RE: Misconceptions of Christian theology
March 5, 2013 at 2:02 pm
(This post was last modified: March 5, 2013 at 2:12 pm by jstrodel.)
Hello John, I apologize if I offended you. I was not necessarily defending al the points of theology I posted above, only to point out that some Christians whom I consider to be very orthodox hold those positions. I am not a theologian and could not say definitively what positions are true.
I think that the cumulative differences in manuscripts. interpretation and theological presuppositions creates a situation in which there are many, many differences on many issues. I had a Hebrew Bible which was marked up on many pages "meaning of the Hebrew uncertain". Look at the different denominations. What you are saying is true, there is basic agreement between Christians in doctrine. I think FF Bruce estimated that the agreement was in 90 something percent. But why do the dispensationalists and fundamentalists use the KJV Bible but Catholics use a different Bible? The language of scripture does affect the church. And we do not actually have the original. I think that when you consider all these things together, it is not really certain based on one person looking into an issue that that will necessarily be so. Now there is 2000 years of Christian tradition to guide people into the correct understanding, and much that is written about the Bible. But it is still not foolproof. There are so many differences in theology between Protestants, on issues such as women in ministry, charismatic gifts, eschatology, calvinism versus arminianism and various other important issues in church culture and policies.
Yes, but I base my belief using the Wesleyan Quandrangle of Scripture, Tradition, Reason and Experience. There have been many creeds and different Christian documents that together with the scriptures and everything else we have about Christ points decisively to a literal resurrection. The same cannot be said about a Young Earth.
I appreciate your concern to preserve the Christian faith. I do not consider myself to be a liberal Christian, but I do not consider myself to be a fundamentalist either. This is certainly possible, I believe what I believe because I believe that these were the events that were revealed by God and what actually happened. I do not believe I have some sort of revisionist view of Christianity, I do not think the Bible ever intended to affirm the things that some fundamentalists teach (e.g. double predestination).
Science is not the study of everything that exists. This is a ill informed view of science. Science studies the material universe. It is the height of arrogance to assume that the material universe exhausts everything that exists.
No, I am not sure. I do not know whether evolution is true or not. There is convincing evidence for evolutionary theory and many Christians accept it. I am not saying that I think it is wrong for people to argue for a literal interpretation of Genesis, I am saying that I don't think that is the essence of Christianity and what the Bible teaches. There are some distinguished scientists that have been Young Earth and Old Earth Creationists, such as Hugh Ross, the inventor of the MIR machine, etc.
What I am saying is that none of this is the distinguishing thing that seperates Christians from non-Christians. Some Christians accept evolutionary theory, others do not. I think people are entitled to their own opinions, but for an atheist who has strong views on evolutionary theory, perhaps because they deal with the details of evolutionary theory on a day to day basis as an evolutionary biologist or something like that, I do not see why they should have to see acceptance of evolutionary theory as a central pillar of Christian doctrine.
There are many Christian theologians and Bible scholars who have accepted evolutionary theory. What I am saying is that there are many points of doctrine that I do not understand and I could not say if they are true or not, and the details of these points of doctrine really is incidental to the truth of Christianity, which is about holiness more than interpretation of Genesis.
(March 5, 2013 at 9:10 am)John V Wrote: Answers to many questions? Name the top five questions that we can't answer due to differences in manuscripts. The fact is that we have adequate agreement of manuscripts, and important doctrines are taught in more than one place in the Bible.
I think that the cumulative differences in manuscripts. interpretation and theological presuppositions creates a situation in which there are many, many differences on many issues. I had a Hebrew Bible which was marked up on many pages "meaning of the Hebrew uncertain". Look at the different denominations. What you are saying is true, there is basic agreement between Christians in doctrine. I think FF Bruce estimated that the agreement was in 90 something percent. But why do the dispensationalists and fundamentalists use the KJV Bible but Catholics use a different Bible? The language of scripture does affect the church. And we do not actually have the original. I think that when you consider all these things together, it is not really certain based on one person looking into an issue that that will necessarily be so. Now there is 2000 years of Christian tradition to guide people into the correct understanding, and much that is written about the Bible. But it is still not foolproof. There are so many differences in theology between Protestants, on issues such as women in ministry, charismatic gifts, eschatology, calvinism versus arminianism and various other important issues in church culture and policies.
Quote:Are you sure that the NT intends to teach a literal resurrection? Some Gnostics interpreted the resurrection in a non-literal way before the advent of modern science.
Yes, but I base my belief using the Wesleyan Quandrangle of Scripture, Tradition, Reason and Experience. There have been many creeds and different Christian documents that together with the scriptures and everything else we have about Christ points decisively to a literal resurrection. The same cannot be said about a Young Earth.
Quote:Are they? See my response to point 3 above.
I appreciate your concern to preserve the Christian faith. I do not consider myself to be a liberal Christian, but I do not consider myself to be a fundamentalist either. This is certainly possible, I believe what I believe because I believe that these were the events that were revealed by God and what actually happened. I do not believe I have some sort of revisionist view of Christianity, I do not think the Bible ever intended to affirm the things that some fundamentalists teach (e.g. double predestination).
(March 5, 2013 at 1:49 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:(March 4, 2013 at 11:56 pm)jstrodel Wrote: Science is not everything.
That's right.
It is the study/understanding of everything that exists.
It has nothing to say on the Simpsons for example.
Science is not the study of everything that exists. This is a ill informed view of science. Science studies the material universe. It is the height of arrogance to assume that the material universe exhausts everything that exists.
(March 5, 2013 at 2:01 pm)John V Wrote:(March 5, 2013 at 1:51 pm)jstrodel Wrote: I don't feel like there is really any part of the Bible that I reject or anything that I am unorthodox in. The difference between being a Christian and a non-Christian is that Christians are called to live in holiness and to obey the Holy Spirit. I do not think the difference is that Christians are supposed to debate unbelievers about evolutionary theory or something like that and faith is basically a duty to defend a literal interpretation of Genesis.You seem to be taking a cookie-cutter approach to Christianity. I would argue, as Paul did, that while we're all of one body, we're different parts of that body, with different functions and purposes. While it may very well be true that the Spirit is not leading you to defend a literal interpretation of Genesis, are you really so sure that the Spirit couldn't be leading others to do so?
I am personally unsure as to whether evolutionary theory is the best explanation of life.
No, I am not sure. I do not know whether evolution is true or not. There is convincing evidence for evolutionary theory and many Christians accept it. I am not saying that I think it is wrong for people to argue for a literal interpretation of Genesis, I am saying that I don't think that is the essence of Christianity and what the Bible teaches. There are some distinguished scientists that have been Young Earth and Old Earth Creationists, such as Hugh Ross, the inventor of the MIR machine, etc.
What I am saying is that none of this is the distinguishing thing that seperates Christians from non-Christians. Some Christians accept evolutionary theory, others do not. I think people are entitled to their own opinions, but for an atheist who has strong views on evolutionary theory, perhaps because they deal with the details of evolutionary theory on a day to day basis as an evolutionary biologist or something like that, I do not see why they should have to see acceptance of evolutionary theory as a central pillar of Christian doctrine.
There are many Christian theologians and Bible scholars who have accepted evolutionary theory. What I am saying is that there are many points of doctrine that I do not understand and I could not say if they are true or not, and the details of these points of doctrine really is incidental to the truth of Christianity, which is about holiness more than interpretation of Genesis.
