Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Paul doesn't state what Hymenaeus and Philetus were teaching. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you know what exactly H & P were teaching.3If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, 4he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions 5and constant friction between men of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain.
17Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, 18who have wandered away from the truth.
in both case the passages are specific admonitions to stay clear of teaching that Paul disapproves, and to keep within his teachings.
The first passage referenced is specifically talking about not being a part of a culture that abuses religion by taking advantage of others through the power of preaching and using that as a means of gaining wealth. Basically Paul is saying, don't be a tv evagelist.
The second passage referenced is specifically talking about teachings Paul considers false.
Through what leap of logic are we then to find it sound to apply these passages as an admonition against scientific knowledge in general?
If you really believe scripture is holy, please don't abuse it in this manner.
No it can't. It can provide evidence that fire burns paper, but you can't guarentee 100% that the paper will burn next time you put fire to it. Proof is defined only in mathematics because given a certain set of assumptions you CAN show that a conclusion is 100% true. In any other scientific context, what you end up with is a leading theory supported by evidence. You can look into it via google -- I'm not splitting hairs, this is a major misunderstanding that the general public generally has about science and the word "proof."
You say that only theories that seem to contradict the Bible are stupid, but you still haven't defined how the Bible should be interpreted. Martin Luther found it the height of stupidity to suggest that the Earth revolves around the sun because to him, the idea seemed to contradict the Bible. In reality, what you're calling stupid is a theory that seems to contradict YOUR understanding the of the Bible and as a human (like us all) you are prone to errors. Just because someone (anyone -- myself included) thinks a theory contradicts their understanding of the Bible does not immediately make the theory wrong because their UNDERSTANDING of the Bible might also be wrong.
Ah yes, just suggest that somebody who disagrees with you just doesn't have the Holy Spirit in them...
I read my Bible and pray daily for the holy spirit to guide me in my studies and in my daily life. I don't pretend that the Holy Spirit will guide me correctly in ALL matters of Biblical interpretation -- only in those that he (she/it?) feels I need guidance.
I would find it the height of arrogance for one to claim that the holy spirit guides them to perfect theological understanding of all matters pertaining to the Bible. In my opinion it is BECAUSE God doesn't really care what we think about origins or baptism or communion that there are such diverse understandings in Christianity. God values highly our continued loving relationship with him and while I'm sure the Holy Spirit guides many in many ways it's clear to me that unity in the church on such small doctrinal matters is a very low priority compared to our relationship with Christ and witness to the unbelievers!
Note that no theistic evolutionist would EVER claim that science has disproven the Bible. We do tend to claim that science can disprove a particular interpretation of scriptures though.
3If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, 4he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions 5and constant friction between men of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain.
17Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, 18who have wandered away from the truth.
in both case the passages are specific admonitions to stay clear of teaching that Paul disapproves, and to keep within his teachings.
The first passage referenced is specifically talking about not being a part of a culture that abuses religion by taking advantage of others through the power of preaching and using that as a means of gaining wealth. Basically Paul is saying, don't be a tv evagelist.
The second passage referenced is specifically talking about teachings Paul considers false.
Through what leap of logic are we then to find it sound to apply these passages as an admonition against scientific knowledge in general?
If you really believe scripture is holy, please don't abuse it in this manner.
And last I checked... neither one of us are the Holy Spirit.
Correct
Let's try an experiment... you and I both have an interpretation of the Bible... our interpretations disagree. Which one of us has the Holy Spirit dwelling in us, and which of us have turned from the faith?
The one that doubts the Bible(Gods Holy word)
I do not think would be showing the Holy spirits fruit.
So believing in any way the Bible is falible is doubting Gods power to keep it exactly what he wants it to be.
because he committed the unforgivable sin of disproving you?
those scriptures were not admonition against science in "GENERAL".
It is admonition agaiunst any and` all science that would contradict Gods Holy word the bible "specifically"
Paul doesn't state what Hymenaeus and Philetus were teaching. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you know what exactly H & P were teaching.
Okay, thanks for clarifing.Incorrect. I do not claim to know that Hymenaeus and Philetus taught. I only claim that whatever it was, Paul was against it. I base this claim on the passages I provided.
Correct. I did not claim this. I however hold that you are claiming this, despite your protestation otherwise.
Incorrect. I provided the context that helps one discern what the passages are talking about. However, you are taking the passages out of context and using them to justify your extra-scriptural position.
These passages aren't even talking about scripture at all, and not only do you attempt to claim that they do, but you also attempt to claim that these passages provide a foundation upon which to build an argument against the findings of science, specifically evolution.
Nonsense.
Perhaps because when he cited a theologian who disagreed with you your first reaction was to question whether Luther had the Holy Spirit?
It contradicts nothing but an interpretation of the Bible that is false. No amount of whining about how it doesn't jive with your own take on the Bible will make the massive amount of evidence for common descent go away.But the rediculous theory that Humans evolved from another species contradicts the Bible and is stupid false knowlege. It contradicts the Bible.( this is an example)
curious statement.Well I know quite a bit about Luther.
There are many things avout him that lacked the fruit one would expect to see from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Of course it is not for me to say for sure whether or not the Holy Spirit were in him though.
It contradicts nothing but an interpretation of the Bible that is false. No amount of whining about how it doesn't jive with your own take on the Bible will make the massive amount of evidence for common descent go away.
curious statement.
if you decide to talk specifics about these things that you know about Luther that evidence his lack of faith. i'd be interested in following the conversation. so post this as a new thread somewhere on CF appropriate and either PM me the thread url or something similiar. it is a rather odd remark that would be worth pursuing. i've read a number of biographies on Luther and excepting the old RC ones i don't think i've seen this strong of a claim.....
Hmmm ... I get accused of lacking in the spiritual department for being an evolutionist all the time. I used to get very peeved about it. But if it puts me in the company of men like Luther, maybe that's reason to get a little less peeved.
Carey said:This would rule out The whole stupoid theory of Cave men being anything other than an intelligent ape.
Mammoths were probably smarter than todays elephants as well.
All amals would have to be with giant carniverous lizards running around.
But after God wiped them of the earth and started fresh with adam and the garden of eden he planted who I call a test tube man Adam and his clone Eve made from Adams prototype dna.
I think someone could have used a little more force-feeding in school.Don't be pieved. Love your bretheren.
You are young and have not had enough time to research all the bull you are force fed in school.
Yes there is irrefutable evidence that species mutate or "evolve" if you want to use that word.
But there is nota stitch of eveidence that they mutate into an entirely different species.
And guess what there will never be because it is in contradiction to the Bible.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?