Physics, Metaphysics, & Apologetics

How shall we rightly divide the word of God on any particular topic?
wackzingo
Posts: 170
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 12:23 am
Contact:

Post by wackzingo »

Rob,

First, although I see how your type of writing makes more sense in the context of that last post, I have discovered a few things about debate.

First: You must define the terms which you are debating and must all agree on a source of truth, whether it be science or the bible. No true and proven science has contradicted the bible. This is why I first asked if you believe in the bible as the true word of God. If you did not than there was no point in us discussing anything because if I would have quoted scripture than it would mean nothing. For example, in the debate you linked to above much of the problem was because you and the other had different definitions of "Information".

Second: Until a person believes the word of God true, there isn't really any point in explaining anything to them. Even atheist can benefit from hearing Romans 1.

Thanks again for sticking around and discussing this stuff, I can sometimes come across as rude because I am very blunt.

Zach[/list][/list]
Guest

Post by Guest »

Yes your blunt, but I was being prideful. I'm pretty blunt myself as you probably noticed in the debate. Your point is well taken. if they are not willing to consider that the Bible is true, if not believe it outright, then it is rather pointless to argue. Even Jesus said somewhere not to resist the evil (I think).

There is a lot of paranoia in people over the idea of Christian nationalism. Here is a post I just left in that other forum. If you have time, I would love your comments. Is there something you would have said that I did not, and why...


It is probably time for me to make a comment that is not simply designed to unveil a lack of 'reason' in others, but actually state an opinion of my own. Hope I haven't ruffled to many feathers along the way. I actually respect the level of intelligence I have witnessed in this forum and especially the members with which I have had exchanges. I hope they've seen that Christians cannot be 'stereotyped' as stupid marching soldiers.
As to the Christian Nationalists, it's pretty simple though misunderstood because the clash of good and evil makes for a convoluted mess. We must think very carefully.

2 Corinthians 10: 3-6
3 For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. 4 The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. 5 We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. 6 And we will be ready to punish every act of disobedience, once your obedience is complete.

We must read that very carefully, because at the end Paul says 'once your obedience is complete', that 'then' the church will punish disobedience. So as a Christian, it is 'I' who am held to a higher standard.

It is not the Christians job to punish the world when the world does not understand as a presupposition. Jesus came to make the blind see, not to punish the ignorant. He wants us to understand and see, not wallow in abstractions. We can't find our way through the maze, but He knows the way for He is the way.

There are different kinds of 'Christians'. All of them (myself included) claim to be 'Christians. A 'charlatan' should not be hard to recognize, but if the faith is 'presupposed' to be false, then all of the differing churches will simply be more evidence to the biased that the faith is false.

It is my understanding that no real Christian seeks to set up a Theocracy. A Christian should believe that Jesus Himself will set up a theocracy, but that has a completely different connotation to it because God is just, and we are not. To make matters worse, before that happens, a man 'claiming to be God' will show up to solve all the worlds problems. So the 'who's who' question is one that needs to be understood with clarity. Appearances are very deceiving and test us to the bone. (I know some of this Bible prophecy stuff is ridiculous to some of you, so remember I'm stating my opinion). I think we must be very careful if we truly seek to understand. It was Winston Churchill who said, "The truth is the most valuable possession in the world. It is so valuable, that often it is protected by a bodyguard of lies."

Christianity is not an imposition. If it were, God would have created a perfect world to begin with in the sense that we would not have had the choice to sin. Of course we would not be alive in the sense we hold dear, but we would be nice little robots all living in harmony. In that sense God would be a 'Fascistic Utopianist'. To ad further perspective, if there is no 'Hell', then God would also be a fascist. He does not force His will upon us, but I contend that it is His will that is the reality we all seek but misunderstand. To have it, means we must give over control of our deteriorated thinking to Him. We are fallen creatures living in a fallen world.

When you see paramilitary groups who are unabashedly racist and promote stoning as a means of saving the world, just keep in mind that the only thing capable of saving the world, is the thing that can ultimately change the laws of physics, such as the 2nd law of thermodynamics (the future looks bleak). It can also change men so that they stop fearing other men, and instead that 'thing' shows them a mirror to see that they are responsible for their own actions. We like to point fingers at this group or that, but 'man' (as in you and me) is the problem, not 'this man' or 'that man'.

The Ten Commandments puts us all on an even playing field because in light of it, 'we are all' guilty of much evil.

I am not pretending that this is all simpler than it is. The reality we live in is not the reality that should be (on that I think all of us would agree) but which man can say what reality 'should be'??? I submit that only a 'perfect man' has that right. I think you all appreciate that implication and where I am leading with that thought.

These are not word games for me. Words are the most powerful things we possess and we should use them with a respect for their ability to send shock waves of ideas into the sea of mankind.

We need to stop propping ourselves up, by pointing fingers at people who are 'more corrupt' than we are. We are more than corrupt enough ourselves. Shall we judge righteousness by using evil as 'the standard'?

I think the Devil Himself, that twisted multiheaded serpent, would like nothing less than to be the standard we live by.

Jesus is the standard. He showed the way through the maze. But there are a lot of traps along the way, so those who don't really have Him in their hearts, will fall into the pits and never get out. We should be sure that we have Him if we begin to invoke His name.

I have fallen into plenty of pits myself, but I didn't get out because I'm smarter than everyone else. I got out because I had just barely enough humility to take His hand. What amazes me still, is that His hand was extended to me all along, and still is.

I've been wrong many times because I myself have been corrupted by this world. It's when I am weak enough remember to 'turn around' (repent) that I am at my strongest but by His strength, not my own.

Hope it was on topic enough for Y'all, Rob
jimbaum
Site Admin
Posts: 298
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 6:07 pm
Location: Port Orchard, WA, USA
Contact:

Split from Unity vs. Separation

Post by jimbaum »

This topics was split from another: Split from Unity vs. Separation
kevin morris
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2006 3:52 pm

Post by kevin morris »

Hey Rob. I am new here so bear with me.
I would like to comment on the mars hill thing. It is a common intrepretation that Paul was unsucessful on mars hill in Athens. In fact, I heard a sermon which took Courson's idea to an even more fallacious conclusion by saying that Paul resolved to only preach Christ and Him crucified to the Corinthians because of his failure at Athens.
The passages records for us the events. Acts17:32-34 Tells us that some mocked, others said "We will hear thee again on this matter", and in v.34 it reads that certain men clave unto him and believed. To intrepret that as a failure or as minimal success is to minimize the salvation of any individual. Just because Courson's teaching is popular, though I doubt that it even originated with him, does not make it true. Maybe this is exactly what God wanted to do to reach the one's who joined Paul that day. Maybe some of the others who wanted to hear him another day actually came to believe sometime later. Oh, and while we are speculating, and this is what passes for much of the commentaries of modern time (speculation that is), maybe those who were mocking actually got saved at some point too. That was my own experience. It seems that bible teachers of larger congregations focus on big results to preaching. This certainly would validate their position, as well as the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses.
I would be prayerful about which direction you would go in studing logic, philosophy, and rheteric. I have read some things as actual college level studies and the results were not what I had expected. I have begun to realize how much bad logic, bad philosophy and rheteric there is in a given bible study or ministry.

God bless. Kevin
wackzingo
Posts: 170
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 12:23 am
Contact:

Post by wackzingo »

Kevin,

Thanks for jumping in, its nice to have other around here sharing their view. I am in no way minimizing the salvation of any individual. This is a case of common sense though. For example, I have always used unleaded gas in my car which is a long time, but if I put coffee in there tomorrow and the car stopped working and I went back to using gas and it started working again, would I be minimizing the coffee? Wouldn't it be safe to say that coffee doesn't work?

Of course, if you look at the greatest evangelists of all time, and look at their most successful messages, you will see that it was always when they preached Jesus Christ and Him crucified and nothing else. You cannot go wrong when preaching just the Gospel. However when you begin to teach other things by themselves or along side the gospel, you are leaving scripture and therefore you are in a dangerous place of preaching a different gospel. Some of the great evangelists were, Charles finney, john wesley and Charles spurgeon.


Zach
kevin morris
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2006 3:52 pm

Post by kevin morris »

Hey Zach:
I understand your concern for the clarity of the gospel. It is also the concern of mine. Your analogy of coffee vs. gasoline does not fit the truth I was conveying. Paul used something out of their culture as a segway to give them the gospel. What did those who joined Paul believe? The gospel no doubt.
I don't think this passage should be used to either support or deny any style of evangelism. It was a spontaneous event in which the Holy Spirit was involved because, whatever theological position you have, God is involved in salvation to some degree, and some people got saved. As for the usage of this passage to support studies in formal logic, scientific arguments and the like, I don't like it. It seems that we are overly concerned with different ways to evangelize to the exclusion or perversion of the gospel. By studying effective ways to reach others, sometimes we figure out how to do it without the Holy Spirit. Not that it can be done without the Holy Spirit, it is just that we are going through the motions of validating Christianity to an unbelieving world without the power of God behind it.
As for my comments on Jon Courson, I do not disagree with his statement about Christ. I simply disagree that we should measure the success of Paul's preaching in this case as compared to other times. Can we measure success by numbers? Should we compare what God did in one group of people to another group? The bible is silent to any question of "success" and I believe I should be silent to.

Thanks Zach I appreciate your response!
wackzingo
Posts: 170
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 12:23 am
Contact:

Post by wackzingo »

Kevin, I agree with most of what you have to say. But I and many others could be wrong, but my point of coffee vs. gasoline example was to say if something has been working and all of a sudden something changes and it no longer works than maybe you shouldn't have changed anything.

It's not about numbers, I mean just look at the Ezekiel, 40 years of preaching and no converts. I believe strongly that it would be playing the numbers game and minimizing the importance of any who got saved if he had preached the same message in all location but we said he was unsuccessful because only a few came to believe.

However this is a different case, many came to believe no matter where he went when he preached Jesus Christ and Him crucified but when he reasoned with them from their own gods only a few if any believed. I believe as is the case with many churches today, this is an example of God using Paul's preaching in spite of Paul's ignorance. Paul wrote something 1 Corinthians 2 that supports this view:

"1And *I*, when I came to you, brethren, came not in excellency of word, or wisdom, announcing to you the testimony of God. 2For I did not judge it well to know anything among you save Jesus Christ, and *him* crucified. 3And *I* was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling; 4and my word and my preaching, not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power; 5that your faith might not stand in men's wisdom, but in God's power.
6But we speak wisdom among the perfect; but wisdom not of this world, nor of the rulers of this world, who come to nought. "
(Darby)

I believe that it is only in our weakness and inability to preach anything but Jesus Christ and Him crucified that people see the power of the Gospel by the foolishness of what is preached. The power of God to save men is not in the ability to use human wisdom or cultural fads but in pure simple Gospel. The Gospel is the power of God for salvation. I'm not against using modern things to present the Gospel, (I'm known for my love of technology) but the problem is very few people who use other ways to share the Gospel do just that, they use a different way to share the Gospel which in the end its so watered down that there is really no Gospel.

I believe that trying to share the Gospel and learning about their culture to better understand and love the people is different from believing that unless you know about their culture and beliefs you cannot share the Gospel. One puts cultural fads first and the other puts the Gospel first.
Locked