Evangelical Support Group

This sounds a wee bit pompous, coming from an unorthodox self proclaimed critical thinker such as yourself! But I will, as you, let Jesus do the judging! The Bible speaks of two imaginations. (The Mind Of Christ and ones own vain imagination) An individual who knows about God (which includes everyone) has an awareness of Gods creative imagination. Romans 1:1-17 tells us as much. There is no excuse. God is evident.God in a personal, knowable manner is no quite as evident, and critics would accuse me of promoting exclusivity by saying so. That is why I never preach Hell. (and, by the way, you are preaching again! Darn you...lets keep this thread conversational!) Hell was never created for humans.You may accuse me of being soft on Jesus actual message and of thus doing my fellow humans a disservice by not warning them about Hell.I never have believed in attempting to threaten or scare someone into church, however. My philosophy is that "no man comes to God unless the Spirit draws them. I also believe that if they receive me they will receive the Spirit that sent me. The only thing left to do is determine what Spirit I am operating under at the given moment! And that is why we should take our beliefs seriously enough to humble ourselves and seek God in an honest way rather than a pious, religious way. My critics would say that by accepting the Bible as Gods revealed truth, I am being willfully ignorant and a wee bit puffed up! I will agree that out of 500 preachers on the airwaves of America at any given moment, perhaps as few as fifty of them teach me anything useful. Just because a guy is a preacher does not mean that they flow with the Holy Spirit! Often, even preachers employ the same vain imagination as the most ardent and willful unbelievers. That quote by Lewis is interesting, and gives one pause to think. I would respond, however, by saying that one thing that turns many critical thinkers and scientists off to organized religion and specifically our brand of Christianity is the very lack of thinking skills many of us exhibit! They would probably be willing to overlook the foolish theological beliefs that they claim we got through dogma and not through revelation IF they could otherwise trust and receive us as individuals.(otherwise sane, in other words! ) You are talking about Jesus, right? I keep forgetting that it is He who draws them rather than I. My Bad! And this is where you and I differ. I never try and "convince" scientific critical thinkers that if they only saw it my way they would understand! I stay away from science! This is all about Faith, and I do think you shoot yourself in the foot when you try and play in their ballpark!I personally agreed with Ned that your PNT was rambling and pointless! But thats only my opinion and has no bearing on your effectiveness as a Christian with potential revelation, here. As I have said before, I respect the way that scientists think! Ken Ham and his bunch of creation scientists are nothing but a bunch of posers! But perhaps I should not criticize other "believers, right? Am I killing my own with my arrogant big mouth? (Or is Jar right and they are a bunch of con-men? After all, ya gotta admit that many so-called preachers are!! ) I can't disagree with you there! I am not gonna preach at EvC, however!If you really want to reach those whom you believe need reaching here, you will have to build relationships with them, get to know how and why they think the way that they do, and stop calling them "the enemy"! In other words, I agree with what you just told me!

Even among my friends who are quite fundamental in their beliefs, we all realize the difference, at least in our own minds and hearts, between good preachers and bad preachers in the media.Most of the T.B.N. preachers are in it for the business. They have praise-a-thons where they tag team, pleading for money all day long! They are what many of their critics refer to as prosperity preachers. Joel Olsteen is the newest of these types of preachers, and while my friend likes Joel and feels that his message is relevant and that Joel is honest, I personally am never ministered to from Joel, although I do not yet think he is a conman. I personally prefer many of the preachers that can be found at Oneplace.com. Among the ones whom I respect are Charles Stanley, Dr. Michael Youssef, Chip Ingram, John Piper, Pastor Ed Taylor, John MacArthur, and the late Dr. J. Vernon McGee.Pastor Ed Taylor is local here in Denver, Colorado. He is a staunch example of a common sense Biblical literalist teacher. Listen to one of his sermons here. To be fair, Jar and I have discussed/debated the differences in our respective theologies. Jar directed me to some of the Bishops in the Anglican Communion. For the differences between these theological religious viewpoints, lets examine some conservative viewpoints versus some liberal viewpoints:
First, here are some conservative quotes and sound-bites (which I feel comfortable with, BTW)

Dr.J. Vernon McGee (who has long since died but whose Thru The Bible series is still broadcast around the world.) He is quite conservative. One example of his articles can be found here.

Pastor Raul Ries--

quote:

---

Christ was the perfect sacrifice. He was sinless, so He was able to qualify for God’s requirement of a perfect offering. Yet, He took on our sins so that when we put our faith in Jesus, His righteousness is imputed to us. It’s like we are swapping places. The Lord takes our sins, and we take His righteousness of Jesus Christ.

---

​

Steve Brown--Does God Love Pharisees? audio message of questions and answers found here.

​

Contrast those guys with some of the more liberal Christians.(Who, by the way do not necessarily agree with the Belief Statement in this support group.)

​

Bishop John Shelby Spong--

quote:

---

...as Christianity becomes more traditional and fundamentalist, it becomes less and less appealing to thinking people who then see human secularism as their only option. My point was that both biblical literalism and secular humanism are, in my mind, dead end streets in the sense that neither offers a way into a meaningful religious future.

​

I believe that once we break open both our ideas about God and our understandings of who Christ is and free them from the religious molds that have captured them in Christian history; we can still present both God and Christ in such a way as to attract the secular humanists into a realistic Christian future.

​

Don Cupitt has been a close friend and even a mentor to me for many years now. He says that all God talk is conducted in a language that human beings have created and therefore all God talk is a human creation. With that I am in full agreement. He then concludes that God is, therefore, only the creation of human language and that there is no reality to which that language points.

​

With that conclusion I totally disagree. While I am certain that the word "God" is a human attempt, in admittedly human language, to describe a human experience, I affirm that the experience is real. We call the God experience "otherness," "transcendence," or even "the holy." We recognize that this reality is not capable of being defined, but that inability does not make this experience unreal.

​

I will not claim for my language or the language of the Bible, creeds or doctrines any sense of ultimacy, inerrancy or infallibility. I do believe, however, those words point to a reality that is transforming and consciousness-raising and that this reality invites me into having the courage to be more than I have been before.

​

So I stand before this undefined presence that I call God, in awe and wonder. God is real to me. I create my definitions of God, but I do not create the God experience. So I am theologically a "Realist" not a "non-Realist."

---

​

I used to think that Spong had to be of the devil, since he dared to say things that shook my theological assumptions to the core! I still disagree with much of what Spong says, although I respect the man as a thinking man at the very least! To Wit:

Spong writes:

​

1. Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. So most theological God-talk is today meaningless. A new way to speak of God must be found.

Phat writes:

​

I disagree with this. I believe that God wants to relate to humanity and that He is quite able to do so in our hearts, minds, and souls.

2. Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So the Christology of the ages is bankrupt.

Phat writes:

​

I disagree with this, as I believe that Christ is alive in many of His followers.

3. The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense.

Phat writes:

​

I have no problem with evolution nor do I believe that it is but a theory. While I believe that there may be a literal Spiritual War on the planet in the hearts and minds of men, I would venture to say that one would see more evidence of this war in the churches themselves rather than in the science classrooms.

4. The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes Christ's divinity, as traditionally understood, impossible.

Phat writes:

​

I believe in the supernatural, so I disagree with Spong here.

5. The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity.

Phat writes:

​

I think that Spong is bowing to human wisdom and common sense and that he won't allow himself to believe irrational things. IF he were right, it would shake the foundations of literal Biblical Christianity. We would no longer have a supernatural rescuer God. We would have a God whom would expect us to attempt to think for ourselves and that the world would get better on its own rather than be heading for a calamity.

6. The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.

Phat writes:

​

I disagree.

7. Resurrection is an action of God. Jesus was raised into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.
8. The story of the Ascension assumed a three-tiered universe and is therefore not capable of being translated into the concepts of a post-Copernican space age.
9. There is no external, objective, revealed standard writ in scripture or on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behavior for all time.

Phat writes:

​

I totally disagree. There is most definitely a living, active Holy Spirit that is objective, revealing, and interactive with humanity.

10. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way.
11. The hope for life after death must be separated forever from the behavior control mentality of reward and punishment. The Church must abandon, therefore, its reliance on guilt as a motivator of behavior.
12. All human beings bear God's image and must be respected for what each person is. Therefore, no external description of one's being, whether based on race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation, can properly be used as the basis for either rejection or discrimination.

Phat writes:

​

I actually agree with Spong on this point.

Now that I have established much of what I wanted to originally say, I am opening this topic to everyone on the board to critique and examine.Let the arguments begin!

---

Convictions are very different from intentions. Convictions are something God gives us that we have to do. Intentions are things that we ought to do, but we never follow through with them.
* * * * * * * * * *
“The world has achieved brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.”
--General Omar Bradley

Ya got me! Just for the sake of topic clarity, the Apostles Creed is found here. You have a sharp eye for details!

The traditional fundamentalist argument is based on Romans: Critics will usually refute this by citing Paul's theology as being quite different from the Gospels. Jesus never seemingly assumed that everyone automatically knew or understood who His Father was. He did say that but obviously not everyone has "seen" Jesus.My personal philosophy hinges on the scripture saying that if they (meaning people whom I talk with) receive me, they will receive the One who sent me. This, however, is a wee bit arrogant if I assume myself to be some sort of prophet who is always walking in Gods will! When the Lord appointed 72 helpers to spread the word, (Luke 10:1)He said to them: We could assume that every human on the planet has an innate awareness of God, allowing them to freely decide to accept or reject a worker of God who talks with them. I suppose the question would then be if any of these workers are around today? Much of organized Christian religion is a turn-off to people due to the incessant requests for money.Edited by Phat, : changed subtopic title

Thanks for keeping an eye out, Percy! I changed my mind and opened the topic at Post#37. I still want everyone to understand that this support group is based on the Belief Statement in message 14, but I was happy to let Nator correct me in regards to defining logic.Belief is not always logical if it ignores rationality, but I am leaning towards presuppositionalism anyway, so I am allowed to be irrational!

I really didn't want to question the Belief Statement, but I suppose that I owe you some sort of a debate since I opened up the topic!Fully inspired means that the Holy Spirit is the agent which brings the scriptural meanings alive.
I googled a few sources to find what the conservative fundamentalists mean, and found this: Personally, I don't believe that the Bible is word for word inspired, but I DO believe that the book is thoughtfully inspired and is a result of human authors having spiritual inspiration to write what they wrote in the context of the times that they were in having been inspired by God. (either directly or through others)What does "without error" mean?Here is what I found concerning that: Personally, I agree with truthlover in message 18 when he says that people should be led by the Spirit and not by the wording of the scripture itself..What does "the infallible rule of faith and practice" mean? Here you go making me think again! I want the belief statement to stand as an assumption for the purpose of this thread. I suppose that what that means to me is to do my best and to have a daily communion with God. While it certainly won't make me infallible, it may well allow what I say to have the unction of the Holy Spirit behind it so that I don't sound stupid or arrogant!BTW what did you think of my rebuttals to Spongs assertions? message 36 Edited by Phat, : correction

You have to get off this trip of consistently using these catch-phrases that you use. Have you ever had a personal encounter with God? Are you saying that because you have or have not, I must fall into your paradigm and world view for how things are? None of us have experienced the same things in our lives.This is what annoys me about your assertions concerning my beliefs. I have seen and experienced things that you have not. Just as God is not contained in the box that the fundamentalists have built for Him, my reality is not limited to observation and replication. I did not create a little godlet in my mind based on dogma that I was taught. I actually had experiences and witnessed events that helped form the belief paradigm that I currently have.You often label much of it as silly or inane. That is your opinion and your right. You might note, however, that the possibility of a supernatural "war" of sorts may well blind your conscience and rationality to the status quo. Things are not always as they seem. Why? Because I did not agree with him? You have to understand that Spong, yourself, and other contemporary Christians have a world view and a belief system just as I do. As you yourself have said, there is a possibility that you may be wrong about it....just as there is that possibility that my belief system may be wrong. You have a valid point. To blindly accept dogma without questioning it is certainly allowed, and I would guess that God certainly foreknows that humans will always question. He gave us the ability to do so...so it is illogical to assume that He does not want us to question what we have been taught.A literalist always begins their world view with scripture and attempts to reconcile everything else through that lens. Most logical people will allow themselves to question the validity of the Bible and so end up having human wisdom and experience as the lens through which they view religion, God/human interaction, and life in general. Literalists, in contrast, staunchly and stubbornly stick with the Bible as the lens...perhaps because they see everything ever written as human philosophy and trust that this book is somehow a reliable and accurate source of wisdom.Is it willful ignorance to believe that the authors were inspired by God? Why must humans view their recent philosophies as so enlightened? Why must we scoff at the possibility that there is, indeed, a spiritual war going on...for what purpose as yet undetermined?It makes sense to question why God would ever create a freewill angel who would then fore knowingly fall from communion with the omnipotent source of truth.For the purposes of this topic, however, the belief statement stands as the map through which we explore a vast virgin spirituality within our collective minds.

Did it ever occur to you that your inclination to know everything may just be the very thing keeping you from knowing God?Knowing Jesus is knowing God. You yourself have said that it matters not if Jesus was actually a real person if the stories and lessons themselves were true. (Right?) The belief that God expects us to be all that we can be without need of Him is, in my opinion, a lie from the enemy.Edited by Phat, : clarification

I would be happy to see some links. I will honestly read what is written and offer up my beliefs in response to them. I will not accept the label of willful ignorance, however, because I do not think that you, Spong, Hawking, or anyone else has a better understanding of God than I do. Perhaps I am guilty of arrogance in this regard, however. Live and learn!

But without some sort of standard through which to relate to God, all we have is individual musings and opinions.Without a scripture to back up a belief, all we have is one more opinion.Without a belief in some explanation, all we are left with is endless questions and a search for One whom we already believe that we know!Oh well...at least I have an idea in my mind and heart who it is that I am praying to! And as has been pointed out, IF He exists, it matters not what we believe. Some points, however:

Has God made any attempts at communication and interaction with humanity? (Individually speaking, I say yes!) If so, will there ever be a consensus or should there be one? Can the sum conclusion of humanity even begin to describe a universal Creator?

​

One reason that I trust those conservative Bible scholars is because I have personally met a few and can see integrity within them.

​

A perfect answer is more appealing to me than an unresolved question.

​

Maybe my critics see that as part of my problem.

was that Cheap Trick, Nator?

I would actually consider this to be potentially true. The enemy has no power that we humans don't give him. While it is comfortable for me to believe in a spiritual war, (and Biblical) and while I have asked those of a more rational mind to consider the possibility that one actually exists, it is only fair in the name of mutual respect for me to consider the possibility that there really is no devil and that there really is no need to worship the word for word literalism of the Holy Bible. Of course not. What I am suggesting is that God foreknew that humans would never grow up so much that they outgrew their need of Him. I am because He Is. I have often thought similar to what you just said. Maybe God is not so concerned that people believe that the Bible is literal and true as He is that people have done the best that they can. (Jars philosophies have caused me to think, after all! The liberal Anglicans are surely not of the devil! ) I have learned that lesson already. I think that I have lumped the whole mindset of science into a category that I sub label as human wisdom and go out of my way not to blindly follow the obviousness of rational thought.Admittedly, it is scary to respect my fellow humans who do not believe in God as literally as I do.Rob reminds me that the enemy can use them to deceive me. My response to that is that if there actually is a literal supernatural spiritual war on the planet, this enemy is going to also use my own like-minded church against me. Bottom line: who can I trust? While the obvious answer is God, as He reveals Himself to me through the Holy Spirit I also need to take another Leap Of Faith and be unafraid to trust those of you who may even be atheists and unbelievers. That really throws a wrench in the devils schemes, doesn't it? A valid warning! See? You don't seem that devilish to me! No, but they very well could refer to the Holy Spirit speaking through human personalities. People did not need the book. What they needed and still need, IMB, is the Spirit and the personal character of God behind the book! Oh thats right...you seem to think that God is unknowable. Perhaps I am too quick to assume that I understand Him, but it could well be that you are too quick to continually question and test whether or not you actually believe in Him. Jesus told Pilate that He was truth. Apart from that standard, what standard do we use to test the lessons as to validity. Let me turn your question back on you....when you study something "spiritual" written by another human author, how do you know that you are studying the right map to the right territory? IMB, the reality of a personal relationship with God is not some hodgepodge mystical journey into esoteric questioning. I know that I am a spoiled child in regards to my relationship with God. Human kids are expected to grow up so as to not need their parents. I do not believe that we are expected to grow up and not need communion in a practical non ritualistic sense, however. Communion is more than some church ritual or symbol. Communion is the daily reality of conversation with God and prayer. IMB we all could partake in it a bit more often. I agree wholeheartedly. I am gonna have to look up those links that you referred to, and I do appreciate the input.

Not at all. I am only saying that unlike human children, I believe that God does not want us to be independent.

Well, if God could use a donkey to restrain the madness of the prophet, why could He not use an Episcopalian curmudgeon to restrain the madness of a fundie? I don't agree with all of jars beliefs, but I think it irrational to dismiss him as a tool of Satan.As for you, I think you are at your best when trying to understand Gods word. When you go off trying to be a philosopher and redefiner of accepted logic, you stray too far from the source, however.