RedNick261

Where does that belief come from?

That wasn't the question, though. It's not about social and economic responsibilities, it's about insurance and such things. You don't have a responsibility to insure yourself (except auto insurance in most US states and, I'm sure, elsewhere; or, in MA, health insurance). If you trust so much in God's sovereign plan and it's so specific (i.e. God exercises sovereign control over every aspect of life), what need is there for insurance? It the same thing as claiming that the rapture will happen before you die, but still purchasing a life insurance policy. It's asinine, at best.

The only ones who are forced to rationalize are the ones who make claims about God that even He doesn't make.

Ok . I think we're agreeing here . Aaah, classic Arminianism. I guess the question I would have to ask for clarity is this: how specific do you believe God's will is for your life? And, how much control does He, in fact, exercise over it?

FloatingAxe (and josh-13, if you are saying what it seemed that you were): If God has given us specific directions and wisdom through the Proverbs, the Gospels, Paul and the other epistles... why do we need to create it in places where it is not intended? Once again, it is not a safe decision to base doctrine (such as that "God has a wonderful plan for your life!" on out-of-context verses).

The verse doesn't say that the Word can somehow say something that it doesn't say, though. The original intention is still the intention, even 2,000, 3,500 or 5,000 years after it was written. Just because it is alive and active doesn't mean that it is maleable. You're right. I consider prayer a part of worship, some do not. I apologize for any confusion my statement may have caused. I do understand what you're talking about. You're saying that Jeremiah 29:11 (among other verses) can be pulled from their context to mean something "special" to you today. Basically, what you're saying is that God's Word is somehow able to be applied to one's own life in a way other than that it was originally intended. This is a false assertion and you WOULD be adding or changing God's Word, which is exactly what Revelation 22:18 speaks of. I have no qualms with what you've said above, however what you and the website are asserting is different in context. What makes you think (given a Biblical basis or otherwise) that God's word somehow changes to suit an individual person? I wouldn't argue if it were some command to love or something like that, but on a matter of doctrine, it is unsafe to form it based on a maleated misinterpretation of a verse out of context.

Have you read the site you linked? The instances and usage of "rhema" in the Greek text is not speaking of some special revelation given to somehow alter (or specify in a different context) Scripture, it's simply talking about God's spoken word. I should correct myself and say that the context in which you use "rhema" is extra-biblical. No it's not. Prove it. On point one, you're right. On point two, you're right. On point three, you're right, but not in the context that you use it. On point four, you're absolutely wrong. No, He meets us where we are through study and worship. He speaks to each one of us likewise. Taking Scripture out of context and trying to apply it somehow is dishonest and, honestly, dangerous, especially when one's entire theology is based upon it. Where? So, tell me. Does Revelation 22:18 mean anything to you?

Have you read the site you linked? The instances and usage of "rhema" in the Greek text is not speaking of some special revelation given to somehow alter (or specify in a different context) Scripture, it's simply talking about God's spoken word. I should correct myself and say that the context in which you use "rhema" is extra-biblical.

So you're saying that Scripture can say to one person what it doesn't, in fact, say? I don't intend to be hypercritical, as you say. I intend to correct error. Given your interpretation (which, unfortunately, is a widespread interpretation of this verse) of Jeremiah 29:11, I feel the need (led, if you will) to correct this flawed interpretation. What is God actually saying in Jeremiah 29:11? Let's look at the 5 w's and the h: Who: From God, through Jeremiah, to Israel What: A communication of God's desire for the nation of Israel through their time of turmoil in captivity When: In the midst of the Babylonian exile and occupation of Israel and Judah Where: From Jerusalem, to the exiled in Babylon Why: As a prophecy, communication of a conditional promise and the consequences of disobedience; the communication is that God's desire for Israel is for them to be well (the Aramaic word translates more closely to welfare than prosperity) not be harmed or damaged How: Through special revelation to Jeremiah, a prophet, by letter So, what is actually being said here? Is God saying, "hey, [insert name here], I have specific plans for you individually and they are specific and all-encompassing?" Not at all! In fact, what God is saying is that His desire is that Israel not suffer the exact fate in which they were living at the time of the communication! To take it another way is dishonest to what God is saying and dishonest to the interpretation of Scripture. Rhenma is an extrabiblical concept. Further, we call it "eisegesis", defined as: (quoted from the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, courtesy of dictionary.com)

If you're intellectually honest, you will see that this promise is not to the audience to whom you purport nor does it speak of what you purport. It has nothing to do with whether or not you know Jesus Christ (as I do), it has to do with whether or not you believe Scripture can tell one person something that it doesn't say. In the theological community, we call that "eisegesis". In regular life, we call it intellectual dishonesty. And how do you justify this statement? As is respect and courtesy. Threatening hell on someone is hardly a way to witness to them. If you think it is, you should really reevaluate the ministry of Christ, that of Paul and the other apostles, etc......... Scare tactics as ministry only gives the gospel a bad name, which is does not deserve. Perhaps it's just some of its followers who merit such a reputation. Ironic, because you have done so in this thread, evidenced by this discussion and the verse's context. And, as such, it is used out of context in such a use. Once again, any proof or evidence? This is an interesting way of saying that you don't want to evaluate and examine your faith in light of the rest of Creation. You really enjoy throwing out cunning (yet baseless) remarks, don't you? What evidence do you have for this? Further, on the topic of heart vs. mind, what was it that God hardened on Pharoah? Or, what was it that He says He will harden of His enemies? Those who He rejects? Oh, right... This is a first: a Calvinist atheist. I kid, I kid.

If you get a chance, there are two books that I would recommend reading: 1) "Decision Making and the Will of God: A Biblical Alternative to the Traditional View" by Dr. Garry Friesen 2) "Questions to All Your Answers: The journey from folk religion to examined faith" by Dr. Roger E. Olson (for the chapter entitled, "God has a wonderful plan for your life!") I have spent a good deal of time debating with myself whether or not God has planned out every detail of our lives. Wouldn't it make sense that God, in His infinite wisdom and power, would dictate how life would be lived and to organize every detail of it? At first, I thought, yes! It would! And then came the problem: reconciling God's revealed character with the character implicit of such a view. First things first, it is important to establish that there is no definitive Scripture that would claim without question that any side of this debate is correct. Then, you must examine God's nature. He is perfect, just, holy, merciful, gracious, loving, powerful, knowledgeable. What do each of these mean for God's character? Well, His perfection is obvious - He is without fault or flaw. His justice is exactly that, the reason that sin leads to death. His holiness means that he is worthy of worship or veneration (justified by His perfection and power). His mercy and grace are illustrated many times in the old testament, culminated with the Cross and salvation. His love is demonstrated through all of this, by His personal involvement in it. His power is demonstrated through Creation and every subsequent event in the history of time. His knowledge is demonstrated in the fact that He knows the number of the hair on our head and what we will pray before we speak it. How, then, do these reconcile with these ideas with a "perfect plan" for our lives?

LOL I wouldn't call myself an "opponent" of the Harry Potter books, but I do believe that people become far too involved with/obsessed with the books. And no, I haven't read the books, but that's because they're 800+ pages AND fiction.

You guys are starting to get into the Calvinism/Arminianism/Open Theism/Fate topic. Probably wise to do that in another forum. Trust me, if you do, I'll join in the conversation.

LOL I think this is one thing that yzf-r1 and I will agree on without exception .

So who has actually watched this documentary? I watched it yesterday and need a few days to process everything before I write a response, but I'm curious to hear what others might have to say. I haven't really seen a whole lot of discussion about the program after the first page or two, and I was wondering if there was anything specific in the way of criticisms or anything pertaining to the film.

I haven't arrived at any definite conclusion. I would say that evidence points to many of those things having been written pre-recorded-history as allegory (which would be everything up to Egypt). If you were to hold a gun to my head and tell me that I had to make a claim as to what is allegory or not, I would probably say that at least the Creation through the Flood were allegory, at least to some extent. And yet later writings (particularly Paul) make reference to the fact that it was the writer who was influencing the writings. All Scripture is inspired, but it's hardly wise or prudent to insist that every word of Scripture was penned supernaturally by God. I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean by this statement. I guess the crystal-like reflective properties of the water vapors has nothing to do with that? Prophecy is a very broad description. I would assume that you are talking about unconditional predictions about the future, which would equate to a far less than 1/3 of the Scriptures. Most of the prophets of the Old Testament were conditional - that is, they prophecied of events that would happen (punishments) for disobedience. Apocalyptic prophecy is found in very few, very specific places (primarily Daniel and Revelation, with a few scattered verses in Jesus' and Paul's teachings). That is all besides the point, though. I'm not arguing that God didn't have His hand in the writing of the Scriptures... what I am saying is that humans are still the authors and editors. What evidence do you have for any of this? Neither of those verses speak of a "swaddling band". Evolution explains how the brain developed physically, psychology explains how it works. Does this somehow lessen or diminish God's influence or knowledge or creating power over these things? No! In fact, it simply explains some of the complexities of His creation. Will science explain EVERYTHING about it? No, and it doesn't even really seek to do so. I have never said, and would never say, anything of the sort. I've never insinuated that everything "just happened". In fact, I believe that, in light of the evidence, evolution is a highly organized system created by God and through which His glory is displayed.

So, then, by your own admission, when Jesus referenced the Genesis accounts, He was speaking in parable. I kid, partially. By what authority or on what evidence do you say that? Yet another baseless assumption. You've yet to offer anything even remotely compelling to suggest that Genesis 1 or 2 are literal. You, also, cannot say that the comparison of that account to the parables is somehow invalid. They are absolutely comparable. I've shown how, you've not shown how they would not be comparable.

It's context doesn't indicate that it's a parable! Jesus did not say, "this story isn't true, but it communicates a valuable message." He simply told the story. People understood (because it was customary to teach, as it still is today, in parable, allegory or metaphor). You use a proper hermeneutic when it seems to serve your own purposes, but when it challenges what your Sunday school teacher taught you, it's heresy or purposeful misinterpretation. Nice double standard, buddy. I've already told you that there isn't a specific verse in Scripture that states that Genesis 1 & 2 are allegory. That's what you're looking for, but you're not going to get it because it isn't there - in the same way that the prodigal son is not qualified as allegory, or the parable of Lazarus, or any of the other parables. See, Jesus and the other Biblical authors assumed that their readers/hearers would use their God-given ability to reason... apparently, you missed that part. As far as the "one guy" thing... that's just one example. For every half-cracked Creation "scientist" or "theologian" you mention (all of the ones you've mentioned so far have been shown for who they really are by Myco and others), there are plenty of scientists and theologians who would verify at least the possibility (if not the probability) that Genesis 1 & 2 are allegory and that any reference after that point to the events were referencing the allegory for teaching moral lessons, not history or science. By the way, your verse doesn't even insinuate that Genesis 1 and/or 2 were literal... the only thing it references is that "Adam and Eve" were created, and I (nor Myco or many others, I'm sure) would disagree with that, on its premise that Adam and Eve represent mankind and womankind.

In your opinion. For one, Dr. Kenneth Maahs (Eastern University, my professor for OT, NT and Hermeneutics) seems to be well qualified to study and interpret Scripture and he seems to say that allegory is pretty clear. He's the most personal reference I would offer for the defense of Genesis 1&2 as allegory (and the rest of the references in Exodus, etc. as reference to allegory). Scripture never comes out and says, "by the way, Genesis was allegory". However, it never comes out and says that any part that you would say is allegory is so, either, so your question, and thereby your point, is invalid. You're looking for a circular argument and you're not going to get it from me. Do you reference the prodigal son? How about Song of Songs? Or, perhaps, some of the imagery in the Psalms? Does the allegorical nature of any of those teachings detract from its usefulness for teaching? Do you qualify your statements that employ these stories with a disclaimer? Maybe Christ was just a good preacher who didn't feel the need to teach a science lesson but to teach from the allegory that was already understood (and communicated the clear message that God is the Creator and set all things in motion). Your last statement was a personal affront and I refuse to play those games with you anymore. I would ask that you refrain from throwing in personal attacks and stick to the topic and argue based on the merits of your arguments.

I've posted several times the reasons that, when using all of the proper tools of exegesis, the possibility of Genesis (and, in light of other facts, the probability) being allegorical is very reasonable. The greatest example of this is the historical context of the verses: written no less than 2000 years after the supposed event would have taken place, the fact that there were NO eyewitnesses to the event, the fact that the culture who was the original recipient of the text didn't have the cultural or intellectual faculties to understand scientific things or large numbers... etc. You can deny it all you want, but the facts remain the same.

Correction. ONLY a casual reader (or someone whose faith hinges on reading allegory at face value) would ascertain such a thing. Any type of an honest exegetical hermeneutic would reveal that there are at least questions regarding the intention and meaning of the Genesis accounts of Creation. And it's spelled, "mystery".

Why is sharing a scientific argument with an atheist somehow bad? Are you sure it isn't just sharing intellectual honesty? Why does something completely free of religious dogmas (despite your attempts to add it, somehow) somehow have religious implications? Perhaps the fact that you seem to share a lot with ancient Greek polytheists in the belief that Christ is some type of God-man (which, for the record, I believe is abundantly proven in Scripture and I hold fast to this belief) makes you one step away from an ancient Greek polytheist? Seriously, guilt by association doesn't work when the association is not even of the nature of the belief structure. Only you seem to be making the "literal" interpretation of the Judeo-Christian creation accounts (or at least one of them) a virtual necessity of salvation. How does sharing a belief with someone make them the same in all ways? Perhaps because you (I would assume, anyway) vote a conservative ticket, you automatically share the religious views of the atheist conservative? Or, perhaps, because you believe (selectively, at least) in the laws of mathematics, you are equal in belief with the atheist math professor at the local university?

... Nice recovery . Understanding things like companionship and romance requires some serious interpretation to get anything substantial from Scripture. Is it there? Sure, but it isn't spelled out as such. In other words, it requires something from without to qualify what it says on certain matters of the heart. Right, but it does tell us to lean on the understanding we are given by the guidance of the Spirit, which is not described in detail (especially because it is personal) in Scripture. Reliance on providence (the guidance of the Spirit) requires something from without to qualify what Scripture says. A more accurate interpretation of this would be that He would make our paths straight. In other words, obedience of and reliance upon God will cause our paths to be straight. This doesn't seem to say that He will give us the answers, but rather the means by which to make the decisions. The qualifications of this statement are necessary to make them valid. "Ordered of the Lord" means that the path exists (the moral path set forth in Scripture). It is not all-inclusive; in other words, it requires input from the person on non-moral issues. For instance, we know that we are to worship, but the choice of worship style is fully up to the believer, within God's moral guidance (read: will as expressed in Scripture).

It wasn't an answer, it was a personal attack, therefore it did not justify a rebuttal. If you had presented a single fact or idea other than that I am an idiot who lacks discernment, I would have had something rebut. My questions and statements still stand. If you would care to prove yourself worthy of this discussion, please respond to them.