The Historicity of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation

[rmwilliamsll]

"this is my body" was never meant to be divisive. In God there is perfect unity. This is what He wanted for the church. Problems arose when people in the church were more concerned about their opinion rather than what God wants. This problem occurs because of sin and/or lack of listening to the HS.

that doesn't answer the question about who is right on their interpretation of "this is my body" or who i should believe is correct when they say they are.

the division may not be in God, it may not be in the invisible church as well, but it certainly is in the visible church that i can see. if it is caused by sin, then who sinned? and who should i believe?

your post does not get me any closer to a solution to this interpretational difference.

 

[pastorkevin73]

that doesn't answer the question about who is right on their interpretation of "this is my body" or who i should believe is correct when they say they are.

the division may not be in God, it may not be in the invisible church as well, but it certainly is in the visible church that i can see. if it is caused by sin, then who sinned? and who should i believe?

your post does not get me any closer to a solution to this interpretational difference.

You are correct that there is division in the church, what my point was is God never intended it to be that way. He wants His church unitied. It does appear that this is changing and church and denominations are beginning to work together again. I am hopefull for a day when denominational title won't mean anything.

 

[wmc1982]

Well I believe in the inerrancy of God's Word. Every historical fact in the Bible has proven to be true, even after many years of attacks.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

You are correct that there is division in the church, what my point was is God never intended it to be that way. He wants His church unitied. It does appear that this is changing and church and denominations are beginning to work together again. I am hopefull for a day when denominational title won't mean anything.

if God desired it, then it would be so.
(number one, make it so)
obviously the church is divided, therefore God decreed it so.

the question is why did God command something that is impossible? the unity of the church.
perhaps to show us important ideas?
visible vs invisible church?
the noetic effects of sin?
the inability of people, even Christians to get alone?
etc.

 

[pastorkevin73]

if God desired it, then it would be so.
(number one, make it so)
obviously the church is divided, therefore God decreed it so.

the question is why did God command something that is impossible? the unity of the church.
perhaps to show us important ideas?
visible vs invisible church?
the noetic effects of sin?
the inability of people, even Christians to get alone?
etc.

Show me where in scripture that God wanted the church to be divided.

 

[Mallon]

Show me where in scripture that God wanted the church to be divided.

I kinda see rmwilliamsll's point...
If the church is currently divided, and we pray "Thy will be done," does this not imply that God's will is that the church currently be divided?

 

[DailyBlessings]

I kinda see rmwilliamsll's point...
If the church is currently divided, and we pray "Thy will be done," does this not imply that God's will is that the church currently be divided?

No, it implies that human wills are striving against God's. Hardly a new or surprising condition.

 

[Mallon]

No, it implies that human wills are striving against God's. Hardly a new or surprising condition.

I'll buy that.
The question does border on the issue of whether or not God is in control or not. I don't doubt that He is, but it's an interesting question to think about.

 

[DailyBlessings]

I'll buy that.
The question does border on the issue of whether or not God is in control or not. I don't doubt that He is, but it's an interesting question to think about.

And an important one. I think that in most cases, the answer is no. At all times, but especially now, as traditional faith heads into some very stormy waters, it is good for people to meditate on whose will they are truly relying on.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Originally Posted by Mallon
I kinda see rmwilliamsll's point...
If the church is currently divided, and we pray "Thy will be done," does this not imply that God's will is that the church currently be divided?

Show me where in scripture that God wanted the church to be divided.

it is the same distinction as the decretive and preceptive wills of God.

 

[pastorkevin73]

it is the same distinction as the decretive and preceptive wills of God.

That is still not showing it scripturally. Give some scripture references.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Originally Posted by rmwilliamsll
it is the same distinction as the decretive and preceptive wills of God.

That is still not showing it scripturally. Give some scripture references.

proof texting not only doesn't do any good, nor does it persuade anyone but most importantly it doesn't take Scripture at it's proper value as the shaper of thought, not as evidential. Anyone who is interested in the ideas can google decretive and preceptive wills of God.

I've never seen a decent hermeneutical discussion here, things just fall apart too quickly, the diversity is too great to sustain a useful or long term discussion, apparently.

all i really hope to do is share a few references and learn myself. but i am certainly not going to argue with a proof texting type of presentation. it is the system of interpretation in people's minds that needs clarification, bringing to the conscious level, and systematizing, and single verses never do that level.

 

[Xaero]

Divisions must happen ... :

Lukas 12:51 "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division"

1 Cr 11:18,19 "For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you."


... but we should not seek them:

1 Cr 1:10 "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and [that] there be no divisions among you; but [that] ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment."

1 Cr 12:25 "That there should be no schism in the body; but [that] the members should have the same care one for another."

 

[mark kennedy]

proof texting not only doesn't do any good, nor does it persuade anyone but most importantly it doesn't take Scripture at it's proper value as the shaper of thought, not as evidential. Anyone who is interested in the ideas can google decretive and preceptive wills of God.

I have no idea how you make the distinction between 'evidential' and 'sharper of thought' but it smacks of liberal theology. What is more the Scriptures as proof text goes back to the Bible as the canonical bases for doctrine. The Scriptures from Genesis to Revelations present redemptive history but you would have the Bible treated as secondary evidence, even in understanding the Scriptures themselves.

I've never seen a decent hermeneutical discussion here, things just fall apart too quickly, the diversity is too great to sustain a useful or long term discussion, apparently.

"This great evil, where did it come from? How did it steal into the world? What seed, what root did it grow from? Who's doing this? Who's killing us? Robbing us of life and light? Mocking us with the sight of what we might have known? Does our ruin benefit the earth? Does it help the grass to grow, the sun to shine? Is this darkness in you to? Have you passed through this night." (Thin Red Line, 20th Century Fox 1998)

Answers to these questions and simular questions in Job and the Gospels. Simular in theme and identical in content, yet the foundational doctrines of Genesis are not given a closer look. Evil, like the common faith which all believers share are in those pages. Instead of digging deeper they are delegated to myth and folklore, considered no different then the pagan myths they are contrary to.

TE is devoid of theological inferances, I cannot believe you would pretend the problem is due to the shallowness of the subject matter.

all i really hope to do is share a few references and learn myself. but i am certainly not going to argue with a proof texting type of presentation. it is the system of interpretation in people's minds that needs clarification, bringing to the conscious level, and systematizing, and single verses never do that level.

The Scriputures are either the basis for doctrine or it becomes largely a matter of personal preferance. A systematic interprutation requires the principles that run throughout are identified. The special creation described in the first two chapters is diametrically opposed to the pagan mythos described in the OP and the pagan mythos of Darwinism. Evolution is an attempt to reduce everything in nature to naturalistic cause and effect relationships. Like the pagan mythos of the ancient Mesopotianian poets it is opposed to the belief in God acting in time and space to created the world complete in all it's vast array.

If you don't like the answers you are getting then perhaps you should ask better questions.

 

[shernren]

Evolution is an attempt to reduce everything in nature to naturalistic cause and effect relationships. Like the pagan mythos of the ancient Mesopotianian poets it is opposed to the belief in God acting in time and space to created the world complete in all it's vast array.

That's a pretty interesting dualism you've set up there:

naturalistic cause and effect relationships
opposed to
God acting in time and space

... so we're only allowed to acknowledge God acting when we cannot see naturalistic cause and effect relationships?

 

[pastorkevin73]

proof texting not only doesn't do any good, nor does it persuade anyone but most importantly it doesn't take Scripture at it's proper value as the shaper of thought, not as evidential. Anyone who is interested in the ideas can google decretive and preceptive wills of God.

I've never seen a decent hermeneutical discussion here, things just fall apart too quickly, the diversity is too great to sustain a useful or long term discussion, apparently.

all i really hope to do is share a few references and learn myself. but i am certainly not going to argue with a proof texting type of presentation. it is the system of interpretation in people's minds that needs clarification, bringing to the conscious level, and systematizing, and single verses never do that level.

Still waiting for scriptural evidence. Why dance around it? Just give the scriptural evidence.

 

[Mallon]

Speaking of scriptural evidence, for those who voted "Remptive history, it is either thrue [sic] or the Gospel is false", I, too, would be curious in knowing what Scripture they cite in support of such a stance.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I've never seen a decent hermeneutical discussion here, things just fall apart too quickly, the diversity is too great to sustain a useful or long term discussion, apparently.


TE is devoid of theological inferances, I cannot believe you would pretend the problem is due to the shallowness of the subject matter.


i don't believe that the failure of serious discussions here is the failure of the subject matter, i believe it is due to the extreme differences of fundamental theology (maybe partial to the ignorance and shallowness of the participants but i won't mention that *grin*)

Evolution is an attempt to reduce everything in nature to naturalistic cause and effect relationships.


the science of evolutionary biology is a truncated domain. it doesn't do God things. so what? my plumbers doesn't fix my car, nor do i expect my doctor to give me good theology. Science is not sufficient explanation, it nevers says, man is nothing but an animal, scientism and a metaphysical naturalism does. You MUST make the distinction between methodological and philosophic naturalism, they are very different animals. The same way that i don't have to think about God when doing biology, means i do have to think about Him when doing metaphysics that uses the biology to build it's arguments.

to conflate and confusion the metaphysics of naturalism with common descent and DNA is simply to so badly confuse the levels in the discussion that you will fight good science in the age of the earth discussion with bad theology, YECism. While at the same time ignore the crucial battle a level up, in the realm of metaphysics and world view formation, in particular how people confuse MN with PN and claim the two are identical, thus importing the authority of science for their evolutionary metaphysics.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

i answered with a new thread, so as not to derail this one.

i can't show you a married bachelor either, nor answer the question of: is the King of France bald?

but i suspect you know that.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

If you don't like the answers you are getting then perhaps you should ask better questions.


i don't have any particular emotional involvement with the answers here, one way or another, i never like nor dislike them. i see it as an intellectual exercise not an occasion for a emotional evaluation.

i really wish i could ask better questions, of myself, or of my world. it would be a lot easier and more straightforward, i'd imagine.