One of the ones that has come up recently is the teaching of the denomination (Assemblies of God) I was raised in about the Holy Spirit and Tongues. In a nutshell, the AG believes that there is no baptism in the Holy Spirit without tongues. I was always uncomfortable with this growing up, but never thought to question it until last summer, at a youth camp I was at. Anyway, I mulled it over in my head for a while, but didn’t really know what to do. Oh, and if you couldn’t tell, I haven’t and probably won’t ever speak in tongues. When I got to seminary, I was just started discussing these things with my friends at school, and we just kind of talked it out. Nothing really major happened.
If I did go to my youth pastor or someone else like that, they wouldn’t turn me away, that’s for sure. They would sit down with me and help me to come to a conclusion.
See my previous reply
I use the TNIV most of the time. I do refer to other versions as needed.
On the music question, it depends on what you are refering to. If you are talking about the stuff played on stations like K-Love, some of it is ok, but I prefer artists like Shawn McDonald, Todd Agnew, especially his new album (Listen to My Jesus sometime and tell me what you think), Shane & Shane, David Crowder, Chris Tomlin, guys like that.
I think your belief in God and Jesus Christ and all that is genuine, but you haven’t completely relinquished control to God and come to a saving faith in Jesus Christ. In my understanding, when someone comes to a saving faith in Jesus Christ, there is a renewal and a regeneration that takes place. This is part of the role of the Holy Spirit. Another part of that role is to convict you of sins in your life. And as I stated above, being gay, in my view, is a sin, no different from any other form of sexual immorality. If you ignore those convictions, then, while you may believe in God, you do not have the saving faith that is needed to be saved.
Same as above. There are plenty of people out there who live completely Christian lives, but totally reject any ideas of God and Christ.
I held most of these beliefs when I entered Seminary, but had never really had cause to think about them much. Now that I am in Seminary, I have a greater understanding of what I believe, and have also changed some positions.
I don’t see why not. I don’t think that matters of faith preclude a rational debate on them. Now, there might be some differences of opinion on interpretations of different things, but that is to be expected, and is the reason for debate. For example, if you do a little research on some of the reformers, notable Calvin and Luther, you will find that they were well schooled in debate techniques and reasoning. I see no reason to not continue in the spirit of their traditions.
Differing interpretations of the Bible can lead to one kind of rational debate. But if the participants don’t first agree on the Bible being God’s word or even on God’s existence, then that is a very different rational debate. How would you like to frame the debate from here on out?
Lets see what happens, and let that frame the debate. If you disagree with something I’ve said or would like clarification on something, then by all means, ask me about it, or state your view on things and ask me to respond. I will do my best to respond rationally, without resorting to “its a matter of faith.” That being said, there are some things where it is fundamentally a matter of faith, such as the belief that God even exists. If questions like that arise, I will give my reasons for believing whatever it is that is being questioned. Sound good to you?
Augustine provides a very long explication of the theological truths that he perceives in the Book of Genesis (particularly in the two separate creation accounts), then interrupts his theological discourse to point out that it is foolish to insist that the theology is based on physical facts–which were not the purpose of the stories presented.
Some will dismiss this as meaning the stories are merely allegories, but many Christian groups accept them as (the anthropological definition of) Myth, i.e., a story recounted by a people to explain a truth that they believe. In this case, the stories explain that God is the Author of all, that what He created was good and that He bestowed order on all He created, that He has bestowed free will on humanity, which humans have abused to their own sorrow. These truths are irrelevant to the medium in which they are presented, so that there is no need to believe that the Earth sits above a great body of water and that the heavens are merely a ceiling holding back another great body of water (both of which must be accepted if one accepts a literal reading of Genesis), or that God created specific parts of creation on specific days (or reversed Himself mid-project and created man before the animals he had already created).
Do you consider the question of whether the Bible is an accurate portrayal of God’s word also to be a matter of faith? At what point can rational debate begin?
Ok. And I would agree completely with that statement. I think you also bring up another point indirectly, how literally to take the Bible. I have addressed this somewhat obliquely, but I think it is useful to restate my position.
While I do believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, it was written by humans, who were a part of their culture when they wrote it. What does this mean for us trying to interpret the bible today? It means we have to be aware of the culture of the author and how that would influence them when they were writing. I do believe that parts of the Bible are very symbolic, and are easily subject to being taken entirely too literally.
Does this deny the idea that the Bible is the inspired Word of God? I don’t think so . Jesus was more than willing to use symbolic stories to teach and preach to his audience. Do we know exactly what is supposed to be symbolic and what is supposed to be literal? No, because we are reading the Bible through the lens of time and our own culture. Some parts are rather obvious, such as in Daniel or Revelation, but other parts are not so obvious. I must exercise caution and practice good hermenuetics when I am preaching and teaching the people I am going to be leading.
That the Bible is the inspired Word of God is a fundamental assumption, at least in my opinion, to being a Christian. Otherwise, what is the point? If you mean a rational debate based on objective facts, I don’t think that is going to get very far, because as far as I know, we have no record of what the authors of the books in the Bible experienced as they were writing them. And even then, there would be room for debate about the nature of their experience. However, I do think that we can at least have a discussion about the reasons we each have for believing the way we do, with the assumption that we will probably end up agreeing to disagree and going on our way.
I’m glad to see that you don’t worship the text rather than God, as so many fundamentalists appear to do. I suppose my first question has to be - would you describe yourself as a fundamentalist? If not, is that because of the negative connotations that “fundamentalist” has today, or because your beliefs are more liberal than those of the typical fundamentalist? The fact that you’re prepared to compromise on a literal reading of Genesis, and aren’t committed to a 6000-year-old Earth and a seven-day Creation, might lead me to suspect the latter.
I would, however - as others have, and others will - take issue with your views on homosexuality. This is something you’ll be called on to defend, so practicing your defence here might not be that bad an idea.
Would you say your views are based mainly on the Bible, or mainly on your opinion of “natural law”, or some other general principle?
If the former:
If your primary source is Leviticus 18:22, what is your justification for not following the other Levitical laws, on diet, clothing, rituals and sacrifice, and slavery? Bear Leviticus 18:3, and the various other uses of the word “abomination” in the Old Testament, in mind when considering your answer - are the laws on sexual morality merely intended to distinguish the Israelites from the Caananites and the Egyptians, especially on matters of religious ritual and practice, or do they have universal applicability? If you hold that they’re universally applicable, what justification do you have for this viewpoint?
If your primary source is 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, how do you translate and interpret the word “αρσενοκοιται”? Do you regard those of us who enjoy the occasional beer, or who occasionally make uncomplimentary remarks about others ("… nor drunkards, nor revilers…") to be as irredeemably sinful as homosexuals are? If not, why not?
If your primary source is Genesis 19 (Sodom and Gomorrah), how do you interpret Ezekiel 16:49? Do you consider Lot’s behaviour to be moral?
If the latter, is homosexuality wrong because it’s natural or unnatural? To what extent are our natural desires correlated with morality?
I apologise if this is too agressive a collection of questions, but it is an issue on which I have strong views. I’m sure, from what you’ve said here, that you have many gifts that you can bring to the ministry, and I hope that you continue to follow both your calling and your reason to serve God in the best way that you can.
I wouldn’t describe myself as a fundamentalist, for both reasons. When people hear the word ‘fundamentalist’ they automatically think ‘wacko’ and associate you with people like Pat Robertson. Also, because I fundamentally (ha!) disagree with the way fundamentalists tend to approach the world. I think there are a lot of gray areas, especially on issues where the Bible is not specific, such as drinking alcohol.
Mainly on the Bible.
If we look at the law as given to the Hebrews, the original purpose was to not only set them apart from the surrounding lands, but guide the people in the surrounding land into a relationship with God. The Israelites were to be an example of how to live a holy and pleasing life to God. The Israelites, being the imperfect humans they are, messed things up and not only fell away from God, but eventually came to pervert the original intention of the Law.
That being said, there are 3 different categories of law that were given in the Torah. These are the civil law, moral law, and religious law. Now, the civil law was intended to be used in a society that was a theocracy, which our society is distinctly not. Therefore, the civil law is no longer truly applicable, even in Israel. Does it still contain some good principles? Yeah, but we are not going to be punished for not following them. The religious law is what was fulfilled in Christ. No longer do we need to perform the sacrifices or the purification rituals to be cleansed from our sins and righteous before God. The moral law is just that, a guide for how to live a moral, holy and right life before God. Having said that, we need to apply the various laws in light of our culture today. THis is different from interpreting their meaning. Some of the laws, such as the one in question, are quite clear in how they should be applied today. Some, are not clear at all, as they refer to specific situations that would only occur in that culture. They still have an application today, but they are not directly applicable without some understanding of the meaning of the law.
I haven’t taken the time to do the word study for αρσενοκοιται, but I will definitely do that when I have some time and get back to you. As for your comment at the end, I too, enjoy the occasional beer. And if by uncomplimentary remarks you mean giving some one a hard time, yeah, I’m guilty of that too. I think it is a degree of moderation that is needed with things like that. Like I tell my students, words have power, and if we don’t realize that, we can really damage someone emotionally. As for alcohol, the Bible never outlaws drinking alcohol, but does condemn drinking in excess. This is an example of the difference between a particular and a general sin. For some people, drinking is a sin, because they cannot control it and are drunk all the time. For others, it is not, because they are able to drink in moderation. This is as compared to murder or sexual immorality, which are sins for everyone.
I think Lot’s actions in this situation are totally immoral. In light of the Ezekiel passage, you have to also include 16:50, because it finishes the statement and thought. If you include that, it is obvious that the Sodomites were doing things that were detestable to God. Now, we don’t know exactly what all this included, but I think it is safe to say, in light of what we see in Genesis, that these included homosexual acts. This would imply that homosexual acts are detestable to God and therefore a sin, correct?
I appreciate the questions and the encouragement. Thank you.
In my experience, it is very difficult to have a genuine meeting of the minds between Christians and polytheists (for example, Hindus and Neo-Pagans). Assuming that Christians are secure in their beliefs, why do you think it is so difficult to treat these other religions on an equal footing? Is it because they are newer (in the case of Neo-P), smaller, less centralized, less text-based, wrong in the terms of Christianity, or something else?
I ask because most Christians, once they get beyond the idea that paganism / Hinduism / what have you = idolatry and / or Satanism, seem to be okay with polytheism (intellectually if not spiritually) only if they assume that the different gods are really aspects of one Supreme Being.* People can’t seem to accept the concept of genuinely separate gods. This makes it a little harder to have genuine discussions about religion or spirituality.
I know that for a lot of Hindus and Neo-Pagans this is how they understand their gods, but not for everyone.
I think it is difficult to treat them on an equal footing because they tend to be post-modern, if you will, in their ideas. I don’t know all that much about Buddhist beliefs, but i get the impression that it is a ‘whatever works’ thing. They are not so adamant about ‘this is the way to be a buddhist’ as Christians tend to be. It would probably be easy to have a dialogue between, say, myself and a buddhist. But what happens when I encounter another Buddhist? Are their beliefs the same about their religion?
And, I would bet that, depending on the Christian apologist, there is a lack of an open mind to truly discuss beliefs, rather than just saying “here is what I believe and why you’re wrong.” I think if that truly happened, we would find out that we have a lot more in common than we think we do.
I also think that religions such as Buddhism are not one of many ways to reach God and heaven. Jesus said, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6a) While they may contain elements of the truth, as it has been said, the best lies contain a bit of the truth.
I was fascinated by a recent Fresh Air interview of Marc Zvi Brettler. If you have the time (30 min.) to listen to it, I’d be interested in hearing your comments.
In the meantime, could you expand your answer to Tevildo regarding Leviticus. How does one identify which laws fit into which category? It sounds as if you are making a case for picking and choosing which laws one should follow. Is masturbation a sin and in the same category as homosexuality?
Thank you for being open to questions and for your reasoned responses. I’ve also appreciated the comments and questions of others who posted.
I’ve been studying Christian history, just out of interest, and I’m sorry to say that I’m still pretty muddled. I am not a Christian.
I appreciate that you’re not literally reading the bible because that’s more interested in me. I’m particularly interested in the place of the OT vs. the NT, which you discussed in the much longer post that I took the second quote from. I can’t believe that someone asked the sacrifice question because that’s one that has bugged me. I think that the OT is fascinating because of how much it tells us about its original audience. As you mentioned, parts of the OT had a good social purpose. For instance, the food restrictions made sense before refrigeration. But what was the purpose of the sacrifices? You had to sacrifice doves, oxen and other animals for various reasons. I’ve always wondered whether that was partly to feed the priests, because a lot of the rules seem to benefit the priests. Also, was it God who laid down those laws to protect his flock or did men make the safety-type laws?
A more general question: In reading Christian history, there were many places where Christians split into different groups, sometimes over doctrine and other times over politics. It seems to me that much of the currect Christian thought doesn’t come from the bible, but instead was formed over time, as a result of disputes between humans (some of them deeply flawed), after blood was spilled. How do we know that the correct view won out? What if a better early NT draft perished in Alexandria or Constantinople?
Bad people. We have had posters who would (if able) post something inflammatory, then change it after it had received nasty reponses to make it appear as though they had been innocently attacked. To forestall that scenario, we have locked “edit” and strongly urge everyone to use “preview.” (Further discussion on this point, if anyone is interested, should be taken to the About This Message Board Forum.)
Strictly speaking, we cannot prove the corerect view “won,” but it is the general belief of most Christian traditions that the Holy Spirit guided the decisions of the Councils.
As to “the bible,” there is a difference of opinion, (roughly delineated between the Catholics and Orthodox on one side and the Protestants on the other (with some shadings of interpretation extending into each “side”) regarding the origin and purpose of Scripture. The Orthodox/Catholic view tends to be that Scripture originated within the Church (or the Jewish Community prior to the introduction of Christianity), with the Holy Spirit inspiring many people to write of God’s message and then guiding the people of God to select from numerous written works those which best explained God’s message and relationship with His people. The Protestant view tends to be that God inspired specific authors to write specific books that are Scripture and that those books include everything that God wants people to know about Him. The Catholic/Orthodox position is expressed in shorthand as God’ message is transmitted through Scripture and Tradition while the Protestant tradition is expressed in shorthand as Sola Scriptura (only Scripture).
