the beginning of wisdom (Psalm 11:10, Proverbs 1:7, Proverbs 9:10).

Grumpy Old Man said:

The Fundie message is not one of liberation. It's a message of bondage to guilt and shame. I know this because I used to be a Baptist myself (then a Pentecostal, who basically preach the same message). Even Paul acknowledged in Romans 7, in his very descriptive struggle with the Law, that the Law has no power to set a person free. In fact, the Law made him sin more. I'm surprised more Christians don't realise this.

Click to expand...

The law was never intended to set anyone free but to reveal our sinful nature. Paul is saying so himself in Romans 3:20 and Romans 7:7. It is Jesus Christ who sets us free from the law and puts us under grace as described in Romans 3:28 and Galatians 2:16.

Grumpy Old Man said:

My questions exactly. Once the literal view of Scripture is abandoned, how are we supposed to interpret the stories contained therein? What mechanism do we use to determine whether we should read something as true or symbolic? For example, if I determine that the Genesis account of creation is a symbolic story about God's creative power, why should I take the stories of Jesus' miracles literally?

I hope you can see where I'm coming from now.

Click to expand...

You ask how we know what to take literally. First, this isn't mostly a question of history. The most serious debates involve the NT, and they have to do with how we understand Jesus and Paul, and how much we allow Paul's judgements for his 1st Cent congregations to control our actions in the 21st Cent.

On historical accuracy, I tend to defer to historians. For ancient history this is largely archaeology. This is an inexact science, but I think we've got a fairly stable consensus that the OT before about Judges can't have happened literally. In my view the OT contains Israel's story about itself, the whole thing. Starting with the kings, the accounts refer to annals, so the people doing the writing would probably have had pretty good information. For earlier periods they wouldn't.

Our knowledge changes. That upsets some people, but it doesn't upset me. I don't think it's a big problem that at one point we took Genesis literally, because we had no reason not to. The main points are still the same. It becomes an issue primarily when historians or scientists make discoveries and the Church starts rejecting evidence.

On much of the OT the criteria are really literary. Stories like Job or Jonah seem obviously not intended as history. I suppose on Jonah you could compare with the known history of Babylon.

For the NT the issue isn't mostly accuracy, except may the birth stories. I feel the same way about them as I do Genesis. For most of Jesus' life there were lots of people around, so they would have had good sources. For the birth, not so much, unless Jesus told people. And of 4 gospels and Paul, only 2 gospels have birth stories, both different. The evidence suggests to me that they may not be historical. Beyond that I assume the gospels are based on accounts going back to witnesses. Luke suggests as much in the prolog. But we all know that human witnesses aren't perfect. Hence the minor disagreements we see throughout the gospels when we compare them in detail. But that's typical of human testimony, and we're quite used to dealing with that in normal life.

Miracles? Well, Jesus seems to have been known as a miracle worker. People came to him for that, and at times he seems to complain that people cared more about his miracles than understanding what he was teaching. Sounds like he probably actually did some. The kinds of reports that are in the gospel are similar to modern reports of miracles. I'm inclined to interpret them the same way. I assume people actually thought they saw miracles. Whether they were is less clear. I'd assume there were some, but faith has an effect on our bodies, so not all healings are actually miracles, nor do they all last. The most significant miracle is the resurrection. N T Wright has looked at this in the context of 1st Cent beliefs. I accept his analysis that the existence of the Christian church is hard to explain if the resurrection wasn't literally true. Certainly Paul and the disciples seem to think it was. I think we can be confident that it wasn't some kind of parable. It's at least possible that it was a subjective event, but I think Wright is correct that the empty tomb is kind of hard to explain.

But really, these aren't the big issue. The big issue is what Jesus really thought the Gospel is, and how to take Paul's writings. Starting in the late 20th Cent we've learned a lot about 1st Cent Judaism, and I think that has clarified a lot of this. Not that previous interpretations were all wrong. I still use Calvin's commentaries.

I think you'll find reasonable agreement among what I call moderate critical scholarship. By this I intend to exclude conservatives, since they start with strong commitments to a specific result (although when that isn't an issue they are often fine scholars). But I'm also very suspicious of the folks who want to prove that Jesus (or David) never existed. The results look too much like conspiracy theories. But British scholarship has tended to be sane most of the time, as well as non-conservative American scholarship when it didn't get diverted by the early Germans. These are the kind of views you'll see in the historical Reformation churches: Presbyterians, Lutherans, Methodists, even Episcopal. Most of us are no longer concerned by the battles of the early Protestant period, and see those denominations more as colleagues than rivals. It's just that most American Christians haven't been willing to let the Reformation continue, and have chosen to move to churches that in my view treat at the 16th Cent like the Catholics treated the 5th and earlier.

[I note that increasingly the "mainline" churches are being joined by a new, more open wing of evangelicalism. I think the future of the "liberal" church probably belongs to moderate evangelical churches whose theology and commitment to service is the same as the mainline but who have the good features of evangelicalism: the desire to spread the faith.]