Ok - I'll make a quick summary of the discussion so far, before the quoting gets out of hand.

We agree on:
1. We agree that the bible is from God
2. We agree that it is reliable in all matters concerning God, and our relationship with God.
3  We agree that creation is also from God, and therefore offers accurate testimony, about God (rather vaguely) and about itself (by definition accurately and precisely).
4. We agree that, whichever is the more accurate account of creation (a literal reading of the genesis, or the "scientific account" combined with less literal reading of genesis) it is of minor importance compared with other aspects of our faith.

We disagree on:
1 Whether to read Genesis (and the rest of scripture) literally or not.
2 (presumably) whether a literal reading of genesis is consistant with what creation tells us about itself.

Unless you have something further to add or question to ask, I don't see that we can go much further on debating point 1 without going in circles, and this is not the place to debate point 2, except to say that I never mentioned evolution.  Evolution is but one small part of science that cannot be reconciled with with a literal reading of such texts.

I hope you can, at least, respect my position as I respect yours.

Quote:
Umm, I'm not sure I know which way around you mean, so I'll restate the question to make sure I've read you right.
Given that we agree on the really important message behind Genesis, is it possible to put aside the differences on whether it represents scientific and historical fact and get on with Christ's mission, or not?
 
I'll be a stinker here and ask this: What is Christ's mission?

Fair question, but not an easy one.   I'm sure it has more to do with spreading the Gospel message, doing our best to fullfil the Great Commandments and helping each other than insisting that we agree on the age of the world.

Quote:
Quote:
Seriously though, views such as yours limit God to our understanding.  Do you see where I say that?

No, I'm afraid I don't.  God is what he is. What you, I, or anyone else believes about Him doesn't limit Him in anyway.
I know that's not why you are trying to say, but I can't figure what you are trying to say.
 
 

If our view of God is not displayed by Him then it is diminished by us.  God reveals Himself sufficiently for our understanding (and even that little confuses us!) in scripture.  If we do not derive that view from there, we are left to view Him from what?  Creation?  Very good spot!  But that spot was always to point us to a more defined and refined revelation - scripture.  No.  We do not "limit" God or His power.  But our view of Him is limited if we fail to see Him in the pages of His word whether we understand everything we see or not.  That more clear?

I think so, and I don't think I'd argue with that.

Quote:
I'm not bending God's word, I'm interpreting it, just as you are.  We are doing it in slightly different ways.  I don't believe we are meant to treat the bible as a science textbook.  Ultimately the way any of us read the bible (or anything else) is shapped by our beliefs.  Yours by your belief that it is the "word of God" and that every sentence must be literally true unless some other sentence say's it isn't.  Mine as above.  You can't avoid it - ultimately what you already know and believe affects the way you read and understand any text, even a simple one; how much more so for a text as complex and ambiguous as the bible.
 
 


I agree!  It's not a textbook or a science book.  It's His word.  So do I treat that word as He gives it, or as I understand it?  You mentioned that you were interpreting it.  Many do, and do so incorrectly.  Me too!  The problem with the word "interpretation" is that we give entirely too much credence thereto.  That is, we consider multiple interpretations to His word.  Why?  Because often times, for each of us, it is easier to accomodate our preconceived notions or education.  When we face truth from that word that disagrees with such notions or notations, what do we do with it?  We should bend our beliefs to fit that word, rather than interpret that word to fit our beliefs.

You can't avoid interpreting it though.  Any understanding of it is an interpretation.  Thats the nature of any text - meaning is something text and reader create together - you can't avoid it, so we are all doomed to interpret it with all our human failings.  Maybe that's part of the point.

Quote:
To be honest, I think we'll all feel pretty sheepish when we get to the other side and find out which bits of our faith we've been getting completely wrong.
 
 

You mean like when I get to Heaven and find that not only are there Baptists there? *L*  If I had a nickel for every time I've thought this same thing, I'd be rich!  Here's a thought though: does this make my time in the word any less profitable?  No!  Why?  Because I search for God's understanding in that word, and in prayer, and in reflection of what I've already learned.  I share those things with other believers who shed more light on such areas, or find that I am the "shedder."  Yes, when we get to Heaven we'll be amazed at just how much we got wrong.  But what a blessing time spent getting those parts we got right can be!

I guess so - a nice thought in the mean-time anyway.  Thanks for that.  But wouldn't you feel really bad if you're instance on a point about which you had been wrong had driven a friend away from Christ.  Or even a point about which you were right.

Quote:
2.  Insisting that all Christians believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis is a stumbling block to many (whether or not it's true), and both Jesus and St Paul had some pretty strong things to say about that.  (I hope we can agree on this.)
 
 

Sorry, I have to disagree here.  The stumbling block isn't the interpretation but the disagreement with the interpretation given within the passage itself.  I would attribute a non-literal approach as a stumbling block that Christ and Paul spoke of in this case.

I had in mind stuff like Romans 14, BTW.
I'm trying to leave aside our disagreement on how to interpret this chapter, so for the moment I will assume your interpretation is correct and mine wrong.
Let us take a hypothetical friend of mine, we'll call him Alan.  Alan has grown up with little direct Christian influence but a good secular education and has a chemistry degree.  He works in a semi-scientific job - a hospital technician say.  He starts to express an interest in Christianity, and starts asking questions.   If you insist that a literal belief in Genesis is necessary, then he is never going to take Christianity seriously enough to go any further.  If you can lay that aside, and concentrate on the the really important stuff - the Gospel message, and the underlying spiritual message in Genesis, etc, then maybe he can find God.  Whether or not he finally comes around to your interpretation of Genesis is surely of miniscule importance by comparison.  Hardly in the spirit of Romans 14.   Wait until his faith is solid enough, and then engage in a good debate like this - thats another matter.

("Alan", BTW, is not a single real person, but an amalgam of several).)

With the exception that neither creation nor the bible are God.  But both reveal that God to us: creation, in that there must be a Creator; bible, in that that Creator is more clearly revealed to us.

Agreed absolutely.  What we are arguing about isn't what the bible tells us about the creator - we seem to disagree about that very little if at all, but about what the bible does or does not tell us about creation, and on that score I think creation itself clearer.

I like the way the Orthodox Church in America puts it (I'm not Orthodox, BTW):

It is the faith of the Orthodox Church that the Bible, as the divinely-inspired Word of God in the words of men, contains no formal errors or inner contradictions concerning the relationship between God and the world. There may be incidental inaccuracies of a non-essential character in the Bible. But the eternal spiritual and doctrinal message of God, presented in the Bible in many different ways, remains perfectly consistent, authentic, and true.

Don't you think that it is amazing that someone was asking God for a sign though?  They're is an almighty powerful God.  To not believe in him would be foolish.


Kris

Personally, I'd rather rely on something a bit more direct than heresay picked up off the internet.

Church steeples get struck by lightning all the time.  That's why they have lightning conductors.

[is]

As far as faith and practice?  Yes

Umm, I'm not sure I know which way around you mean, so I'll restate the question to make sure I've read you right.
Given that we agree on the really important message behind Genesis, is it possible to put aside the differences on whether it represents scientific and historical fact and get on with Christ's mission, or not?

As far as fellowship?  ONLY IF YOU AGREE WITH MEEEEE!    

 You must have pretty boring converstions with your friends if you all have to agree on everything  

Seriously though, views such as yours limit God to our understanding.  Do you see where I say that?

No, I'm afraid I don't.   God is what he is. What you, I, or anyone else believes about Him doesn't limit Him in anyway.
I know that's not why you are trying to say, but I can't figure what you are trying to say.

Should we bend God's word to fit our beliefs, or our beliefs to fit God's word?  

I'm not bending God's word, I'm interpreting it, just as you are.  We are doing it in slightly different ways.   I don't believe we are meant to treat the bible as a science textbook.  Ultimately the way any of us read the bible (or anything else) is shapped by our beliefs.  Yours by your belief that it is the "word of God" and that every sentence must be literally true unless some other sentence say's it isn't.   Mine as above.   You can't avoid it - ultimately what you already know and believe affects the way you read and understand any text, even a simple one; how much more so for a text as complex and ambiguous as the bible.

To be honest, I think we'll all feel pretty sheepish when we get to the other side and find out which bits of our faith we've been getting completely wrong.

In the mean time:

1.  Whether or not the science is right in Genesis, it's not the main point.  (We've agreed on that.)

2.  Insisting that all Christians believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis is a stumbling block to many (whether or not it's true), and both Jesus and St Paul had some pretty strong things to say about that.  (I hope we can agree on this.)

3. Creation, and the bible, have both been created by God; neither is God.  A literal reading of Genesis contradicts what we learn from creation.  A non-literal reading does not.  (I don't suppose we are going to agree on this, but never mind.)

Is being non-charismatic merely a "Declaration of Independence" or are there Scriptural reasons for not wanting to be so?  Is being ignorant justified?
This is a sincere question since it may come up in our Bible class.

Maybe you could unpack this a bit.

Oh, and "are you just ignorant or what?" doesn't sound much like a sincere question.

I am using the term "charismatic" as having been baptized in the Holy Spirit by the Baptizer, Jesus Christ.

If that is your whole definition of charismatic, then I think most Christians would put (or hope) themselves within that group.
However, I don't think that is what most people understand by the word charismatic.

Ebia,

I cannot attribute the Old Testament account of creation as a parable because it is not presented in that fashion.  To attribute such an approach would be contextually, as well as hermeneutically incorrect.

To me (and to plenty of others) it does read like a myth or parable, written in an age when the boundaries between myth and history were not seen as being as sharp as we do today.

As for your question:

Quote:
To read all of the bible literally makes no sense to me.  If read in that way it contradicts itself & it contradicts what God reveals to us through his creation.  It makes God into a liar, and a poor one at that (he can't even get his story straight).  I don't buy that.
 
You didn't address the main part of this, perhaps you would care to.

Last question.  In (any of) the great stories of the Old Testament, which is the more important thing to learn?  The history, or what it teaches us about our own relationship with Him?

I assume you're referring to the contradictory statement.  If so, I stand on the fact that non of this book contradicts any other part.  There are many "antinomies" or mysteries therein, but are not contradictory just because we may not understand them.  This may sound ambiguously faith-based, but it is far from ambiguous.  You have undoubtedly a high view of God.  That much I can tell.  And rightly so!  Would it not stand to reason that so complex a God, while revealing Himself in His written word, may appear as confusing?  Think about it!  How truly can the finite grasp the infinite apart from the indwelt Holy Spirit to aid us?  And who's to say that that aid doesn't increase as our discernment, and understanding of what can be known of our God via His word as attained via that same Spirit?

Fair enough.  Of course its confusing, how ever you read it.  Can't argue with that one.  It does seem a bit bit of a cop-out when applied to what appear to be pretty clear discrepancies, but I can respect your position, without agreeing with it.

What bothers me more is the contradiction between Genesis (read literally) and Creation.

As for your last question, again, I think we have a misconception.  By literal, I do believe it to be historically correct.  I do not, however, seek the historical!  In any truth, whether scientific, historic, poetic or otherwise, there is a lesson to be learned from the "ensamples" given us.  

Excellent.

And I agree.  The lesson is the point, but not at the expense of the truth behind it.

But what you see as "the truth behind it", I see as a story to provide a medium for the message.  

We seem to agree on all the really important stuff.      Does the (relatively unimportant) detail matter so much?

[is]

You still haven't told me whether or not you accept what it says.

And you haven't explained how the Nicene Creed is semi-Pelagian.

Especially in light of the fact that, as http://www.creeds.net/reformed/creeds.htm , says, it is accepted by the vast majority of Christians, whether Othodox, Catholic, Anglican, Protestant or whatever.

The site you link to doesn't even seem to be a christian one (based on a quick glance).  It describes pelagianism, but doesn't even mention the creeds

ebia,

Hey...if it was representative of either side, one or the other it would not be neutral then, would it..??

Probably not, but I'm not sure that this site hasn't got its own axe to grind on the issue.   Anyway, I don't think we're actually arguing about what Pelagianism is, are we?

you said;

To portray it as the product of the Catholic & Eastern Orthodox churches only is misleading.

How so??

If that's not self evident, I'm not sure I can explain it.

Maybe you'd like to sort out your punctuation (& spelling - I assume you mean canon), but I'll take a guess at what you mean.

The church belongs to Christ, it is His, and He does not need the church to cannonize His Word, He thru the Holy Spirit, guided men who are filled by thre Holy Spirit to not only write the book, but to preserve it, in spite of what men say or do..

He did use some people to tell us which books are scripture, and which are not, just as he used some other people to write the books in the first place.  Those same people (the early church) are the ones who wrote the ancient creeds.

Just because you believe a certain version imen cannonized is of God, doesn't change the truth of which one is the true inspired version, one bit.  You can be deceived.

We aren't arguing about which version of canon is the true, inspired one, are we?

Regardless, the point is that God guided the Church, the body of Christ, over some considerable period, in deciding the canon.  And he guided the same Church in formulating the Nicene Creed.

FWIW, The Westminster Confession, on the other hand, cannot claim the support of the whole church.

This means nothing, both are written by men for men, one covers the finer points, while the other is a document to settle heretical teachings, within the intsitution;  I doubt God was involved in the heretical teachings, and He didn't decide to negotiate with himself to settle the matter, with a 99 word, statement,  the Bible already declared the truth concerning the points of contention, and they never change.

So a creed or some other document, won't affect the truth one bit.

It doesn't change the truth - of course not.  That would be nonsense.  Neither does it contradict scripture. It clarifies it and interprets it.

You still haven't told me whether or not you accept what it says.

Alternatively, if you want one from a more protestant site:
http://www.creeds.net/reformed/creeds.htm

The site you link to doesn't even seem to be a christian one (based on a quick glance).  It describes pelagianism, but doesn't even mention the creeds.

Quote:
The (so called) nicene creed is the product of the whole church of the time.
 
So what??

To portray it as the product of the Catholic & Eastern Orthodox churches only is misleading.

There's some variation in translations of it,

This is the reason I would never commit muyself to anyone, without frist reading it.

Ok - a version to work from (happens to be from an Antiochian Orthodox church just because that is one I can find quickly.  It's close enough to any one I've ever heard):
http://www.stnicholas.org.au/FCreed.htm

I don't see that it has much to say about the nature of salvation - non of the ancient creeds tried to contain everything (an impossible task anyway).  It's intended to address (some of) the major heresies of the time.  That doesn't make it pelagian/semi-pelagion or anything else except orthodox in the matters it addresses.

The OT was already an excepted cannon, by the year 95 AD, the NT was in existence before the Roman Catholic church, decided which books were which, officially this was not determined by them uintil ther 16th century.

Maybe you'd like to sort out your punctuation (& spelling - I assume you mean canon), but I'll take a guess at what you mean.

Most (maybe all) of the books in the NT had been written by around AD 95, but the dabate as to which were and were not in the canon went on very much longer.  http://www.churchhistory.net/documents/canon.html

Regardless, the point is that God guided the Church, the body of Christ, over some considerable period, in deciding the canon.  And he guided the same Church in formulating the Nicene Creed.

FWIW, The Westminster Confession, on the other hand, cannot claim the support of the whole church.

[quote Nicene Creed [...],  is a Semi-Pelegian statement,

   
How on earth do you arrive at that?

[we know the scriptures are.]

Do you subscribe to the Nicene Creed or not?  It's quite clear about "begotten NOT made", so either there's something funny going on in translation, or Peter didn't know the full story at that point.  (I'm betting on the latter.)

Heresy??  Not quite..

If it disagrees with the creed, it's heresy.

ebia,

You place to much emphasis on what man, subscribes to, the Nicene Creed finally settled on by the eastern and western Roman Catholic institution,  is a Semi-Pelegian statement, you can have it as far as I concerned, but if you are reffering to the Protestant version, I believe it.

But, the reality of it is this, it is not inspired, but we know the scriptures are.

So when it comes to believing scripture over man's confessionals, I will take the scriptures hands down every time.

The (so called) nicene creed is the product of the whole church of the time. There's some variation in translations of it, but what is this "protestant version" of which you speak?

The creed is the product of the same early church that decided which books were sufficiently inspired to make up scripture - why would you believe the Holy Spirit guided the church in one endevour and not in the other.

Anyway, either you believe it or you don't - which is it to be?

Do you subscribe to the Nicene Creed or not?  It's quite clear about "begotten NOT made", so either there's something funny going on in translation, or Peter didn't know the full story at that point.  (I'm betting on the latter.)

Heresy??  Not quite..

If it disagrees with the creed, it's heresy.