Bill Nye To Debate Creationist At Creation Museum February 4th (1 Viewer)

[Jayrok]

I've seen four that have stated that their faith has grown stronger the more they have questioned (Proninja, mr roboto, The Commish, Politician Spock). I am curious, what have you questioned and what answers have you received that have strengthened your faith?

 

[Jayrok]

Most of it comes from when he's "lecturing me" using church doctrine as his basis rather than the Bible. I have little tolerance for folks who come at me with "because the church says so" as the reasoning for why I should be motivated to do anything.

If you don't mind elaborating, how/where do these things differ? Is their church doctrine not based on the Bible?

 

[jon_mx]

Most of it comes from when he's "lecturing me" using church doctrine as his basis rather than the Bible. I have little tolerance for folks who come at me with "because the church says so" as the reasoning for why I should be motivated to do anything.

If you don't mind elaborating, how/where do these things differ? Is their church doctrine not based on the Bible?

Bad church doctrine usually is bad because it is inconsistent. The like to use the old testament to beat up sinners they don't like but then use the new testament to forgive their own sins.

 

[The Commish]

Most of it comes from when he's "lecturing me" using church doctrine as his basis rather than the Bible. I have little tolerance for folks who come at me with "because the church says so" as the reasoning for why I should be motivated to do anything.

If you don't mind elaborating, how/where do these things differ? Is their church doctrine not based on the Bible?

A big one we had was around baptism. Their church is vehemently apposed to an adult being baptised again if they were baptised as a child. Then there's the whole issue of churches emphasising certain sins over other sins in the context of relationship with God. Those are my two biggest issues I frequently run into. There's a whole lot of little nitpicky things that I could list as they came out, but they aren't big enough to remember specifics about, so I must not consider them a big deal.

 

[Jayrok]

Most of it comes from when he's "lecturing me" using church doctrine as his basis rather than the Bible. I have little tolerance for folks who come at me with "because the church says so" as the reasoning for why I should be motivated to do anything.

If you don't mind elaborating, how/where do these things differ? Is their church doctrine not based on the Bible?

A big one we had was around baptism. Their church is vehemently apposed to an adult being baptised again if they were baptised as a child. Then there's the whole issue of churches emphasising certain sins over other sins in the context of relationship with God. Those are my two biggest issues I frequently run into. There's a whole lot of little nitpicky things that I could list as they came out, but they aren't big enough to remember specifics about, so I must not consider them a big deal.

This seems odd.

 

[The Commish]

I've seen four that have stated that their faith has grown stronger the more they have questioned (Proninja, mr roboto, The Commish, Politician Spock). I am curious, what have you questioned and what answers have you received that have strengthened your faith?

This is an emotional answer for me more than anything. There's a significant amount of "pressure" or "judgment" in certain churches if you don't do things a certain way or know all the religious answers to questions. I've been in a process of resisting the canned answers and coming up with my own answers. I don't believe that God wants us to fall back on "because the Bible says so" or "because God says so". I think there are answers for everything, even if I don't know them right now. I've become increasingly more comfortable acknowledging that I don't have all the answers. The WWJD shtick that was popular 20 years ago is something I hold fast to and I am convicted to challenge people when I don't see them behaving that way while calling themselves "Christian". That's not something I would have ever done in the past. I was always worried what the church would think if I directly challenged them. Now I don't care because I believe my relationship with God is stronger than ever and that he's leading me to help break the mold/stereotype.

 

[The Commish]

Most of it comes from when he's "lecturing me" using church doctrine as his basis rather than the Bible. I have little tolerance for folks who come at me with "because the church says so" as the reasoning for why I should be motivated to do anything.

If you don't mind elaborating, how/where do these things differ? Is their church doctrine not based on the Bible?

A big one we had was around baptism. Their church is vehemently apposed to an adult being baptised again if they were baptised as a child. Then there's the whole issue of churches emphasising certain sins over other sins in the context of relationship with God. Those are my two biggest issues I frequently run into. There's a whole lot of little nitpicky things that I could list as they came out, but they aren't big enough to remember specifics about, so I must not consider them a big deal.

This seems odd.

Not in the ARP church They feel it's a slap in the face of the parents who took the oath during the infant baptism. I maintain that it's the complete opposite and a testament to the job the parents did in helping nurture their child.

 

[Jayrok]

Most of it comes from when he's "lecturing me" using church doctrine as his basis rather than the Bible. I have little tolerance for folks who come at me with "because the church says so" as the reasoning for why I should be motivated to do anything.

If you don't mind elaborating, how/where do these things differ? Is their church doctrine not based on the Bible?

A big one we had was around baptism. Their church is vehemently apposed to an adult being baptised again if they were baptised as a child. Then there's the whole issue of churches emphasising certain sins over other sins in the context of relationship with God. Those are my two biggest issues I frequently run into. There's a whole lot of little nitpicky things that I could list as they came out, but they aren't big enough to remember specifics about, so I must not consider them a big deal.

This seems odd.

Not in the ARP church They feel it's a slap in the face of the parents who took the oath during the infant baptism. I maintain that it's the complete opposite and a testament to the job the parents did in helping nurture their child.

Well they don't seem to know or understand the true meaning of being baptized. It isn't some preemptive cleansing to wash away a child's sin before they can even crawl.

 

[mr roboto]

I've seen four that have stated that their faith has grown stronger the more they have questioned (Proninja, mr roboto, The Commish, Politician Spock). I am curious, what have you questioned and what answers have you received that have strengthened your faith?

I remember sitting in an MDiv OT course studying Jonah thinking in my head 'This is bull ####. I'm actually studying this as a historical event.' That internal dialogue was tough to work through and for a full year I wrestled with my faith intellectually without sharing it with my wife, professors, pastors etc. Very tough time for someone who was training for the ministry. My faith went from a matter of intellectual assent to personal trust, which is actually what 'faith' means in a biblical context. I believe Jesus is the Son of God. I believe he saved me. When I look back on my life, God has done what the Bible said he would do. Christian spirituality and wisdom works. My faith is absolutely grounded on my personal experience with Jesus and the Spirit. From there, I can construct a 'faith' in Scripture of sorts, but once I let go of needing everything wrapped up nice and tidy, Scripture became a living book that interacts with my spirit more than simply my mind. The Enlightenment view of innerancy which treats scripture as a theological operations manual is actually a form on isogesis. So I've rejected a form of innerancy that IMO is more cultural/historical and less Biblical.

In short, the message of Scripture works. God is faithful, Jesus saves, sanctification works the way it is supposed to. That's where my faith is grounded.

 

[Jayrok]

I've seen four that have stated that their faith has grown stronger the more they have questioned (Proninja, mr roboto, The Commish, Politician Spock). I am curious, what have you questioned and what answers have you received that have strengthened your faith?

I remember sitting in an MDiv OT course studying Jonah thinking in my head 'This is bull ####. I'm actually studying this as a historical event.' That internal dialogue was tough to work through and for a full year I wrestled with my faith intellectually without sharing it with my wife, professors, pastors etc. Very tough time for someone who was training for the ministry.My faith went from a matter of intellectual assent to personal trust, which is actually what 'faith' means in a biblical context. I believe Jesus is the Son of God. I believe he saved me. When I look back on my life, God has done what the Bible said he would do. Christian spirituality and wisdom works. My faith is absolutely grounded on my personal experience with Jesus and the Spirit. From there, I can construct a 'faith' in Scripture of sorts, but once I let go of needing everything wrapped up nice and tidy, Scripture became a living book that interacts with my spirit more than simply my mind. The Enlightenment view of innerancy which treats scripture as a theological operations manual is actually a form on isogesis. So I've rejected a form of innerancy that IMO is more cultural/historical and less Biblical.

In short, the message of Scripture works. God is faithful, Jesus saves, sanctification works the way it is supposed to. That's where my faith is grounded.

Thanks for your comments. I can imagine sitting in seminary wrestling with doubts like that. I have a pastor friend who went through the same thing. He pastors a baptist church, so he has to be careful what he says around certain folks. He told me something similar to you... he doesn't necessarily believe some things such as a literal place like a burning hell, some events in the Bible as historical accounts, and so forth.. but to him, it just comes down to Jesus and the message of salvation. However, being a baptist minister, he teaches a literal hell. I joke with him about being a hypocrit.

Do you mean eisegesis? I could see where some people could read some things into parts of Scripture taking it clearly out of context while strengthening their take, so to speak. It could be argued that some of the NT writers did this very thing while carving out their own theology in the gospels and epistles.

 

[The Commish]

Most of it comes from when he's "lecturing me" using church doctrine as his basis rather than the Bible. I have little tolerance for folks who come at me with "because the church says so" as the reasoning for why I should be motivated to do anything.

If you don't mind elaborating, how/where do these things differ? Is their church doctrine not based on the Bible?

A big one we had was around baptism. Their church is vehemently apposed to an adult being baptised again if they were baptised as a child. Then there's the whole issue of churches emphasising certain sins over other sins in the context of relationship with God. Those are my two biggest issues I frequently run into. There's a whole lot of little nitpicky things that I could list as they came out, but they aren't big enough to remember specifics about, so I must not consider them a big deal.

This seems odd.

Not in the ARP church They feel it's a slap in the face of the parents who took the oath during the infant baptism. I maintain that it's the complete opposite and a testament to the job the parents did in helping nurture their child.

Well they don't seem to know or understand the true meaning of being baptized. It isn't some preemptive cleansing to wash away a child's sin before they can even crawl.

Preaching to the choir brutha!!!

 

[Jayrok]

I've seen four that have stated that their faith has grown stronger the more they have questioned (Proninja, mr roboto, The Commish, Politician Spock). I am curious, what have you questioned and what answers have you received that have strengthened your faith?

This is an emotional answer for me more than anything. There's a significant amount of "pressure" or "judgment" in certain churches if you don't do things a certain way or know all the religious answers to questions. I've been in a process of resisting the canned answers and coming up with my own answers. I don't believe that God wants us to fall back on "because the Bible says so" or "because God says so". I think there are answers for everything, even if I don't know them right now. I've become increasingly more comfortable acknowledging that I don't have all the answers. The WWJD shtick that was popular 20 years ago is something I hold fast to and I am convicted to challenge people when I don't see them behaving that way while calling themselves "Christian". That's not something I would have ever done in the past. I was always worried what the church would think if I directly challenged them. Now I don't care because I believe my relationship with God is stronger than ever and that he's leading me to help break the mold/stereotype.

Thanks. I can appreciate your concerns when you see people acting in ways that seem to go against what is taught by the examples of Jesus. I think this describes a great number of people as well. You aren't questioning the contents of the Bible, you are questioning the acts of various Christians based on what you understand to be the message of Jesus (i.e. how we are to love and treat one another).

 

[The Commish]

I've seen four that have stated that their faith has grown stronger the more they have questioned (Proninja, mr roboto, The Commish, Politician Spock). I am curious, what have you questioned and what answers have you received that have strengthened your faith?

This is an emotional answer for me more than anything. There's a significant amount of "pressure" or "judgment" in certain churches if you don't do things a certain way or know all the religious answers to questions. I've been in a process of resisting the canned answers and coming up with my own answers. I don't believe that God wants us to fall back on "because the Bible says so" or "because God says so". I think there are answers for everything, even if I don't know them right now. I've become increasingly more comfortable acknowledging that I don't have all the answers. The WWJD shtick that was popular 20 years ago is something I hold fast to and I am convicted to challenge people when I don't see them behaving that way while calling themselves "Christian". That's not something I would have ever done in the past. I was always worried what the church would think if I directly challenged them. Now I don't care because I believe my relationship with God is stronger than ever and that he's leading me to help break the mold/stereotype.

Thanks. I can appreciate your concerns when you see people acting in ways that seem to go against what is taught by the examples of Jesus. I think this describes a great number of people as well. You aren't questioning the contents of the Bible, you are questioning the acts of various Christians based on what you understand to be the message of Jesus (i.e. how we are to love and treat one another).

Don't get me wrong....I have questions about Biblical content as well, but i don't have a "pressure" to figure them out. I know that, in time, the picture will fill in. I too share the opinion stated above that the Bible isn't a go to answer book for everything in life. It's a piece of the puzzle. Some things make sense to me, others don't and I'm comfortable with that. Between the Bible, fellow Christians and the Holy Spirit, I'm good. There's not a lot I fret over. I don't think that's what God wants us spending our time doing.

My major questions came in the form of "Does God exist at all?" and "If he does, is the Christian God the one that does exist?" kinds of questions right after I left home and went to college. I explored a lot of other religions attempting to understand their philosophies. Every path I took, lead me back to the Christian God.

 

[mr roboto]

I've seen four that have stated that their faith has grown stronger the more they have questioned (Proninja, mr roboto, The Commish, Politician Spock). I am curious, what have you questioned and what answers have you received that have strengthened your faith?

I remember sitting in an MDiv OT course studying Jonah thinking in my head 'This is bull ####. I'm actually studying this as a historical event.' That internal dialogue was tough to work through and for a full year I wrestled with my faith intellectually without sharing it with my wife, professors, pastors etc. Very tough time for someone who was training for the ministry.My faith went from a matter of intellectual assent to personal trust, which is actually what 'faith' means in a biblical context. I believe Jesus is the Son of God. I believe he saved me. When I look back on my life, God has done what the Bible said he would do. Christian spirituality and wisdom works. My faith is absolutely grounded on my personal experience with Jesus and the Spirit. From there, I can construct a 'faith' in Scripture of sorts, but once I let go of needing everything wrapped up nice and tidy, Scripture became a living book that interacts with my spirit more than simply my mind. The Enlightenment view of innerancy which treats scripture as a theological operations manual is actually a form on isogesis. So I've rejected a form of innerancy that IMO is more cultural/historical and less Biblical.

In short, the message of Scripture works. God is faithful, Jesus saves, sanctification works the way it is supposed to. That's where my faith is grounded.

Thanks for your comments. I can imagine sitting in seminary wrestling with doubts like that. I have a pastor friend who went through the same thing. He pastors a baptist church, so he has to be careful what he says around certain folks. He told me something similar to you... he doesn't necessarily believe some things such as a literal place like a burning hell, some events in the Bible as historical accounts, and so forth.. but to him, it just comes down to Jesus and the message of salvation. However, being a baptist minister, he teaches a literal hell. I joke with him about being a hypocrit.

Do you mean eisegesis? I could see where some people could read some things into parts of Scripture taking it clearly out of context while strengthening their take, so to speak. It could be argued that some of the NT writers did this very thing while carving out their own theology in the gospels and epistles.

Eisegesis. Yes, you can tell I haven't written that word for a while. My belief is that the Enlightenment view of Scripture as theology textbook and infallible answer book is a form of hermeneutical eisegesis. So back to the OP topic, trying to defend a literal 6,000 yr creation isn't even a task the Bible would ask of us. Defending that God created, yes.

 

[Jayrok]

So back to the OP topic, trying to defend a literal 6,000 yr creation isn't even a task the Bible would ask of us. Defending that God created, yes.

I agree that a literal 6k year creation isn't necessary. We can read Hebrews 11:3, for example, with a young earth or the big bang in mind. Could there be a gap between the first few verses of Genesis? Sure, why not. In either case, God created.

But I think evolution of species is a different issue altogether. I think it is fair to argue that death, pain, greed, pride, selfishness, covetousness, sinful nature in general, are all part of the natural evolutionary process. From the animals that crawled out of the sea all the way up to man, behaviors contributed to survival. To say that man was good and sin/death didn't exist until man disobeyed God specifically doesn't seem to harmonize with the evolutionary process that has been observed.

With that in mind is it important to defend a historic Adam or is it ok for "Adam" to be a figure symbolic of mankind in general?

 

[jdoggydogg]

Earlier in this thread, someone said something like, "Why bother debating people who've already made up their minds?"

Here's why: the newest member of our campus atheist club was raised by fundamentalist Pentecostal parents. He was not raised with science and was not raised to be a skeptic. But by the time he was 30, he left the church. He's one of the smartest men I've ever met, and he knows more about science and evolution than most people. This guy didn't come around to science by remaining in a closed religious loop. He discovered Carl Sagan and Richard Feynman, and his life will never be the same.

His books changed my life too. Guy was amazing.

 

[joffer]

Earlier in this thread, someone said something like, "Why bother debating people who've already made up their minds?"

Here's why: the newest member of our campus atheist club was raised by fundamentalist Pentecostal parents. He was not raised with science and was not raised to be a skeptic. But by the time he was 30, he left the church. He's one of the smartest men I've ever met, and he knows more about science and evolution than most people. This guy didn't come around to science by remaining in a closed religious loop. He discovered Carl Sagan and Richard Feynman, and his life will never be the same.

His books changed my life too. Guy was amazing.

I've never read Feynman, any recommendations?

 

[jdoggydogg]

Earlier in this thread, someone said something like, "Why bother debating people who've already made up their minds?"

Here's why: the newest member of our campus atheist club was raised by fundamentalist Pentecostal parents. He was not raised with science and was not raised to be a skeptic. But by the time he was 30, he left the church. He's one of the smartest men I've ever met, and he knows more about science and evolution than most people. This guy didn't come around to science by remaining in a closed religious loop. He discovered Carl Sagan and Richard Feynman, and his life will never be the same.

His books changed my life too. Guy was amazing.

I've never read Feynman, any recommendations?

I learned about Feynman by watching his video lectures. Fascinating stuff.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Earlier in this thread, someone said something like, "Why bother debating people who've already made up their minds?"

Here's why: the newest member of our campus atheist club was raised by fundamentalist Pentecostal parents. He was not raised with science and was not raised to be a skeptic. But by the time he was 30, he left the church. He's one of the smartest men I've ever met, and he knows more about science and evolution than most people. This guy didn't come around to science by remaining in a closed religious loop. He discovered Carl Sagan and Richard Feynman, and his life will never be the same.

His books changed my life too. Guy was amazing.

I've never read Feynman, any recommendations?

Start with Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! If you love that -- and pretty much everyone who reads it does -- there's more of the same in What Do You Care What Other People Think?

His more serious philosophical stuff can be found in The Pleasure of Finding Things Out and The Meaning Of It All.

His more serious physics stuff is in, e.g., QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter, but save the physics stuff until after you've read the more entertaining works.

 

[Politician Spock]

I've seen four that have stated that their faith has grown stronger the more they have questioned (Proninja, mr roboto, The Commish, Politician Spock). I am curious, what have you questioned and what answers have you received that have strengthened your faith?

In 2013 I applied to Liberty's online seminary and was accepted to pursue a Master of Arts in Theological Studies (MATS). My motivation was not to change careers and get a pastoral job. I wanted to learn more, and felt all the Bible studies and small groups weren't deep enough for me.

What I started to experience in taking my classes was just what I would describe as an ugliness. That's right. It was ugly. A good example of what I mean is what is referred to as the Synoptic Problem. If you know what Q is in regards to the four gospels, then you know what I am talking about. If not, I don't recommend researching it. It's just an ugly rathole of different sides, arguments, theories, retorts, etc, etc... that after nearly two millenium is no where near being resolved. As I had to exerience this and other ugliness within my studies, I constantly began questioning more and more and more, "where is Christ in all this mess?". And the more I prayed and begged God for answers, the more I felt the Holy Spirit leading me to the answer that "He is not in that mess". To me, all of that junk I experienced in seminary is a mess created by man. And the more I try to get a sense of why man created that mess, the more I feel it is a result of a small collection of the letters testifying of Christ were elevated by man to be holy, God breathed, and inerrant, and used to create religion. And as man disagreed over specifics of that religion it broke off into hundreds of different religions over the centuries.

Don't get me wrong... as I said in a previous post, the Bible is fantastic collection of some of the testimonies of Christ and the early Christians. But elevating it to being holy, God breathed and inerrant enables man to create ugliness.

 

[Jayrok]

I've seen four that have stated that their faith has grown stronger the more they have questioned (Proninja, mr roboto, The Commish, Politician Spock). I am curious, what have you questioned and what answers have you received that have strengthened your faith?

In 2013 I applied to Liberty's online seminary and was accepted to pursue a Master of Arts in Theological Studies (MATS). My motivation was not to change careers and get a pastoral job. I wanted to learn more, and felt all the Bible studies and small groups weren't deep enough for me.

What I started to experience in taking my classes was just what I would describe as an ugliness. That's right. It was ugly. A good example of what I mean is what is referred to as the Synoptic Problem. If you know what Q is in regards to the four gospels, then you know what I am talking about. If not, I don't recommend researching it. It's just an ugly rathole of different sides, arguments, theories, retorts, etc, etc... that after nearly two millenium is no where near being resolved. As I had to exerience this and other ugliness within my studies, I constantly began questioning more and more and more, "where is Christ in all this mess?". And the more I prayed and begged God for answers, the more I felt the Holy Spirit leading me to the answer that "He is not in that mess". To me, all of that junk I experienced in seminary is a mess created by man. And the more I try to get a sense of why man created that mess, the more I feel it is a result of a small collection of the letters testifying of Christ were elevated by man to be holy, God breathed, and inerrant, and used to create religion. And as man disagreed over specifics of that religion it broke off into hundreds of different religions over the centuries.

Don't get me wrong... as I said in a previous post, the Bible is fantastic collection of some of the testimonies of Christ and the early Christians. But elevating it to being holy, God breathed and inerrant enables man to create ugliness.

Thanks for sharing your experience with seminary. I am familiar with "Q" and the synoptic problem, as well as other issues with the gospels that men have been arguing over for a very long time. I didn't attend seminary, but I honestly started questioning the validity of the Bible when I actually started to read and study it. I will admit, though, that I started from the position of evangelical Christian. I believed the Bible was God-breathed and divinely inspired as God's perfect truth. As I discovered, I began to fall pretty hard. Had I been a more liberal Christian, I suppose it might not have been as painful a fall.

 

[cstu]

If God's message was so easily corrupted by man and God has made no effort in 2000 years to correct it, what does that say about God?

 

[The Commish]

I've seen four that have stated that their faith has grown stronger the more they have questioned (Proninja, mr roboto, The Commish, Politician Spock). I am curious, what have you questioned and what answers have you received that have strengthened your faith?

In 2013 I applied to Liberty's online seminary and was accepted to pursue a Master of Arts in Theological Studies (MATS). My motivation was not to change careers and get a pastoral job. I wanted to learn more, and felt all the Bible studies and small groups weren't deep enough for me.

What I started to experience in taking my classes was just what I would describe as an ugliness. That's right. It was ugly. A good example of what I mean is what is referred to as the Synoptic Problem. If you know what Q is in regards to the four gospels, then you know what I am talking about. If not, I don't recommend researching it. It's just an ugly rathole of different sides, arguments, theories, retorts, etc, etc... that after nearly two millenium is no where near being resolved. As I had to exerience this and other ugliness within my studies, I constantly began questioning more and more and more, "where is Christ in all this mess?". And the more I prayed and begged God for answers, the more I felt the Holy Spirit leading me to the answer that "He is not in that mess". To me, all of that junk I experienced in seminary is a mess created by man. And the more I try to get a sense of why man created that mess, the more I feel it is a result of a small collection of the letters testifying of Christ were elevated by man to be holy, God breathed, and inerrant, and used to create religion. And as man disagreed over specifics of that religion it broke off into hundreds of different religions over the centuries.

Don't get me wrong... as I said in a previous post, the Bible is fantastic collection of some of the testimonies of Christ and the early Christians. But elevating it to being holy, God breathed and inerrant enables man to create ugliness.

This is one of the other significant "rubs" I have with my brother. I don't understand the exercise of being officially "educated" on religion. The Bible is clear that God desires a PERSONAL relationship with each of us and each relationship is unique. So what's the point in formal education? It seems to me that if you're going this route, you're foregoing a lot of personal legwork and replacing it with what others have done or what they believe. I'm not sure how that works at all. NOTE: I'm not talking about you specifically PS, I'm challenging the concept as a whole. The way it's done today just seems like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

 

[Politician Spock]

I've seen four that have stated that their faith has grown stronger the more they have questioned (Proninja, mr roboto, The Commish, Politician Spock). I am curious, what have you questioned and what answers have you received that have strengthened your faith?

In 2013 I applied to Liberty's online seminary and was accepted to pursue a Master of Arts in Theological Studies (MATS). My motivation was not to change careers and get a pastoral job. I wanted to learn more, and felt all the Bible studies and small groups weren't deep enough for me.

What I started to experience in taking my classes was just what I would describe as an ugliness. That's right. It was ugly. A good example of what I mean is what is referred to as the Synoptic Problem. If you know what Q is in regards to the four gospels, then you know what I am talking about. If not, I don't recommend researching it. It's just an ugly rathole of different sides, arguments, theories, retorts, etc, etc... that after nearly two millenium is no where near being resolved. As I had to exerience this and other ugliness within my studies, I constantly began questioning more and more and more, "where is Christ in all this mess?". And the more I prayed and begged God for answers, the more I felt the Holy Spirit leading me to the answer that "He is not in that mess". To me, all of that junk I experienced in seminary is a mess created by man. And the more I try to get a sense of why man created that mess, the more I feel it is a result of a small collection of the letters testifying of Christ were elevated by man to be holy, God breathed, and inerrant, and used to create religion. And as man disagreed over specifics of that religion it broke off into hundreds of different religions over the centuries.

Don't get me wrong... as I said in a previous post, the Bible is fantastic collection of some of the testimonies of Christ and the early Christians. But elevating it to being holy, God breathed and inerrant enables man to create ugliness.

Thanks for sharing your experience with seminary. I am familiar with "Q" and the synoptic problem, as well as other issues with the gospels that men have been arguing over for a very long time. I didn't attend seminary, but I honestly started questioning the validity of the Bible when I actually started to read and study it. I will admit, though, that I started from the position of evangelical Christian. I believed the Bible was God-breathed and divinely inspired as God's perfect truth. As I discovered, I began to fall pretty hard. Had I been a more liberal Christian, I suppose it might not have been as painful a fall.

10 years ago I was very conservative. While this change in my faith began last year, the change in how I view the world significantly changed in 2007, and for years that was a struggle for me. I didn't become liberal, but I'm definitely no longer conservative. If I hadn't already experienced that rough change, then this 2013 change in my faith probably would have been rough. But because of what I went through years ago, I saw what was changing in me in 2013 as growth and good.

 

[mr roboto]

I believe that a seminary education is a positive for pastors, teachers, and theologians. I learned a tremendous amount and the actual information I learned did not necessarily challenge my faith. I would agree with Spock, when you go to seminary you realize just how many other perspectives there are on theology and scripture. It was eye-opening to me to realize that a lot of theologians in the last 200 years are not Bible believing Jesus centered Christians. The entire textual criticism movement in Germany and elsewhere, combined with liberal theologies that do not hold the Bible as the word of God, make for an interesting mix of perspectives when one is attempting to learn more about scripture for the purpose of leading a church.

Commish, a seminary education will equip somebody to better interpret scripture, understand the historical, literary, and cultural contexts in which scripture was written, and develop a sharper mind for doctrine and determining if something is in fact in line with scripture. Having said that, seminary does little to nothing to personally develop The individual student to become a stronger spiritual Christian. In many ways, seminary education is very similar to any other grad program. It's primarily about information and competency, and not personal character or leadership skills. I do believe we need an academic way to train leaders in the church, but I believe the churches hire seminary educated men and women assuming they are fit for ministry because of the degree.

I believe churches should identify potential pastors and leaders after years of spending time with them, and then send them to a two-year theological training program where the church helps pay for that with the goal of hiring the person once they get out of their training. Unfortunately, we start with training young men and women, and by the time they are 26 or 27 years older considered ready to be pastors or leaders.

 

[Politician Spock]

I've seen four that have stated that their faith has grown stronger the more they have questioned (Proninja, mr roboto, The Commish, Politician Spock). I am curious, what have you questioned and what answers have you received that have strengthened your faith?

In 2013 I applied to Liberty's online seminary and was accepted to pursue a Master of Arts in Theological Studies (MATS). My motivation was not to change careers and get a pastoral job. I wanted to learn more, and felt all the Bible studies and small groups weren't deep enough for me.

What I started to experience in taking my classes was just what I would describe as an ugliness. That's right. It was ugly. A good example of what I mean is what is referred to as the Synoptic Problem. If you know what Q is in regards to the four gospels, then you know what I am talking about. If not, I don't recommend researching it. It's just an ugly rathole of different sides, arguments, theories, retorts, etc, etc... that after nearly two millenium is no where near being resolved. As I had to exerience this and other ugliness within my studies, I constantly began questioning more and more and more, "where is Christ in all this mess?". And the more I prayed and begged God for answers, the more I felt the Holy Spirit leading me to the answer that "He is not in that mess". To me, all of that junk I experienced in seminary is a mess created by man. And the more I try to get a sense of why man created that mess, the more I feel it is a result of a small collection of the letters testifying of Christ were elevated by man to be holy, God breathed, and inerrant, and used to create religion. And as man disagreed over specifics of that religion it broke off into hundreds of different religions over the centuries.

Don't get me wrong... as I said in a previous post, the Bible is fantastic collection of some of the testimonies of Christ and the early Christians. But elevating it to being holy, God breathed and inerrant enables man to create ugliness.

This is one of the other significant "rubs" I have with my brother. I don't understand the exercise of being officially "educated" on religion. The Bible is clear that God desires a PERSONAL relationship with each of us and each relationship is unique. So what's the point in formal education? It seems to me that if you're going this route, you're foregoing a lot of personal legwork and replacing it with what others have done or what they believe. I'm not sure how that works at all. NOTE: I'm not talking about you specifically PS, I'm challenging the concept as a whole. The way it's done today just seems like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

After trying it out, I without a doubt believe seminary is a product of religion. It teaches people to lead the religion.

 

[Politician Spock]

Having said that, seminary does little to nothing to personally develop The individual student to become a stronger spiritual Christian.

My motivation for going was personal development. It was not a career minded decision. It seemed like I was being taught a framework of how to handle and respond to chruch members with tough questions as opposed to actually answering the tough questions themselves.

 

[mr roboto]

Having said that, seminary does little to nothing to personally develop The individual student to become a stronger spiritual Christian.

My motivation for going was personal development. It was not a career minded decision. It seemed like I was being taught a framework of how to handle and respond to chruch members with tough questions as opposed to actually answering the tough questions themselves.

To be fair, how long did you stay in the program? I do believe study is one spiritual discipline that can help a person connect more deeply with God.

 

[Politician Spock]

Having said that, seminary does little to nothing to personally develop The individual student to become a stronger spiritual Christian.

My motivation for going was personal development. It was not a career minded decision. It seemed like I was being taught a framework of how to handle and respond to chruch members with tough questions as opposed to actually answering the tough questions themselves.

To be fair, how long did you stay in the program?

Two semesters. Had a 3.65 GPA. If I needed a job, I probably would have stuck with it given I could parrot the answers the teachers wanted to hear. I can always go back and finish if the IT world no longer has good paying work for me.

 

[The Commish]

I believe that a seminary education is a positive for pastors, teachers, and theologians. I learned a tremendous amount and the actual information I learned did not necessarily challenge my faith. I would agree with Spock, when you go to seminary you realize just how many other perspectives there are on theology and scripture. It was eye-opening to me to realize that a lot of theologians in the last 200 years are not Bible believing Jesus centered Christians. The entire textual criticism movement in Germany and elsewhere, combined with liberal theologies that do not hold the Bible as the word of God, make for an interesting mix of perspectives when one is attempting to learn more about scripture for the purpose of leading a church.

Commish, a seminary education will equip somebody to better interpret scripture, understand the historical, literary, and cultural contexts in which scripture was written, and develop a sharper mind for doctrine and determining if something is in fact in line with scripture. Having said that, seminary does little to nothing to personally develop The individual student to become a stronger spiritual Christian. In many ways, seminary education is very similar to any other grad program. It's primarily about information and competency, and not personal character or leadership skills. I do believe we need an academic way to train leaders in the church, but I believe the churches hire seminary educated men and women assuming they are fit for ministry because of the degree.

I believe churches should identify potential pastors and leaders after years of spending time with them, and then send them to a two-year theological training program where the church helps pay for that with the goal of hiring the person once they get out of their training. Unfortunately, we start with training young men and women, and by the time they are 26 or 27 years older considered ready to be pastors or leaders.

I don't question this at all. The other parts I consider myself a skeptic. Just seems to me that being in relationship with God and allowing him to work through you is the best avenue for developing the mind and readying it for interpretation etc.

 

[proninja]

I'll have more time to respond to a few points later when I'm not at work, but I wanted to quickly say that you have all been really encouraging to read the last couple of days.

 

[proninja]

I've seen four that have stated that their faith has grown stronger the more they have questioned (Proninja, mr roboto, The Commish, Politician Spock). I am curious, what have you questioned and what answers have you received that have strengthened your faith?

It started by really questioning what it meant to be a Christian in a day where much of what many Christians believe has clearly been proven wrong by science. I used to be a vote Republican, parrot Mike Behe guy, and it didn't take too long of exposure to that general discussion to realize that Behe and his ilk are full of crap. Once you realize that, it's either stop being a Christian becaue they're full of crap or investigate if Christianity indeed requires you to be a 6 day literalist who doesn't care if we blow up the earth using gay people as fuel for Jesus because everyone knows that man made global warming is anti-Jesus and the homos need to be killed.

So, I started reading, discussing, and looking at some conversations online between different belief systems inside of Christianity. What I found was that the things that were starting to be a barrier to me identifying as a part of the church weren't really a part of what the church was supposed to be. They were part of mainline evangelicalism and a culture that idolized what we remember of the 50's, when everyone acted moral, women knew their place, and you went to church on Sunday regardless of what you really believed because that's just what you do. It seems like mainline evangelicalism deifies and holds the culture up as the primary mission of the church, and that this whole gospel thing is secondary to making sure that we get everyone to act like they're good and holy. It places a very high view on law and a very low view on grace, and this doesn't at all square with my reading of the gospels. In essence, the American church just seems full of a bunch of Pharisees.

This discovery was *really* exciting for me. I have, at a few points in my life, tried to shake this whole Christianity thing. I can't. I tried pretty hard, too. I just believe it, and I don't think there's any way I could ever not believe it. I can be a Christian, serve Jesus, and not have to affirm what the mainline American church affirms. I also found that there are people out there like me. People who love Jesus, his church, theology, and see the world in a similar way to me. There aren't that many, but man, it's nice to have just one or two friends who seem to understand the way you think. So, rather than drive me farther away from the church, I looked at the modern church through the lens of the historical church, and found it wanting. Now I just enjoy reading and learning more. It's a blast. And I can still serve in my megachurch where I have some pretty serious issues, but I can serve the church with serious issues gladly because Jesus loves his church even through their issues, and so should I. Not that it isn't frustrating sometimes.

I sometimes wonder how far away we are from needing a reformation from American Evangelicalism.

 

[proninja]

Most of it comes from when he's "lecturing me" using church doctrine as his basis rather than the Bible. I have little tolerance for folks who come at me with "because the church says so" as the reasoning for why I should be motivated to do anything.

If you don't mind elaborating, how/where do these things differ? Is their church doctrine not based on the Bible?

A big one we had was around baptism. Their church is vehemently apposed to an adult being baptised again if they were baptised as a child. Then there's the whole issue of churches emphasising certain sins over other sins in the context of relationship with God. Those are my two biggest issues I frequently run into. There's a whole lot of little nitpicky things that I could list as they came out, but they aren't big enough to remember specifics about, so I must not consider them a big deal.

This seems odd.

Not in the ARP church They feel it's a slap in the face of the parents who took the oath during the infant baptism. I maintain that it's the complete opposite and a testament to the job the parents did in helping nurture their child.

Well they don't seem to know or understand the true meaning of being baptized. It isn't some preemptive cleansing to wash away a child's sin before they can even crawl.

Paedobaptists are, if the ones I have been exposed to are a representative sample, really, really in to paedobaptism.

I could be a part of a church that was paedo or credo. Probably would prefer paedo, but I'm not ready to make it a huge issue one way or another.

 

[proninja]

I've seen four that have stated that their faith has grown stronger the more they have questioned (Proninja, mr roboto, The Commish, Politician Spock). I am curious, what have you questioned and what answers have you received that have strengthened your faith?

I remember sitting in an MDiv OT course studying Jonah thinking in my head 'This is bull ####. I'm actually studying this as a historical event.' That internal dialogue was tough to work through and for a full year I wrestled with my faith intellectually without sharing it with my wife, professors, pastors etc. Very tough time for someone who was training for the ministry.My faith went from a matter of intellectual assent to personal trust, which is actually what 'faith' means in a biblical context. I believe Jesus is the Son of God. I believe he saved me. When I look back on my life, God has done what the Bible said he would do. Christian spirituality and wisdom works. My faith is absolutely grounded on my personal experience with Jesus and the Spirit. From there, I can construct a 'faith' in Scripture of sorts, but once I let go of needing everything wrapped up nice and tidy, Scripture became a living book that interacts with my spirit more than simply my mind. The Enlightenment view of innerancy which treats scripture as a theological operations manual is actually a form on isogesis. So I've rejected a form of innerancy that IMO is more cultural/historical and less Biblical.

In short, the message of Scripture works. God is faithful, Jesus saves, sanctification works the way it is supposed to. That's where my faith is grounded.

Thanks for your comments. I can imagine sitting in seminary wrestling with doubts like that. I have a pastor friend who went through the same thing. He pastors a baptist church, so he has to be careful what he says around certain folks. He told me something similar to you... he doesn't necessarily believe some things such as a literal place like a burning hell, some events in the Bible as historical accounts, and so forth.. but to him, it just comes down to Jesus and the message of salvation. However, being a baptist minister, he teaches a literal hell. I joke with him about being a hypocrit.

Do you mean eisegesis? I could see where some people could read some things into parts of Scripture taking it clearly out of context while strengthening their take, so to speak. It could be argued that some of the NT writers did this very thing while carving out their own theology in the gospels and epistles.

I bet he really appreciates you.

 

[The Commish]

I've seen four that have stated that their faith has grown stronger the more they have questioned (Proninja, mr roboto, The Commish, Politician Spock). I am curious, what have you questioned and what answers have you received that have strengthened your faith?

It started by really questioning what it meant to be a Christian in a day where much of what many Christians believe has clearly been proven wrong by science. I used to be a vote Republican, parrot Mike Behe guy, and it didn't take too long of exposure to that general discussion to realize that Behe and his ilk are full of crap. Once you realize that, it's either stop being a Christian becaue they're full of crap or investigate if Christianity indeed requires you to be a 6 day literalist who doesn't care if we blow up the earth using gay people as fuel for Jesus because everyone knows that man made global warming is anti-Jesus and the homos need to be killed.

So, I started reading, discussing, and looking at some conversations online between different belief systems inside of Christianity. What I found was that the things that were starting to be a barrier to me identifying as a part of the church weren't really a part of what the church was supposed to be. They were part of mainline evangelicalism and a culture that idolized what we remember of the 50's, when everyone acted moral, women knew their place, and you went to church on Sunday regardless of what you really believed because that's just what you do. It seems like mainline evangelicalism deifies and holds the culture up as the primary mission of the church, and that this whole gospel thing is secondary to making sure that we get everyone to act like they're good and holy. It places a very high view on law and a very low view on grace, and this doesn't at all square with my reading of the gospels. In essence, the American church just seems full of a bunch of Pharisees.

This discovery was *really* exciting for me. I have, at a few points in my life, tried to shake this whole Christianity thing. I can't. I tried pretty hard, too. I just believe it, and I don't think there's any way I could ever not believe it. I can be a Christian, serve Jesus, and not have to affirm what the mainline American church affirms. I also found that there are people out there like me. People who love Jesus, his church, theology, and see the world in a similar way to me. There aren't that many, but man, it's nice to have just one or two friends who seem to understand the way you think. So, rather than drive me farther away from the church, I looked at the modern church through the lens of the historical church, and found it wanting. Now I just enjoy reading and learning more. It's a blast. And I can still serve in my megachurch where I have some pretty serious issues, but I can serve the church with serious issues gladly because Jesus loves his church even through their issues, and so should I. Not that it isn't frustrating sometimes.

I sometimes wonder how far away we are from needing a reformation from American Evangelicalism.

It's like you are me my man

 

[Jayrok]

I've seen four that have stated that their faith has grown stronger the more they have questioned (Proninja, mr roboto, The Commish, Politician Spock). I am curious, what have you questioned and what answers have you received that have strengthened your faith?

I remember sitting in an MDiv OT course studying Jonah thinking in my head 'This is bull ####. I'm actually studying this as a historical event.' That internal dialogue was tough to work through and for a full year I wrestled with my faith intellectually without sharing it with my wife, professors, pastors etc. Very tough time for someone who was training for the ministry.My faith went from a matter of intellectual assent to personal trust, which is actually what 'faith' means in a biblical context. I believe Jesus is the Son of God. I believe he saved me. When I look back on my life, God has done what the Bible said he would do. Christian spirituality and wisdom works. My faith is absolutely grounded on my personal experience with Jesus and the Spirit. From there, I can construct a 'faith' in Scripture of sorts, but once I let go of needing everything wrapped up nice and tidy, Scripture became a living book that interacts with my spirit more than simply my mind. The Enlightenment view of innerancy which treats scripture as a theological operations manual is actually a form on isogesis. So I've rejected a form of innerancy that IMO is more cultural/historical and less Biblical.

In short, the message of Scripture works. God is faithful, Jesus saves, sanctification works the way it is supposed to. That's where my faith is grounded.

Thanks for your comments. I can imagine sitting in seminary wrestling with doubts like that. I have a pastor friend who went through the same thing. He pastors a baptist church, so he has to be careful what he says around certain folks. He told me something similar to you... he doesn't necessarily believe some things such as a literal place like a burning hell, some events in the Bible as historical accounts, and so forth.. but to him, it just comes down to Jesus and the message of salvation. However, being a baptist minister, he teaches a literal hell. I joke with him about being a hypocrit.

Do you mean eisegesis? I could see where some people could read some things into parts of Scripture taking it clearly out of context while strengthening their take, so to speak. It could be argued that some of the NT writers did this very thing while carving out their own theology in the gospels and epistles.

I bet he really appreciates you.

sarcasm? I do really enjoy his preaching though.

 

[proninja]

I've seen four that have stated that their faith has grown stronger the more they have questioned (Proninja, mr roboto, The Commish, Politician Spock). I am curious, what have you questioned and what answers have you received that have strengthened your faith?

I remember sitting in an MDiv OT course studying Jonah thinking in my head 'This is bull ####. I'm actually studying this as a historical event.' That internal dialogue was tough to work through and for a full year I wrestled with my faith intellectually without sharing it with my wife, professors, pastors etc. Very tough time for someone who was training for the ministry.My faith went from a matter of intellectual assent to personal trust, which is actually what 'faith' means in a biblical context. I believe Jesus is the Son of God. I believe he saved me. When I look back on my life, God has done what the Bible said he would do. Christian spirituality and wisdom works. My faith is absolutely grounded on my personal experience with Jesus and the Spirit. From there, I can construct a 'faith' in Scripture of sorts, but once I let go of needing everything wrapped up nice and tidy, Scripture became a living book that interacts with my spirit more than simply my mind. The Enlightenment view of innerancy which treats scripture as a theological operations manual is actually a form on isogesis. So I've rejected a form of innerancy that IMO is more cultural/historical and less Biblical.

In short, the message of Scripture works. God is faithful, Jesus saves, sanctification works the way it is supposed to. That's where my faith is grounded.

Thanks for your comments. I can imagine sitting in seminary wrestling with doubts like that. I have a pastor friend who went through the same thing. He pastors a baptist church, so he has to be careful what he says around certain folks. He told me something similar to you... he doesn't necessarily believe some things such as a literal place like a burning hell, some events in the Bible as historical accounts, and so forth.. but to him, it just comes down to Jesus and the message of salvation. However, being a baptist minister, he teaches a literal hell. I joke with him about being a hypocrit.

Do you mean eisegesis? I could see where some people could read some things into parts of Scripture taking it clearly out of context while strengthening their take, so to speak. It could be argued that some of the NT writers did this very thing while carving out their own theology in the gospels and epistles.

I bet he really appreciates you.

sarcasm? I do really enjoy his preaching though.

Not in the slightest. A few people in here have brought up how it's hard to find someone they can talk to about these things. He's got that in you.

 

[proninja]

So back to the OP topic, trying to defend a literal 6,000 yr creation isn't even a task the Bible would ask of us. Defending that God created, yes.

I agree that a literal 6k year creation isn't necessary. We can read Hebrews 11:3, for example, with a young earth or the big bang in mind. Could there be a gap between the first few verses of Genesis? Sure, why not. In either case, God created.

But I think evolution of species is a different issue altogether. I think it is fair to argue that death, pain, greed, pride, selfishness, covetousness, sinful nature in general, are all part of the natural evolutionary process. From the animals that crawled out of the sea all the way up to man, behaviors contributed to survival. To say that man was good and sin/death didn't exist until man disobeyed God specifically doesn't seem to harmonize with the evolutionary process that has been observed.

With that in mind is it important to defend a historic Adam or is it ok for "Adam" to be a figure symbolic of mankind in general?

This is a good question. Re: a historic Adam, I am open to the idea. That's about as strong of an opinion as I have on the subject.

About evolution - I'll need one of you seminarians to look the hebrew up for me, but the bible does speak of death as separation from Christ. We have another example in Genesis 2 - "And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”(Genesis 2:16-17, ESV)" Clearly they did, and clearly they did not die in the sense that we would think when we typically read that word. Is it possible that by "Life the author simply means in relationship with God, and by "death" he means no longer in communion with God, banished from the garden?

I don't have the answer here. I'm just spitballing. What do you guys think?

 

[Jayrok]

I've seen four that have stated that their faith has grown stronger the more they have questioned (Proninja, mr roboto, The Commish, Politician Spock). I am curious, what have you questioned and what answers have you received that have strengthened your faith?

It started by really questioning what it meant to be a Christian in a day where much of what many Christians believe has clearly been proven wrong by science. I used to be a vote Republican, parrot Mike Behe guy, and it didn't take too long of exposure to that general discussion to realize that Behe and his ilk are full of crap. Once you realize that, it's either stop being a Christian becaue they're full of crap or investigate if Christianity indeed requires you to be a 6 day literalist who doesn't care if we blow up the earth using gay people as fuel for Jesus because everyone knows that man made global warming is anti-Jesus and the homos need to be killed.

So, I started reading, discussing, and looking at some conversations online between different belief systems inside of Christianity. What I found was that the things that were starting to be a barrier to me identifying as a part of the church weren't really a part of what the church was supposed to be. They were part of mainline evangelicalism and a culture that idolized what we remember of the 50's, when everyone acted moral, women knew their place, and you went to church on Sunday regardless of what you really believed because that's just what you do. It seems like mainline evangelicalism deifies and holds the culture up as the primary mission of the church, and that this whole gospel thing is secondary to making sure that we get everyone to act like they're good and holy. It places a very high view on law and a very low view on grace, and this doesn't at all square with my reading of the gospels. In essence, the American church just seems full of a bunch of Pharisees.

This discovery was *really* exciting for me. I have, at a few points in my life, tried to shake this whole Christianity thing. I can't. I tried pretty hard, too. I just believe it, and I don't think there's any way I could ever not believe it. I can be a Christian, serve Jesus, and not have to affirm what the mainline American church affirms. I also found that there are people out there like me. People who love Jesus, his church, theology, and see the world in a similar way to me. There aren't that many, but man, it's nice to have just one or two friends who seem to understand the way you think. So, rather than drive me farther away from the church, I looked at the modern church through the lens of the historical church, and found it wanting. Now I just enjoy reading and learning more. It's a blast. And I can still serve in my megachurch where I have some pretty serious issues, but I can serve the church with serious issues gladly because Jesus loves his church even through their issues, and so should I. Not that it isn't frustrating sometimes.

I sometimes wonder how far away we are from needing a reformation from American Evangelicalism.

I think there already is a sort of reformation from evangelicalism. It isn't mainstream (yet), and evangelicals will fight it, but it seems in order for churches to attract new visitors (especially young adults) they have to be, for lack of a better term, accepting of a broader spectrum of society. They don't want to scare them off with rules like dress codes and they sometimes scrap traditional hymns in services in favor of more modern Christian-rock type music. The old folks don't like it, but they endure.

I think it is good to reform the way things are done from time to time, but we need to be careful of how we're treating the gospel/Bible. I don't think I see the church as pharisees in terms of law vs grace. All churches I know very much see God's grace alone as what saves. The people who seem to cling to old standards and practices are doing so because that is how they view the role of the church. I have also found that when you approach the "old school" with new ideas, you are met with resistance... and sometimes venom! But they think there way is the right way.

Your story is similar to Commish's story. You love Jesus but don't like how the modern church acts sometimes. I really get that. I had some of the same thoughts about modern church members and how they are often too holier-than-thou for the good of the gospel. But that didn't cause me to question the Bible. I remember sitting in a pew listening to the pastor talk about the passion week events. He'd preach from one book, then I'd flip over and read the same story in another book. In my born-and-raised-infallible-Bible mind I began having issues with that. The ball began to roll.

I hear many people saying it isn't important to them, that men were in charge of writing the Bible, and so forth, and I get that... after all, the message of salvation is still in there somewhere amongst all of the flawed human influence. But I need to trust the Bible. I need to trust that Jesus is who the Bible says he is. Did he really come to earth in the flesh? Was he really born of a virgin? Did he really rise from the dead? Is he really talked about in the old testament? Does it even matter if he really did all those things written of him in the Bible? Would it even matter if those stories about him were made up or somewhat romanticized? Does it matter?

 

[Politician Spock]

I've seen four that have stated that their faith has grown stronger the more they have questioned (Proninja, mr roboto, The Commish, Politician Spock). I am curious, what have you questioned and what answers have you received that have strengthened your faith?

It started by really questioning what it meant to be a Christian in a day where much of what many Christians believe has clearly been proven wrong by science. I used to be a vote Republican, parrot Mike Behe guy, and it didn't take too long of exposure to that general discussion to realize that Behe and his ilk are full of crap. Once you realize that, it's either stop being a Christian becaue they're full of crap or investigate if Christianity indeed requires you to be a 6 day literalist who doesn't care if we blow up the earth using gay people as fuel for Jesus because everyone knows that man made global warming is anti-Jesus and the homos need to be killed.

So, I started reading, discussing, and looking at some conversations online between different belief systems inside of Christianity. What I found was that the things that were starting to be a barrier to me identifying as a part of the church weren't really a part of what the church was supposed to be. They were part of mainline evangelicalism and a culture that idolized what we remember of the 50's, when everyone acted moral, women knew their place, and you went to church on Sunday regardless of what you really believed because that's just what you do. It seems like mainline evangelicalism deifies and holds the culture up as the primary mission of the church, and that this whole gospel thing is secondary to making sure that we get everyone to act like they're good and holy. It places a very high view on law and a very low view on grace, and this doesn't at all square with my reading of the gospels. In essence, the American church just seems full of a bunch of Pharisees.

This discovery was *really* exciting for me. I have, at a few points in my life, tried to shake this whole Christianity thing. I can't. I tried pretty hard, too. I just believe it, and I don't think there's any way I could ever not believe it. I can be a Christian, serve Jesus, and not have to affirm what the mainline American church affirms. I also found that there are people out there like me. People who love Jesus, his church, theology, and see the world in a similar way to me. There aren't that many, but man, it's nice to have just one or two friends who seem to understand the way you think. So, rather than drive me farther away from the church, I looked at the modern church through the lens of the historical church, and found it wanting. Now I just enjoy reading and learning more. It's a blast. And I can still serve in my megachurch where I have some pretty serious issues, but I can serve the church with serious issues gladly because Jesus loves his church even through their issues, and so should I. Not that it isn't frustrating sometimes.

I sometimes wonder how far away we are from needing a reformation from American Evangelicalism.

I think there already is a sort of reformation from evangelicalism. It isn't mainstream (yet), and evangelicals will fight it, but it seems in order for churches to attract new visitors (especially young adults) they have to be, for lack of a better term, accepting of a broader spectrum of society. They don't want to scare them off with rules like dress codes and they sometimes scrap traditional hymns in services in favor of more modern Christian-rock type music. The old folks don't like it, but they endure.

I think it is good to reform the way things are done from time to time, but we need to be careful of how we're treating the gospel/Bible. I don't think I see the church as pharisees in terms of law vs grace. All churches I know very much see God's grace alone as what saves. The people who seem to cling to old standards and practices are doing so because that is how they view the role of the church. I have also found that when you approach the "old school" with new ideas, you are met with resistance... and sometimes venom! But they think there way is the right way.

Your story is similar to Commish's story. You love Jesus but don't like how the modern church acts sometimes. I really get that. I had some of the same thoughts about modern church members and how they are often too holier-than-thou for the good of the gospel. But that didn't cause me to question the Bible. I remember sitting in a pew listening to the pastor talk about the passion week events. He'd preach from one book, then I'd flip over and read the same story in another book. In my born-and-raised-infallible-Bible mind I began having issues with that. The ball began to roll.

I hear many people saying it isn't important to them, that men were in charge of writing the Bible, and so forth, and I get that... after all, the message of salvation is still in there somewhere amongst all of the flawed human influence. But I need to trust the Bible. I need to trust that Jesus is who the Bible says he is. Did he really come to earth in the flesh? Was he really born of a virgin? Did he really rise from the dead? Is he really talked about in the old testament? Does it even matter if he really did all those things written of him in the Bible? Would it even matter if those stories about him were made up or somewhat romanticized? Does it matter?

Why do you need to trust the Bible?

I need to trust Jesus. I can trust Jesus without the Bible. Can you? If not, why not?

 

[The Commish]

So back to the OP topic, trying to defend a literal 6,000 yr creation isn't even a task the Bible would ask of us. Defending that God created, yes.

I agree that a literal 6k year creation isn't necessary. We can read Hebrews 11:3, for example, with a young earth or the big bang in mind. Could there be a gap between the first few verses of Genesis? Sure, why not. In either case, God created.

But I think evolution of species is a different issue altogether. I think it is fair to argue that death, pain, greed, pride, selfishness, covetousness, sinful nature in general, are all part of the natural evolutionary process. From the animals that crawled out of the sea all the way up to man, behaviors contributed to survival. To say that man was good and sin/death didn't exist until man disobeyed God specifically doesn't seem to harmonize with the evolutionary process that has been observed.

With that in mind is it important to defend a historic Adam or is it ok for "Adam" to be a figure symbolic of mankind in general?

This is a good question. Re: a historic Adam, I am open to the idea. That's about as strong of an opinion as I have on the subject.

About evolution - I'll need one of you seminarians to look the hebrew up for me, but the bible does speak of death as separation from Christ. We have another example in Genesis 2 - "And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”(Genesis 2:16-17, ESV)" Clearly they did, and clearly they did not die in the sense that we would think when we typically read that word. Is it possible that by "Life the author simply means in relationship with God, and by "death" he means no longer in communion with God, banished from the garden?

I don't have the answer here. I'm just spitballing. What do you guys think?

It's easy to forget that there are two types of death. The physical death and the spiritual death. I've always err'd on the side of "spiritual death" when I see the term in the Bible. My rationale is that spiritual life/death is the primary focus of God, so I always assume on it's face that's what the BIble is talking about. So I agree with your assessment that "death" here means a separation from God. FWIW, that's what Hell means to me as well. I've never bought the literal place. Hell is anywhere God isn't.

 

[Sabertooth]

Just because somebody dies doesn't mean their spirit is dead. Even to an Atheist. I mean when Harold Ramis died, his spirit lived on in the laughs and jokes about his movies. The lines he wrote and spoke on screen for instance. He's not completely gone no matter what your beliefs are.

It's kind of like the decision Achilles had to make. Die young and your spirit lives forever. Or die old and your spirit dies in two generations (paraphrasing obviously).

 

[Jayrok]

I've seen four that have stated that their faith has grown stronger the more they have questioned (Proninja, mr roboto, The Commish, Politician Spock). I am curious, what have you questioned and what answers have you received that have strengthened your faith?

It started by really questioning what it meant to be a Christian in a day where much of what many Christians believe has clearly been proven wrong by science. I used to be a vote Republican, parrot Mike Behe guy, and it didn't take too long of exposure to that general discussion to realize that Behe and his ilk are full of crap. Once you realize that, it's either stop being a Christian becaue they're full of crap or investigate if Christianity indeed requires you to be a 6 day literalist who doesn't care if we blow up the earth using gay people as fuel for Jesus because everyone knows that man made global warming is anti-Jesus and the homos need to be killed.

So, I started reading, discussing, and looking at some conversations online between different belief systems inside of Christianity. What I found was that the things that were starting to be a barrier to me identifying as a part of the church weren't really a part of what the church was supposed to be. They were part of mainline evangelicalism and a culture that idolized what we remember of the 50's, when everyone acted moral, women knew their place, and you went to church on Sunday regardless of what you really believed because that's just what you do. It seems like mainline evangelicalism deifies and holds the culture up as the primary mission of the church, and that this whole gospel thing is secondary to making sure that we get everyone to act like they're good and holy. It places a very high view on law and a very low view on grace, and this doesn't at all square with my reading of the gospels. In essence, the American church just seems full of a bunch of Pharisees.

This discovery was *really* exciting for me. I have, at a few points in my life, tried to shake this whole Christianity thing. I can't. I tried pretty hard, too. I just believe it, and I don't think there's any way I could ever not believe it. I can be a Christian, serve Jesus, and not have to affirm what the mainline American church affirms. I also found that there are people out there like me. People who love Jesus, his church, theology, and see the world in a similar way to me. There aren't that many, but man, it's nice to have just one or two friends who seem to understand the way you think. So, rather than drive me farther away from the church, I looked at the modern church through the lens of the historical church, and found it wanting. Now I just enjoy reading and learning more. It's a blast. And I can still serve in my megachurch where I have some pretty serious issues, but I can serve the church with serious issues gladly because Jesus loves his church even through their issues, and so should I. Not that it isn't frustrating sometimes.

I sometimes wonder how far away we are from needing a reformation from American Evangelicalism.

I think there already is a sort of reformation from evangelicalism. It isn't mainstream (yet), and evangelicals will fight it, but it seems in order for churches to attract new visitors (especially young adults) they have to be, for lack of a better term, accepting of a broader spectrum of society. They don't want to scare them off with rules like dress codes and they sometimes scrap traditional hymns in services in favor of more modern Christian-rock type music. The old folks don't like it, but they endure.

I think it is good to reform the way things are done from time to time, but we need to be careful of how we're treating the gospel/Bible. I don't think I see the church as pharisees in terms of law vs grace. All churches I know very much see God's grace alone as what saves. The people who seem to cling to old standards and practices are doing so because that is how they view the role of the church. I have also found that when you approach the "old school" with new ideas, you are met with resistance... and sometimes venom! But they think there way is the right way.

Your story is similar to Commish's story. You love Jesus but don't like how the modern church acts sometimes. I really get that. I had some of the same thoughts about modern church members and how they are often too holier-than-thou for the good of the gospel. But that didn't cause me to question the Bible. I remember sitting in a pew listening to the pastor talk about the passion week events. He'd preach from one book, then I'd flip over and read the same story in another book. In my born-and-raised-infallible-Bible mind I began having issues with that. The ball began to roll.

I hear many people saying it isn't important to them, that men were in charge of writing the Bible, and so forth, and I get that... after all, the message of salvation is still in there somewhere amongst all of the flawed human influence. But I need to trust the Bible. I need to trust that Jesus is who the Bible says he is. Did he really come to earth in the flesh? Was he really born of a virgin? Did he really rise from the dead? Is he really talked about in the old testament? Does it even matter if he really did all those things written of him in the Bible? Would it even matter if those stories about him were made up or somewhat romanticized? Does it matter?

Why do you need to trust the Bible?

I need to trust Jesus. I can trust Jesus without the Bible. Can you? If not, why not?

The Bible tells me who Jesus is. If I can't trust that can I just decide who Jesus is in my own mind?

 

[fatness]

Outcome of debate: municipal bond offering to help build a 500-foot Noah's Ark

Creation Museum founder Ken Ham announced Thursday that a municipal bond offering has raised enough money to begin construction on the Ark Encounter project, estimated to cost about $73 million. Groundbreaking is planned for May and the ark is expected to be finished by the summer of 2016. Ham said a high-profile evolution debate he had with "Science Guy" Bill Nye on Feb. 4 helped boost support for the project.

Nye said he was "heartbroken and sickened for the Commonwealth of Kentucky" after learning that the project would move forward. He said the ark would eventually draw more attention to the beliefs of Ham's ministry, which preaches that the Bible's creation story is a true account, and as a result, "voters and taxpayers in Kentucky will eventually see that this is not in their best interest." Ham's Answers in Genesis ministry and the Creation Museum enjoyed an avalanche of news media attention during the debate, which focused on science and the Bible's explanations of the origins of the universe.

 

[Jayrok]

So back to the OP topic, trying to defend a literal 6,000 yr creation isn't even a task the Bible would ask of us. Defending that God created, yes.

I agree that a literal 6k year creation isn't necessary. We can read Hebrews 11:3, for example, with a young earth or the big bang in mind. Could there be a gap between the first few verses of Genesis? Sure, why not. In either case, God created.

But I think evolution of species is a different issue altogether. I think it is fair to argue that death, pain, greed, pride, selfishness, covetousness, sinful nature in general, are all part of the natural evolutionary process. From the animals that crawled out of the sea all the way up to man, behaviors contributed to survival. To say that man was good and sin/death didn't exist until man disobeyed God specifically doesn't seem to harmonize with the evolutionary process that has been observed.

With that in mind is it important to defend a historic Adam or is it ok for "Adam" to be a figure symbolic of mankind in general?

This is a good question. Re: a historic Adam, I am open to the idea. That's about as strong of an opinion as I have on the subject.

About evolution - I'll need one of you seminarians to look the hebrew up for me, but the bible does speak of death as separation from Christ. We have another example in Genesis 2 - "And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”(Genesis 2:16-17, ESV)" Clearly they did, and clearly they did not die in the sense that we would think when we typically read that word. Is it possible that by "Life the author simply means in relationship with God, and by "death" he means no longer in communion with God, banished from the garden?

I don't have the answer here. I'm just spitballing. What do you guys think?

The Hebrew word for "die" in Genesis is muwth (strong's H4191) which means to die, kill, have one executed. It occurs 835 times in all the Hebrew scriptures.

BlueletterBible

 

[Politician Spock]

I've seen four that have stated that their faith has grown stronger the more they have questioned (Proninja, mr roboto, The Commish, Politician Spock). I am curious, what have you questioned and what answers have you received that have strengthened your faith?

It started by really questioning what it meant to be a Christian in a day where much of what many Christians believe has clearly been proven wrong by science. I used to be a vote Republican, parrot Mike Behe guy, and it didn't take too long of exposure to that general discussion to realize that Behe and his ilk are full of crap. Once you realize that, it's either stop being a Christian becaue they're full of crap or investigate if Christianity indeed requires you to be a 6 day literalist who doesn't care if we blow up the earth using gay people as fuel for Jesus because everyone knows that man made global warming is anti-Jesus and the homos need to be killed.

So, I started reading, discussing, and looking at some conversations online between different belief systems inside of Christianity. What I found was that the things that were starting to be a barrier to me identifying as a part of the church weren't really a part of what the church was supposed to be. They were part of mainline evangelicalism and a culture that idolized what we remember of the 50's, when everyone acted moral, women knew their place, and you went to church on Sunday regardless of what you really believed because that's just what you do. It seems like mainline evangelicalism deifies and holds the culture up as the primary mission of the church, and that this whole gospel thing is secondary to making sure that we get everyone to act like they're good and holy. It places a very high view on law and a very low view on grace, and this doesn't at all square with my reading of the gospels. In essence, the American church just seems full of a bunch of Pharisees.

This discovery was *really* exciting for me. I have, at a few points in my life, tried to shake this whole Christianity thing. I can't. I tried pretty hard, too. I just believe it, and I don't think there's any way I could ever not believe it. I can be a Christian, serve Jesus, and not have to affirm what the mainline American church affirms. I also found that there are people out there like me. People who love Jesus, his church, theology, and see the world in a similar way to me. There aren't that many, but man, it's nice to have just one or two friends who seem to understand the way you think. So, rather than drive me farther away from the church, I looked at the modern church through the lens of the historical church, and found it wanting. Now I just enjoy reading and learning more. It's a blast. And I can still serve in my megachurch where I have some pretty serious issues, but I can serve the church with serious issues gladly because Jesus loves his church even through their issues, and so should I. Not that it isn't frustrating sometimes.

I sometimes wonder how far away we are from needing a reformation from American Evangelicalism.

I think there already is a sort of reformation from evangelicalism. It isn't mainstream (yet), and evangelicals will fight it, but it seems in order for churches to attract new visitors (especially young adults) they have to be, for lack of a better term, accepting of a broader spectrum of society. They don't want to scare them off with rules like dress codes and they sometimes scrap traditional hymns in services in favor of more modern Christian-rock type music. The old folks don't like it, but they endure.

I think it is good to reform the way things are done from time to time, but we need to be careful of how we're treating the gospel/Bible. I don't think I see the church as pharisees in terms of law vs grace. All churches I know very much see God's grace alone as what saves. The people who seem to cling to old standards and practices are doing so because that is how they view the role of the church. I have also found that when you approach the "old school" with new ideas, you are met with resistance... and sometimes venom! But they think there way is the right way.

Your story is similar to Commish's story. You love Jesus but don't like how the modern church acts sometimes. I really get that. I had some of the same thoughts about modern church members and how they are often too holier-than-thou for the good of the gospel. But that didn't cause me to question the Bible. I remember sitting in a pew listening to the pastor talk about the passion week events. He'd preach from one book, then I'd flip over and read the same story in another book. In my born-and-raised-infallible-Bible mind I began having issues with that. The ball began to roll.

I hear many people saying it isn't important to them, that men were in charge of writing the Bible, and so forth, and I get that... after all, the message of salvation is still in there somewhere amongst all of the flawed human influence. But I need to trust the Bible. I need to trust that Jesus is who the Bible says he is. Did he really come to earth in the flesh? Was he really born of a virgin? Did he really rise from the dead? Is he really talked about in the old testament? Does it even matter if he really did all those things written of him in the Bible? Would it even matter if those stories about him were made up or somewhat romanticized? Does it matter?

Why do you need to trust the Bible?

I need to trust Jesus. I can trust Jesus without the Bible. Can you? If not, why not?

The Bible tells me who Jesus is. If I can't trust that can I just decide who Jesus is in my own mind?

The Bible isn't the only source of who Jesus is. The Corinthians knew who Jesus is, but never met Jesus nor had the Bible. The Ephesians knew who Jesus is, but never met Jesus nor had the Bible. The Romans knew who Jesus is, but never met Jesus nor had the Bible. They knew who Jesus is because 1) people's testimonies of Jesus; and 2) the "helper" Jesus said He would send after He left (the Holy Spirit). Jesus didn't say he would send a book.

The idea that one can't know who Jesus is without the Bible makes the Bible more important than Jesus. Of course one can know who Jesus is without the Bible. In fact, the Bible only limits what you can know about Him. He's more than what can be contained in a book.

 

[Jayrok]

I've seen four that have stated that their faith has grown stronger the more they have questioned (Proninja, mr roboto, The Commish, Politician Spock). I am curious, what have you questioned and what answers have you received that have strengthened your faith?

It started by really questioning what it meant to be a Christian in a day where much of what many Christians believe has clearly been proven wrong by science. I used to be a vote Republican, parrot Mike Behe guy, and it didn't take too long of exposure to that general discussion to realize that Behe and his ilk are full of crap. Once you realize that, it's either stop being a Christian becaue they're full of crap or investigate if Christianity indeed requires you to be a 6 day literalist who doesn't care if we blow up the earth using gay people as fuel for Jesus because everyone knows that man made global warming is anti-Jesus and the homos need to be killed.

So, I started reading, discussing, and looking at some conversations online between different belief systems inside of Christianity. What I found was that the things that were starting to be a barrier to me identifying as a part of the church weren't really a part of what the church was supposed to be. They were part of mainline evangelicalism and a culture that idolized what we remember of the 50's, when everyone acted moral, women knew their place, and you went to church on Sunday regardless of what you really believed because that's just what you do. It seems like mainline evangelicalism deifies and holds the culture up as the primary mission of the church, and that this whole gospel thing is secondary to making sure that we get everyone to act like they're good and holy. It places a very high view on law and a very low view on grace, and this doesn't at all square with my reading of the gospels. In essence, the American church just seems full of a bunch of Pharisees.

This discovery was *really* exciting for me. I have, at a few points in my life, tried to shake this whole Christianity thing. I can't. I tried pretty hard, too. I just believe it, and I don't think there's any way I could ever not believe it. I can be a Christian, serve Jesus, and not have to affirm what the mainline American church affirms. I also found that there are people out there like me. People who love Jesus, his church, theology, and see the world in a similar way to me. There aren't that many, but man, it's nice to have just one or two friends who seem to understand the way you think. So, rather than drive me farther away from the church, I looked at the modern church through the lens of the historical church, and found it wanting. Now I just enjoy reading and learning more. It's a blast. And I can still serve in my megachurch where I have some pretty serious issues, but I can serve the church with serious issues gladly because Jesus loves his church even through their issues, and so should I. Not that it isn't frustrating sometimes.

I sometimes wonder how far away we are from needing a reformation from American Evangelicalism.

I think there already is a sort of reformation from evangelicalism. It isn't mainstream (yet), and evangelicals will fight it, but it seems in order for churches to attract new visitors (especially young adults) they have to be, for lack of a better term, accepting of a broader spectrum of society. They don't want to scare them off with rules like dress codes and they sometimes scrap traditional hymns in services in favor of more modern Christian-rock type music. The old folks don't like it, but they endure.

I think it is good to reform the way things are done from time to time, but we need to be careful of how we're treating the gospel/Bible. I don't think I see the church as pharisees in terms of law vs grace. All churches I know very much see God's grace alone as what saves. The people who seem to cling to old standards and practices are doing so because that is how they view the role of the church. I have also found that when you approach the "old school" with new ideas, you are met with resistance... and sometimes venom! But they think there way is the right way.

Your story is similar to Commish's story. You love Jesus but don't like how the modern church acts sometimes. I really get that. I had some of the same thoughts about modern church members and how they are often too holier-than-thou for the good of the gospel. But that didn't cause me to question the Bible. I remember sitting in a pew listening to the pastor talk about the passion week events. He'd preach from one book, then I'd flip over and read the same story in another book. In my born-and-raised-infallible-Bible mind I began having issues with that. The ball began to roll.

I hear many people saying it isn't important to them, that men were in charge of writing the Bible, and so forth, and I get that... after all, the message of salvation is still in there somewhere amongst all of the flawed human influence. But I need to trust the Bible. I need to trust that Jesus is who the Bible says he is. Did he really come to earth in the flesh? Was he really born of a virgin? Did he really rise from the dead? Is he really talked about in the old testament? Does it even matter if he really did all those things written of him in the Bible? Would it even matter if those stories about him were made up or somewhat romanticized? Does it matter?

Why do you need to trust the Bible?

I need to trust Jesus. I can trust Jesus without the Bible. Can you? If not, why not?

The Bible tells me who Jesus is. If I can't trust that can I just decide who Jesus is in my own mind?

The Bible isn't the only source of who Jesus is. The Corinthians knew who Jesus is, but never met Jesus nor had the Bible. The Ephesians knew who Jesus is, but never met Jesus nor had the Bible. The Romans knew who Jesus is, but never met Jesus nor had the Bible. They knew who Jesus is because 1) people's testimonies of Jesus; and 2) the "helper" Jesus said He would send after He left (the Holy Spirit). Jesus didn't say he would send a book.

The idea that one can't know who Jesus is without the Bible makes the Bible more important than Jesus. Of course one can know who Jesus is without the Bible. In fact, the Bible only limits what you can know about Him. He's more than what can be contained in a book.

Paul taught the Corinthians, Ephesians and Romans and wrote letters to them to be used for teaching and testimony about Jesus. He claimed to have direct revelation from Jesus himself. We also know of Jesus through Paul's letters. We didn't hear him speak in person. If a man came to a church and claimed to have direct revelation from Jesus himself, I wonder how he would be accepted and believed. Instead, we have the Bible, which is indirectly the same as the people in those churches you mentioned.

I never said the Bible is more important than Jesus, but it should be reliable. We don't have Peter or John or Paul to teach and testify about Jesus. We have the Bible.

 

[Politician Spock]

I've seen four that have stated that their faith has grown stronger the more they have questioned (Proninja, mr roboto, The Commish, Politician Spock). I am curious, what have you questioned and what answers have you received that have strengthened your faith?

It started by really questioning what it meant to be a Christian in a day where much of what many Christians believe has clearly been proven wrong by science. I used to be a vote Republican, parrot Mike Behe guy, and it didn't take too long of exposure to that general discussion to realize that Behe and his ilk are full of crap. Once you realize that, it's either stop being a Christian becaue they're full of crap or investigate if Christianity indeed requires you to be a 6 day literalist who doesn't care if we blow up the earth using gay people as fuel for Jesus because everyone knows that man made global warming is anti-Jesus and the homos need to be killed.

So, I started reading, discussing, and looking at some conversations online between different belief systems inside of Christianity. What I found was that the things that were starting to be a barrier to me identifying as a part of the church weren't really a part of what the church was supposed to be. They were part of mainline evangelicalism and a culture that idolized what we remember of the 50's, when everyone acted moral, women knew their place, and you went to church on Sunday regardless of what you really believed because that's just what you do. It seems like mainline evangelicalism deifies and holds the culture up as the primary mission of the church, and that this whole gospel thing is secondary to making sure that we get everyone to act like they're good and holy. It places a very high view on law and a very low view on grace, and this doesn't at all square with my reading of the gospels. In essence, the American church just seems full of a bunch of Pharisees.

This discovery was *really* exciting for me. I have, at a few points in my life, tried to shake this whole Christianity thing. I can't. I tried pretty hard, too. I just believe it, and I don't think there's any way I could ever not believe it. I can be a Christian, serve Jesus, and not have to affirm what the mainline American church affirms. I also found that there are people out there like me. People who love Jesus, his church, theology, and see the world in a similar way to me. There aren't that many, but man, it's nice to have just one or two friends who seem to understand the way you think. So, rather than drive me farther away from the church, I looked at the modern church through the lens of the historical church, and found it wanting. Now I just enjoy reading and learning more. It's a blast. And I can still serve in my megachurch where I have some pretty serious issues, but I can serve the church with serious issues gladly because Jesus loves his church even through their issues, and so should I. Not that it isn't frustrating sometimes.

I sometimes wonder how far away we are from needing a reformation from American Evangelicalism.

I think there already is a sort of reformation from evangelicalism. It isn't mainstream (yet), and evangelicals will fight it, but it seems in order for churches to attract new visitors (especially young adults) they have to be, for lack of a better term, accepting of a broader spectrum of society. They don't want to scare them off with rules like dress codes and they sometimes scrap traditional hymns in services in favor of more modern Christian-rock type music. The old folks don't like it, but they endure.

I think it is good to reform the way things are done from time to time, but we need to be careful of how we're treating the gospel/Bible. I don't think I see the church as pharisees in terms of law vs grace. All churches I know very much see God's grace alone as what saves. The people who seem to cling to old standards and practices are doing so because that is how they view the role of the church. I have also found that when you approach the "old school" with new ideas, you are met with resistance... and sometimes venom! But they think there way is the right way.

Your story is similar to Commish's story. You love Jesus but don't like how the modern church acts sometimes. I really get that. I had some of the same thoughts about modern church members and how they are often too holier-than-thou for the good of the gospel. But that didn't cause me to question the Bible. I remember sitting in a pew listening to the pastor talk about the passion week events. He'd preach from one book, then I'd flip over and read the same story in another book. In my born-and-raised-infallible-Bible mind I began having issues with that. The ball began to roll.

I hear many people saying it isn't important to them, that men were in charge of writing the Bible, and so forth, and I get that... after all, the message of salvation is still in there somewhere amongst all of the flawed human influence. But I need to trust the Bible. I need to trust that Jesus is who the Bible says he is. Did he really come to earth in the flesh? Was he really born of a virgin? Did he really rise from the dead? Is he really talked about in the old testament? Does it even matter if he really did all those things written of him in the Bible? Would it even matter if those stories about him were made up or somewhat romanticized? Does it matter?

Why do you need to trust the Bible?

I need to trust Jesus. I can trust Jesus without the Bible. Can you? If not, why not?

The Bible tells me who Jesus is. If I can't trust that can I just decide who Jesus is in my own mind?

The Bible isn't the only source of who Jesus is. The Corinthians knew who Jesus is, but never met Jesus nor had the Bible. The Ephesians knew who Jesus is, but never met Jesus nor had the Bible. The Romans knew who Jesus is, but never met Jesus nor had the Bible. They knew who Jesus is because 1) people's testimonies of Jesus; and 2) the "helper" Jesus said He would send after He left (the Holy Spirit). Jesus didn't say he would send a book.

The idea that one can't know who Jesus is without the Bible makes the Bible more important than Jesus. Of course one can know who Jesus is without the Bible. In fact, the Bible only limits what you can know about Him. He's more than what can be contained in a book.

Paul taught the Corinthians, Ephesians and Romans and wrote letters to them to be used for teaching and testimony about Jesus. He claimed to have direct revelation from Jesus himself. We also know of Jesus through Paul's letters. We didn't hear him speak in person. If a man came to a church and claimed to have direct revelation from Jesus himself, I wonder how he would be accepted and believed. Instead, we have the Bible, which is indirectly the same as the people in those churches you mentioned.

I never said the Bible is more important than Jesus, but it should be reliable. We don't have Peter or John or Paul to teach and testify about Jesus. We have the Bible.

We have the Holy Spirit. That's what Jesus said would be our helper. And Paul did what all of us are supposed to do with our personal relationship with Jesus... testify about it to the ends of the earth.

The idea that we needed a book, that is holy, God breathed and inerrant didn't come from Jesus. He said we would receive a helper as we testify to the ends of the earth. That's it. Nothing more. No book.

The Bible is a collection of some of the testimonies. And don't get me wrong, testimonies are great. And the testimonies that were selected to be the Bible are fantastic ones. But that's all they are... testimonies. They're no different than your testimony or Billy Graham's testimony. Granted, some people are more eloquent communicators than other, but that doesn't make their words holy, God breathed and inerrant.

 

[proninja]

I've seen four that have stated that their faith has grown stronger the more they have questioned (Proninja, mr roboto, The Commish, Politician Spock). I am curious, what have you questioned and what answers have you received that have strengthened your faith?

It started by really questioning what it meant to be a Christian in a day where much of what many Christians believe has clearly been proven wrong by science. I used to be a vote Republican, parrot Mike Behe guy, and it didn't take too long of exposure to that general discussion to realize that Behe and his ilk are full of crap. Once you realize that, it's either stop being a Christian becaue they're full of crap or investigate if Christianity indeed requires you to be a 6 day literalist who doesn't care if we blow up the earth using gay people as fuel for Jesus because everyone knows that man made global warming is anti-Jesus and the homos need to be killed.

So, I started reading, discussing, and looking at some conversations online between different belief systems inside of Christianity. What I found was that the things that were starting to be a barrier to me identifying as a part of the church weren't really a part of what the church was supposed to be. They were part of mainline evangelicalism and a culture that idolized what we remember of the 50's, when everyone acted moral, women knew their place, and you went to church on Sunday regardless of what you really believed because that's just what you do. It seems like mainline evangelicalism deifies and holds the culture up as the primary mission of the church, and that this whole gospel thing is secondary to making sure that we get everyone to act like they're good and holy. It places a very high view on law and a very low view on grace, and this doesn't at all square with my reading of the gospels. In essence, the American church just seems full of a bunch of Pharisees.

This discovery was *really* exciting for me. I have, at a few points in my life, tried to shake this whole Christianity thing. I can't. I tried pretty hard, too. I just believe it, and I don't think there's any way I could ever not believe it. I can be a Christian, serve Jesus, and not have to affirm what the mainline American church affirms. I also found that there are people out there like me. People who love Jesus, his church, theology, and see the world in a similar way to me. There aren't that many, but man, it's nice to have just one or two friends who seem to understand the way you think. So, rather than drive me farther away from the church, I looked at the modern church through the lens of the historical church, and found it wanting. Now I just enjoy reading and learning more. It's a blast. And I can still serve in my megachurch where I have some pretty serious issues, but I can serve the church with serious issues gladly because Jesus loves his church even through their issues, and so should I. Not that it isn't frustrating sometimes.

I sometimes wonder how far away we are from needing a reformation from American Evangelicalism.

I think there already is a sort of reformation from evangelicalism. It isn't mainstream (yet), and evangelicals will fight it, but it seems in order for churches to attract new visitors (especially young adults) they have to be, for lack of a better term, accepting of a broader spectrum of society. They don't want to scare them off with rules like dress codes and they sometimes scrap traditional hymns in services in favor of more modern Christian-rock type music. The old folks don't like it, but they endure.

I think it is good to reform the way things are done from time to time, but we need to be careful of how we're treating the gospel/Bible. I don't think I see the church as pharisees in terms of law vs grace. All churches I know very much see God's grace alone as what saves. The people who seem to cling to old standards and practices are doing so because that is how they view the role of the church. I have also found that when you approach the "old school" with new ideas, you are met with resistance... and sometimes venom! But they think there way is the right way.

Your story is similar to Commish's story. You love Jesus but don't like how the modern church acts sometimes. I really get that. I had some of the same thoughts about modern church members and how they are often too holier-than-thou for the good of the gospel. But that didn't cause me to question the Bible. I remember sitting in a pew listening to the pastor talk about the passion week events. He'd preach from one book, then I'd flip over and read the same story in another book. In my born-and-raised-infallible-Bible mind I began having issues with that. The ball began to roll.

I hear many people saying it isn't important to them, that men were in charge of writing the Bible, and so forth, and I get that... after all, the message of salvation is still in there somewhere amongst all of the flawed human influence. But I need to trust the Bible. I need to trust that Jesus is who the Bible says he is. Did he really come to earth in the flesh? Was he really born of a virgin? Did he really rise from the dead? Is he really talked about in the old testament? Does it even matter if he really did all those things written of him in the Bible? Would it even matter if those stories about him were made up or somewhat romanticized? Does it matter?

Why do you need to trust the Bible?

I need to trust Jesus. I can trust Jesus without the Bible. Can you? If not, why not?

The Bible tells me who Jesus is. If I can't trust that can I just decide who Jesus is in my own mind?

The Bible isn't the only source of who Jesus is. The Corinthians knew who Jesus is, but never met Jesus nor had the Bible. The Ephesians knew who Jesus is, but never met Jesus nor had the Bible. The Romans knew who Jesus is, but never met Jesus nor had the Bible. They knew who Jesus is because 1) people's testimonies of Jesus; and 2) the "helper" Jesus said He would send after He left (the Holy Spirit). Jesus didn't say he would send a book.

The idea that one can't know who Jesus is without the Bible makes the Bible more important than Jesus. Of course one can know who Jesus is without the Bible. In fact, the Bible only limits what you can know about Him. He's more than what can be contained in a book.

Paul taught the Corinthians, Ephesians and Romans and wrote letters to them to be used for teaching and testimony about Jesus. He claimed to have direct revelation from Jesus himself. We also know of Jesus through Paul's letters. We didn't hear him speak in person. If a man came to a church and claimed to have direct revelation from Jesus himself, I wonder how he would be accepted and believed. Instead, we have the Bible, which is indirectly the same as the people in those churches you mentioned.

I never said the Bible is more important than Jesus, but it should be reliable. We don't have Peter or John or Paul to teach and testify about Jesus. We have the Bible.

We have the Holy Spirit. That's what Jesus said would be our helper. And Paul did what all of us are supposed to do with our personal relationship with Jesus... testify about it to the ends of the earth.

The idea that we needed a book, that is holy, God breathed and inerrant didn't come from Jesus. He said we would receive a helper as we testify to the ends of the earth. That's it. Nothing more. No book.

The Bible is a collection of some of the testimonies. And don't get me wrong, testimonies are great. And the testimonies that were selected to be the Bible are fantastic ones. But that's all they are... testimonies. They're no different than your testimony or Billy Graham's testimony. Granted, some people are more eloquent communicators than other, but that doesn't make their words holy, God breathed and inerrant.

I'm not sure I'm willing to go this far. I think the reliability of the bible to communicate the gospel message is of paramount importance to Christianity, and placing scripture on a level with any other good book written by any other good Christian doesn't particularly jive with either what the bible says about itself or what Christians have historically believed. Inerrancy and reliability are two different conversations, imo.

 

[The Commish]

IMO, the two work together (THS and the Bible)...one without the other is tough either direction you go. That's by design.