Did this really happen?

[KomissarSteve]

I think you may be confused. This has nothing to do with judging the heart, it is discernment of spiritual matters.

Indeed it is; so what are your credentials, in that regard?

 

[Rion]

I'm an OEC that believes the flood was local. A good source is godandscience.com for that PoV.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Don't mock what you don't understand or know anything about. Chat with the posters in deliverance ministry and they will open your eyes to the reality of the matter. Demons just didn't disappear after Jesus rose from the grave.

In all seriousness, I cannot think of a reason why anyone would name something the "spirit of intellectualism" except to condemn someone.

When does such a term arise in conversation? When one party has spent a considerable amount of effort to review and understand a particular phenomenon or concept and the second party doesn't like the conclusions.

The concept of "the spirit of intellectualism" (and rationalism, etc.) exists to condemn people who "think too much" -- and disagree with the person who wants to use the term.

There is no such thing as "think too much". (In casual conversation among those who like to think, we may use the phrase "think too much", but what we mean is "missing the forrest for the trees.")

 

[novacaine]

I don't imagine they legally changed their name to English either... I'm quite familiar with spirits -- there was a time in my life when they acted openly with me and in me. I didn't try to name one for each concept or influence that was sinful in my life though!

I don't think it's a Biblical concept to go around arbitrarily naming sprits, nor is it particularly Biblical to think that there is only one spirit per sinful act nor that spirits are in charge of only one sin each.

Talking of a "demon of Intellectualism" seems to me a rather poor attempt to make every intellectual pursuit look sinful under the guise of Christian doctrine.

It might be a good preaching or literary device to talk of a "spirit of _____" but to take it a step further and actually try to teach that there is a spirit dedicated to ______ is pure speculation and should be presented and treated as such.

I don't advoate to everytime talking to demons directly, because they love attention. There are times when the need to be addressed, but not in every case. That said, there are demons who use intellectualism. It's not a cop-out.

 

[novacaine]

Indeed it is; so what are your credentials, in that regard?

Credentials? To drive out demonic spirits? The credentials I have is that I am a born again Christian who Christ has endowed His power in me, to do His works whether it be casing out demons, speaking the gospel to non-believers, discipling believers or caring for hurt and lonely people.

 

[novacaine]

In all seriousness, I cannot think of a reason why anyone would name something the "spirit of intellectualism" except to condemn someone.

When does such a term arise in conversation? When one party has spent a considerable amount of effort to review and understand a particular phenomenon or concept and the second party doesn't like the conclusions.

The concept of "the spirit of intellectualism" (and rationalism, etc.) exists to condemn people who "think too much" -- and disagree with the person who wants to use the term.

There is no such thing as "think too much". (In casual conversation among those who like to think, we may use the phrase "think too much", but what we mean is "missing the forrest for the trees.")

Your post shows that you know little about spiritual warfare. Do some study on the subject before you make such conclusions.

 

[Deamiter]

I don't advoate to everytime talking to demons directly, because they love attention. There are times when the need to be addressed, but not in every case. That said, there are demons who use intellectualism. It's not a cop-out.

Oh, I have no doubt that a form of intellectualism (we probably define it differently though similarly -- I focus on the positives and you on the negatives) is used by Satan, but the cop-out is using the POSSIBILITY of it as your answer to a rational argument.

When we started discussing interpretation of different verses, you immediately started suggesting that interpretations can be influenced by Satan. Mallon pointed out that throwing back and forth accusations of Satanic influence is hardly productive and you immediately started defending the POSSIBILITY of Satanic influence as if Mallon had questioned it.

For a productive discussion, you must discuss WHY a particular interpretation is incorrect, not simply condemn it and expect everybody to agree with you. If you do think a particular interpretation is influenced by Satan, give your evidence for such a claim so those you're talking to can evaluate the basis for your accusation rather than simply responding viscerally to a rather inflammatory comment.

Furthermore, simply responding to Mallon's claim that your interpretation is incorrect because it does not address certain evidence by pointing out that an interpretation COULD be influenced by Satan is extremely off topic. Unless you are claiming that something IS influenced by Satan (in which case you should really say why you think this), the comment is simply inflammatory. Yes, everybody agrees that our interpretations can be influenced by Satan -- of course that applies equally to both ours and your interpretations so throwing out such an inflammatory comment gives us no information about which interpretation is more accurate or more influenced by demons.

The bottom line is that when discussing things with people who are from different backgrounds, you have to give reasons for your opinions or they remain as opinions. It's also good to make direct comments and back those up with evidence (scriptural, testemonial, physical, whatever) rather than randomly throwing out the point that "you could be influenced by Satan you know!"

 

[Assyrian]

Computer had a bit of a turn during the week, it's better now, but I'm still catching up.

Originally Posted by Assyrian
Our understanding of scripture is at best partial 1Cor 13:9-12 and at worst plain wrong. If our limited understanding of scripture comes up with interpretations that say something about natural world, why shouldn't these statements be checked against science?

That would be nice and I would certainly agree with your thought as long as, and this is the critical part, the science being used is objective and verifiable. Adaption meets that criteria, evolution as we know it doesn't.

I think this is really good. You agree that objective science should be able to correct bad exegesis.

That leaves the question of how objective sciences like evolution, geology, radiometric dating and astronomy are. Do do you think your analysis or how objective and verifiable these science are, is itself objective? These criticisms of evolution and the age of the earth only seem to come from one particular group with a very particular axe to grind.

Who said anything about subjective? But if you do have access to the objective meaning of scripture, please let me know, only you should realise that as an ex Catholic I am rather suspicious of any claims to infallibility.

When you introduce outside ideas into an infallible text that clearly states something contrary to the plain meaning, I'd say it is going to be subjective. Given your suspicions of infallibility I don't think we're going to get very far here.

You are assuming the plain meaning is the right interpretation. Yet clearly there are plenty of times when the plain meaning isn't the right interpretation. The plain meaning of Gen 3 is that a talking snake tempted Eve and that the Messiah was going to step on the snake's head. Jesus didn't. It is simply wrong to equate 'plain meaning' with infallible text. the plain meaning of Eccles 1:5 is that the sun goes round the earth. That is not true either, even though Melanchthon used the verse as a proof text for geocentrism. I think it is quite right to use scientific evidence outside of scripture to correct the mistaken plain meaning interpretation. The plain meaning of the last supper account is that bread and wine are turned into flesh and blood. Would you have any problem using chemical analysis to correct a plain meaning interpretation of these passages?

So that's where Luther, Melanchton and Calvin went wrong.

All of us go wrong.

But the Lutherans and Calvinists allowed scientific evidence to correct their mistakes.

I probably would have made the same mistake. I don't have a problem admitting that. I know for a fact I've made many other mistakes in the past interpreting God's Word, most of those primarily out of ignorance. Even now I know there are areas of Scripture that I don't know as well as I should and what I do know could be wrong. The thing is I don't publicly claim to know either. I don't advertise my ignorance. Here's the thing, whenever I have made a mistake, it was always shown or proven through the Bible that a mistake was made. I haven't had a single biblical view proven wrong without the Bible being the primary source of correction. I hope to keep it that way.

Then you would have been be stuck in geocentrism.

The bible doesn't teach heliocentrism so I don't see how you can be shown through the bible that your geocentric interpretation is wrong. The best anyone could do is show an alternative way of understanding the scriptures you believed a plain reading taught geocentrism. But we have done that for you with evolution.

There are things the bible teaches, and area it is silent on. Now if you misunderstand an are the bible teaches us about, and it is a topic that come up throughout the bible, then it should be possible to correct a mistaken interpretation through other passages on the subject.

The big problem is if the bible is silent about a subject, but the misinterpretation of some passages claims that it does teach us. How is anyone to to use the bible to correct that? It is a topic the bible is silent on.

The bible doesn't teach us either the age, or rotation of the earth and you dismiss all scriptural evidence that the 'days' of creation are used in metaphor and that Moses himself saw they could refer to much longer periods.

 

[Assyrian]

Actually it really does sound like TEs are pointing at creationists as if they were picking and choosing.
As for the influence of Satan, why not? Ever hear of the spirit of rationalism and the spirit of intellectualism? Or do TEs not believe in spiritual warfare and the existance of angel and demons in these days or earlier?

Did you ever hear of a religious spirit? It cuts both ways. Which was the bigger danger to the early church, the rationalism of the Sadducees or the misplaced religious zeal of the Pharisees?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Your post shows that you know little about spiritual warfare. Do some study on the subject before you make such conclusions.

By all means, explain under what circumstances you would conclude that someone is under the influence of the "spirit of intellectualism."

 

[novacaine]

Did you ever hear of a religious spirit? It cuts both ways. Which was the bigger danger to the early church, the rationalism of the Sadducees or the misplaced religious zeal of the Pharisees?

If you are suggesting that I am a pharisees I would rethink that. Why did Jesus get on the religious leaders case?

 

[Assyrian]

OK I didn't get half of that.

But no I wasn't suggesting you were a Pharisee. My point was that the only spiritual deception you seem to be able to imagine is intellectualism.

Religious deceptions have always been much more dangerous. The first great dangers for the early church came through the religiosity of the Pharisees, the Judaizers who insisted the Gentiles be circumcised Acts 15:15. Another religious deception was gnosticism. Asceticism came into the church through an intense religious zeal, but brought in the forbidding marriage that Paul said came from deceitful spirits and teachings of demons 1Tim 4:1-3.

 

[Rion]

In regards to science and faith, I'll go with Augustine on this one:

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although 'they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.'" (Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, vol. 1, ch.19.)

 

[novacaine]

OK I didn't get half of that.

But no I wasn't suggesting you were a Pharisee. My point was that the only spiritual deception you seem to be able to imagine is intellectualism.

Religious deceptions have always been much more dangerous. The first great dangers for the early church came through the religiosity of the Pharisees, the Judaizers who insisted the Gentiles be circumcised Acts 15:15. Another religious deception was gnosticism. Asceticism came into the church through an intense religious zeal, but brought in the forbidding marriage that Paul said came from deceitful spirits and teachings of demons 1Tim 4:1-3.

For the most part I agree with the last paragraph except the statement about religious deceptions being more dangerous. Deception, whether it be religous or not, are always dangerous, because of satan trying to steer people away from God.

 

[TySJI]

Do you believe that the following physically happened?

1. Gen 1 – Creation of the universe and all life in six days (24 hour periods).
2. Gen 6 – The flood
3. Gen 19 – Sodom & Gomorrah destroyed
4. Ex 3 – God speaking for a burning but not consumed bush
5. Ex 14 – Parting of the Red Sea
6. Ex 17 – water from a rock
7. Ex 20 – God speaks the ten commandments to Moses and Israel
8. Num 16 – The earth opened up and Korah, Dathan and Abiram fall into the earth.
9. Num 22 – Balaam’s donkey speaks
10. Josh 3 – The Jordan river, at flood stage, stops to flow.
11. Josh 5&6 – The walls of Jericho fall
12. 1 Sam 3 – God speaks to Samuel.
13. 1 Ki 18 – Alter starts on fire by God
14. 2 Ki 2 – Elijah taken up to heaven without dying
15. 2 Ki 6 – Axe head floats
16. Matt 1 – The virgin birth of Jesus
17. Matt 14 – Jesus Feeds the 5000 with five loaves and two fish
18. Matt 14 – Jesus and Peter walk on the water.
19. Luke 4 – Jesus casts out demons and heals many
20. Acts 3 – Peter heals a crippled beggar.

Yes to all

 

[Assyrian]

For the most part I agree with the last paragraph except the statement about religious deceptions being more dangerous. Deception, whether it be religous or not, are always dangerous, because of satan trying to steer people away from God.

Religious deception tap in much closer to the heart of our relationship with God and can use our very zeal for him to spread themselves. But I agree, given a choice between eaten by a tiger or a great white, the proper answer is 'Neither, thank you'.

So lets they are as dangerous as each other. It still raises question of why YECs can be so quick fall back on the accusation that TEs are influenced by 'the spirit of rationalism' or 'the spirit of intellectualism' or even Satan. Yet it never crosses their mind that if evolution actually happened and God did use it in creating life on earth, then one of the most successful ploys possible would be to bind the church in an anti-intellectual anti-scientific blind alley that brings the gospel into total disrepute.

To try to give an example you can compare it to from you perspective, it would be as effective a strategy as getting the church to sign up with the flat earth society and use flat earth evidence to promote the gospel.

 

[novacaine]

Religious deception tap in much closer to the heart of our relationship with God and can use our very zeal for him to spread themselves. But I agree, given a choice between eaten by a tiger or a great white, the proper answer is 'Neither, thank you'.

Great responce I love it.

 

[Numenor]

For the most part I agree with the last paragraph except the statement about religious deceptions being more dangerous. Deception, whether it be religous or not, are always dangerous, because of satan trying to steer people away from God.

How can being deceived about the price of a loaf of bread be as dangerous as something like the way of salvation?

 

[pastorkevin73]

How can being deceived about the price of a loaf of bread be as dangerous as something like the way of salvation?

Deception is deception no matter how one views the severity of the deception.

 

[novacaine]

Deception is deception no matter how one views the severity of the deception.