The scandal of the evangelical heart and mind

[Deborah13]

If Paul got it from those passages, he's interpreted them. Why is that any different to what anyone else does?

Paul was taught directly by the Lord when he was caught up.
We already discussed all of this. None of us have been caught up into heaven to converse with God as Paul was. Not least not that anyone can prove.
And we discussed that the reason the people accepted Paul's teaching and believed his testimony was because Peter bore witness of Paul.
So now we have the inspired Words of God that bears witness of Jesus, His death, and His resurrection.

 

[Agape]

Exactly, I agree. My point is (and the question I guess I'm asking) is did we have that before Adam and Eve disobeyed God? The passage from Genesis I quoted suggests we did and that Adams actions had no bearing on how Cain decided. If Paul is right and through Adam sin entered this world and now we're incapable of choosing right, I would expect to see something in Genesis to that effect and I just don't.

Romans 5:12 follows the progression we saw in Genesis 3. Adam sinned and death came to all people.

Adam and Eve were made in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26) but Seth in the the image and likeness of Adam (Genesis 5:3).

 

[Deborah13]

Romans 5:12 follows the progression we saw in Genesis 3. Adam sinned and death came to all people.

Adam and Eve were made in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26) but Seth in the the image and likeness of Adam (Genesis 5:3).

Perfect!

 

[cyberjosh]

In the context of original sin, I'm asking where Paul got it from, at the time he only had the OT, there's no need to reference NT as scripture in the context of that discussion. I don't believe the holy spirit has stopped working and I don't believe its merely a case of being sinful that leads people taking different interpretations.

If Paul is right and through Adam sin entered this world and now we're incapable of choosing right, I would expect to see something in Genesis to that effect and I just don't.

This is just an honest question but do you believe in the historical principle of progressive revelation, where God intentionally keeps something from a person (or His people) for a period of time until the proper time and season when He chooses to make something new known to them that they had not known before?

If so do you not think this could at least theoretically be the case with understanding the full extent of Adam's actions (if we are simply discussing possibilities)? Genesis only discussed the physical consequences of that disobedience (the labor and toil and such) and not the spiritual, so doesn't it stand to reason that an explication of the spiritual results could have yet been awaiting revelation? A 'why' question is apart from the point, because we could ask that for every delayed revelation.

I believe God has kept a lot of revelation from His people until the right season. Many things in the New Testament as a whole are revealed that were completely unknown and unexpected to the Israelites of old.

"It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings is to search out a matter." (Proverbs 25:2)

"God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds." (Hebrews 1:1-2)

If Paul got it from the holy spirit then great, but at least acknowledge that he didn't get it from scripture and with that in mind, why do you insist everything is supported with scripture?

This is almost a case of accusing someone (Paul) of not proof-texting. Don't you realize that to be consistent with this line of thinking that every new way of even speaking about things that is recorded in the NT (say Jesus' parables or the sermon on the mount) would require an interjection of a quotation of OT scripture? And as much as Matthew quotes the OT not every new thing which Jesus spoke of his own authority (which he claimed to get from the Father) was backed up by an OT quotation. You are really setting yourself up here for an over-application of proof-texting.

Finally, I find your last question somewhat funny (respectfully) because you were just before wondering why Paul didn't support his revelation with Scripture, and then proceed to ask me why I want everything to be backed up with Scripture. Is the irony lost here? Did I misunderstand the question?

I can't put it any plainer that Paul's revelations written in Romans are inspired Scripture just as the OT is.

Thanks for the recommendations, send them to me I'll check them out. May even put a couple on my website.

I suppose I can offer a suggestion for one book specifically pertaining to Paul which actively engages the "New Perspective on Paul" (a somewhat tradition-divergent interpretation of Paul) written by a New Testament Greek scholar and Presbyterian Minister who teaches at Beeson Divinity School, Samford University. The book is called "Paul and the Law: A Contextual Approach" by Frank Thielman. Frank Thielman engages, rather than ignores, the new objections to traditional interpretations, but then proceeds to offer a synthesis in light of new research but is not hesitant to wag his finger at the new interpretations and say "Nah-ah-ah! It doesn't have to be interpreted that way...".

If you decide you like Thielman he recently (kinda, 2005) wrote a significant work of theology published by Zondervan called "Theology of the New Testament: A Canonical and Synthetic Approach" which is fantastic in my estimation and I reviewed it and rated it five stars on Amazon if you would like to read my review for the book there.

God Bless,
~Josh

 

[Grazer]

Ah ha, now I see where you're going, I think anyway.
I don't know exactly what verses you are refering to in Genesis 1 and don't want to assume so I will have to wing it here and just give my thoughts.
1. Adam and Eve had free will, one of the attributes of being made in God's image
2. Free will is not sin or evil
3. When they exercised their free will in disobediance to what God had commanded and ate of the tree "knowledge of good and evil/sin" entered their minds not free will.
4. They passed on this same mind (nature) if you will to their children and .....that old man, the self-serving nature of man

When Paul talks about man not being able to do any good in the flesh he is talking about God's righteous ways. In other words people may do some very good things in the world, feeding the poor, etc. but they are of no value to them or God in the kingdom of God. Why? Because they did them to please themselves not to glorify God or to represent Him in the world. Their motives are of the flesh, not of the Spirit.
Say you get your girlfriend a beautiful bouquet of flowers in order to get her to agree to go to say a sporting event with you. Manipulation, self-centered. If you do it just because you want her to feel special and loved, expecting nothing in return your motive is pure.
Paul is always teaching about walking in the spirit not in the flesh because the flesh is self-serving. Now I would say that Paul was as close to having his fleshy soul renewed by the Holy Spirit as anyone alive but he wanted to show that all have a fleshy soul that needs to be sancitfied. He was very careful not to appear as a Pharisee that thought he was better than anyone else.

That makes a lot of sense thank you I still need to go away and think about it but that's been helpful.

My question from that though is; is it possible now to get as close to being renewed by the spirit as Paul was?

 

[Nick]

Grazer,

Why this quest against Evengelicalism?

I call myself Evangelical, and I take offense by your assertion that I am "fine" with genocide. I am not, butt God is Just and we must trust His Judgement. I accept he ordered genocide, but I am by no means happy that's that what had to be done.

About Paul - you either take all of his writings, or none at all. Paul's writings that are in Scripture ARE Scripture, inspired by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Grazer]

Grazer,

Why this quest against Evengelicalism?

I call myself Evangelical, and I take offense by your assertion that I am "fine" with genocide. I am not, butt God is Just and we must trust His Judgement. I accept he ordered genocide, but I am by no means happy that's that what had to be done.

About Paul - you either take all of his writings, or none at all. Paul's writings that are in Scripture ARE Scripture, inspired by the Holy Spirit.

I don't have too many issues with your stance but there are those who just accept it as good because its in the bible. I have issues with the fact genocide was ordered in the first place and have issues with the "it was gods perfect justice" explanation. Rachel Evans and Peter Enns have their own issues with it. Are you suggesting we are not allowed to ask such questions and that we should just accept the usual answer?

But at what level? If Paul believed Adam was a literal historic person, do I have to to understand the points he's making? Or can I take Adam as something else but still understand Paul's point? I take the latter approach since I'm in a very different culture to Paul and I believe God used what was known at the time to make his points. So not only do we need consider what was meant at the time but also how do we apply it to us today? It's like Proverbs, do I follow;

Proverbs 26:4 NIV

Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
or you yourself will be just like him.

Or do I follow;

Proverbs 26:5 NIV

Answer a fool according to his folly,
or he will be wise in his own eyes.

Depends on the situation. Why can't this be applied wider than proverbs?

 

[Grazer]

On another note, how would the letter have been read/interpreted by the church in Corinth or Galatia? Would they have considered scripture or a letter from a Christian who visited them and is writing to them?

 

[P31Woman]

I don't have too many issues with your stance but there are those who just accept it as good because its in the bible. I have issues with the fact genocide was ordered in the first place and have issues with the "it was gods perfect justice" explanation. Rachel Evans and Peter Enns have their own issues with it. Are you suggesting we are not allowed to ask such questions and that we should just accept the usual answer?

But at what level? If Paul believed Adam was a literal historic person, do I have to to understand the points he's making? Or can I take Adam as something else but still understand Paul's point? I take the latter approach since I'm in a very different culture to Paul and I believe God used what was known at the time to make his points. So not only do we need consider what was meant at the time but also how do we apply it to us today? It's like Proverbs, do I follow;

Proverbs 26:4 NIV

Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
or you yourself will be just like him.

Or do I follow;

Proverbs 26:5 NIV

Answer a fool according to his folly,
or he will be wise in his own eyes.

Depends on the situation. Why can't this be applied wider than proverbs?

Do you think God owes mankind something?

Do you believe God has the right to do as he pleases?

What do you know about the "fear of the Lord"?

 

[P31Woman]

Grazer,

Why this quest against Evengelicalism?

I call myself Evangelical, and I take offense by your assertion that I am "fine" with genocide. I am not, butt God is Just and we must trust His Judgement. I accept he ordered genocide, but I am by no means happy that's that what had to be done.

About Paul - you either take all of his writings, or none at all. Paul's writings that are in Scripture ARE Scripture, inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Nick,

There is a big group of people who "claim" to be evangelicals. They are wolves in sheeps clothings. They BASH evangelicals every chance they get. Their goal is to destroy people. They hate the fact we use scripture as our final authority in doctrine and life.

Notice how they are trying to paint God by using the term genocide. You MUST be aware of the "terms" these people use. We are not fighting against flesh and blood. They often compare what they teach as a god ordered genocide" with Islamic jihad?

The truth is God punished those people because of their sin. Something the "god ordered genocide" group don't want to admit. That group does not like "sin" and are bold enough to deny the very things God says is an abomination to Him.

Rachel Evans and Peter Enns are those false teachers we are warned to stay away from. They pull around themselves people who no longer desire sound doctrine. Sin because "no big deal" with you hang with that group for long. In fact teaching what God calls sin is what they teach is evil.

These people are not innocent folks seeking truth. or answers. They are evil and are attacking the core doctrines of the Chrisitan faith.

 

[Grazer]

Nick,

There is a big group of people who "claim" to be evangelicals. They are wolves in sheeps clothings. They BASH evangelicals every chance they get. Their goal is to destroy people. They hate the fact we use scripture as our final authority in doctrine and life.

Notice how they are trying to paint God by using the term genocide. You MUST be aware of the "terms" these people use. We are not fighting against flesh and blood. They often compare what they teach as a god ordered genocide" with Islamic jihad?

The truth is God punished those people because of their sin. Something the "god ordered genocide" group don't want to admit. That group does not like "sin" and are bold enough to deny the very things God says is an abomination to Him.

Rachel Evans and Peter Enns are those false teachers we are warned to stay away from. They pull around themselves people who no longer desire sound doctrine. Sin because "no big deal" with you hang with that group for long. In fact teaching what God calls sin is what they teach is evil.

Oh please email them directly and say that to them. Plus Enns and Evans don't claim to be evangelicals and they've never compared it to a jihad. You want to use a fluffier word for genocide so you can justify it and make sense of it. Some of us are calling it as we see it. God wiped out an entire culture; man woman and child; no one was to be left alive!!! How is that punishment for their sins? The punishment comes after they're dead doesn't it?

I'm facing the questions over it as Rachel Evans;

I encountered this recently after I spoke to a group of youth about doubt. In the presentation, I mentioned that upon reading the story of Joshua and the Battle of Jericho for myself, I realized it was a story about genocide, with God commanding Joshua to kill every man, woman, and child in the city for the sole purpose of acquiring land. I explained that this seemed contrary to what Jesus taught about loving our enemies.

Afterwards, a youth leader informed me that when it came to Joshua and Jericho, I had nothing to worry about…and had no business getting his students worried either.

“I don’t know why you had to bring up the Jericho thing,†he said.

“Doesn’t that story bother you?†I asked. “Don’t you find the slaughter of men, women, and children horrific?â€

“Not if it’s in the Bible.â€

“Genocide doesn’t bother you if it’s in the Bible?â€

“Nope.â€

He crossed his arms and a self-satisfied smile spread across his face. He was proud of his detachment, I realized. He seemed to think it represented some kind of spiritual strength.

“But genocide always bothers me,†I finally said, “especially when it’s in the Bible. And I get the idea that maybe it’s supposed to. I get the idea that maybe God created me to be bothered by evil like that, even when it’s said to have been orchestrated by God.â€

I’m not sure he and I will ever understand one another, but I’ve decided to quit apologizing for my questions. It’s not enough for me to maintain my intellectual integrity as a Christian; I also want to maintain my emotional integrity as a Christian. And I don’t need answers to all of my questions to do that. I need only the courage to be honest about my questions and doubts, and the patience to keep exploring and trusting in spite of them.

I'm not saying this lightly, I'm shaking as I'm writing this because I am very well aware of what I'm saying. But God has led me through my doubts and my questions so far and he'll do it again. My question to him is "what is the purpose of these passages?" It may be a question I never get answered but I have to be honest with God about my doubts so he can help me face them.

 

[P31Woman]

Oh please email them directly and say that to them. Plus Enns and Evans don't claim to be evangelicals and they've never compared it to a jihad.

They are only 2 of what I said is a larger group who have come into our Churches unaware. Their goal is not to learn but lead others astray. God warns His children to stay away from those types of evil people.

http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2009/04/27/wayne-grudems-letter-regarding-pete-enns/

I agree with Wayne in the letter above. I am glad Westminister Seminary fired Enns. Most Chrisitan colleges/universities require anyone seeking to teach in their instiution to sign a statement of faith document. It's a very serious thing to desire to teacher for God.

 

[Grazer]

They are only 2 of what I said is a larger group who have come into our Churches unaware. Their goal is not to learn but lead others astray. God warns His children to stay away from those types of evil people.

http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2009/04/27/wayne-grudems-letter-regarding-pete-enns/

I agree with Wayne in the letter above. I am glad Westminister Seminary fired Enns. Most Chrisitan colleges/universities require anyone seeking to teach in their instiution to sign a statement of faith document. It's a very serious thing to desire to teacher for God.

I don't see them leading anyone astray. From my perspective its the evangelicals leading people astray by refusing to take seriously the questions people have. I was in a Q & A for a youth group yesterday. If you feel that strongly about it, I'll give you the details of the church and you can write a letter of complaint.

 

[P31Woman]

I don't see them leading anyone astray. From my perspective its the evangelicals leading people astray by refusing to take seriously the questions people have. I was in a Q & A for a youth group yesterday. If you feel that strongly about it, I'll give you the details of the church and you can write a letter of complaint.

God has the right to punish sin and name sin

 

[Grazer]

God has the right to punish sin and name sin

That doesn't answer the question

 

[P31Woman]

He implies that the Bible affirms a false idea, the existence of multiple gods: “We may not believe that multiple gods ever existed, but ancient Near Eastern people did. This is the religious world within which God called Israel to be his people . . . . We should not be surprised, therefore, when we see the Old Testament describe God as greater than the gods of the surrounding nations” (p. 98; he then quotes from several Psalms that talk about other “gods”). But he says the Bible does this in the same way parents might tell their children, “Don’t be afraid of the dark. God is greater than the Boogey Man” (which the parents know does not exist, p. 99). In other words, the Bible affirms the existence of other gods but this affirmation is in fact false. It apparently does not occur to Enns that these “other gods” are demons (Deut. 32:17) that did exist, but they were not true Gods like the one true God.



The result of a book like this is to undermine the reader’s confidence in the truthfulness and moral excellence of Scripture again and again. No matter what subsequent explanations or “spin” Dr. Enns may want to put on these words and others like them, the inevitable effect of this book on its readers will be to undermine their belief in the truthfulness of Scripture. I do not think that should be the goal or the result of any book published by a Westminster Seminary professor.

Copy from Wayne's detailed letter posted above.

 

[Grazer]

The result of a book like this is to undermine the reader’s confidence in the truthfulness and moral excellence of Scripture again and again. No matter what subsequent explanations or “spin†Dr. Enns may want to put on these words and others like them, the inevitable effect of this book on its readers will be to undermine their belief in the truthfulness of Scripture. I do not think that should be the goal or the result of any book published by a Westminster Seminary professor.

Copy from Wayne's detailed letter posted above.

That's Waynes own personal opinion and is subjective. The result of me reading Peter Enns has been the strengthening of my faith as I've explored the issues he raises. The only people who have anything to fear are those who are scared of a different view and scared to tackle a different view. I am neither and my faith is stronger for it.

 

[Grazer]

Wayne Grudem is a Calvinist, its no surprise he doesn't agree with Peter Enns or Rachel Evans. Here's the thing, you can choose to agree with Wayne Grudem or you can choose to believe Peter Enns. You've done the former, I've done the latter. Neither are without their critics, nature of being a scholar.

 

[P31Woman]

That's Waynes own personal opinion and is subjective. The result of me reading Peter Enns has been the strengthening of my faith as I've explored the issues he raises. The only people who have anything to fear are those who are scared of a different view and scared to tackle a different view. I am neither and my faith is stronger for it.

How do you know if you are following God or the doctrines of demons?

 

[P31Woman]

Wayne Grudem is a Calvinist, its no surprise he doesn't agree with Peter Enns or Rachel Evans. Here's the thing, you can choose to agree with Wayne Grudem or you can choose to believe Peter Enns. You've done the former, I've done the latter. Neither are without their critics, nature of being a scholar.

I am not a Calvinist. I am a Chrisitan. I stand with Wayne Grudem who is also a Chrisitan. Our faith, doctrines and works are based on the authority of scripture.

This is a Christian thing not a Calvinist thing.