WarrantedFaith

I suggest doing some reading on the doctrine of innerrancy. The inspiration, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture is not affected by the fact that God used less-than-perfect men to record His Word in writing. Apparently nothing on your standards. <!--QuoteBegin-mpok1519@ Nope, you got it wrong again; Scripture is good uthority to live a good life, but many parts of scripture are simply ridiculous; the facts are still the same. The Bible forbids shellfish. pork. and even wearing nylon-coton fabrics. How does one part have more authority than the most ridiculous parts? The Bible says a father can sell his daughter into slavery. It does't make it right. me ftw. This is the last time I'm going to waste my time responding to childish remarks like this. All I'm going to say is that you simply fail to understand how to correctly exegete literature. <!--QuoteBegin-mpok1519 A paradox is very contradictory. So yes, there are contradictions in the Bible. Me ftw again. lol a paradox and contradiction are two very different things. Look it up. The very definition of a "paradox" is something that appears contradictory but does have an adequate explanation. Once again, you're only able to argue this point by redefining the meaning of the phrase "equally yoked," so it's really not an issue that needs discussion. Oh ok, so facts and statistics don't support a position. What supports a position is who can continue to repeat the same baseless assertions in their posts. I see . I'm not going to play these games because I don't have time for this nonsense. If you want to take the debate seriously I'd be happy to have a discussion though. Otherwise I suggest you may as well not bother anymore.

WorldinthePalm, how about, just for once, not trying to dance around the point of one of my posts, and actually try responding to the material I have already given? I have already explained briefly in my previous posts how Scripture does teach us how we are to go about finding a spouse. Have you never read Proverbs, or Genesis?

It is simply absurd to compare this to something like Harry Potter, and that should be obvious. The Shack, regardless of the fact that it is fiction, is written with the intention of providing an allegory of a major Christian doctrine. And I highly doubt you've bothered to read the material I've shared so there's really nothing else to say. You've avoided the point of my last post, and it still stands.

I find it kind of funny that these statements keep coming up here after the list of links I provided on the first page. Are those of you who take this position even bothering to read what the other side has to say? Quite frankly as far as I'm concerned your position has already been defeated in several of those reviews I have provided. You need to address the arguments in there if you are going to continue to argue that it's "just fiction" and that therefore there's nothing to worry about. If you're not willing to do that, you're simply suppressing the evidence. The other boards on this website seem to be for sharing opinions and lighter discussion. But this is a debate forum. A debate is not merely an exchange of personal opinions. It is the explanation and evidenced defense of two opposing viewpoints. So if you guys are going to continue making these "it's just fiction" comments, you need to address the evidence for the contrary that has already been presented. Otherwise, you simply have no argument, in which case you're really not contributing anything valuable to the discussion.

Since when has entrance into heaven depended on whether or not God approves of our behavior? That's not the gospel. And just because Solomon wrote a portion of the Bible does not mean God approved of his lifestyle. There is not a single chapter of the Bible that has been written by an individual who has not done things which God does not approve of. So you deny the authority of Scripture. In that case, you don't even have any room to be saying what is and is not biblical, because you've just affirmed that the Bible is not your standard of judgment. Dating is unbiblical because it is an idea which is based off of a view of love and relationships which is contrary to the view taught in Scripture. Not liking what the Bible teaches on the matter, or not correctly understanding what the Bible teaches on the matter, does not change that fact. And no the Bible does not contradict itself. There are paradoxes, but no contradictions. Things need to be read in context in order to be interpreted properly. <!--QuoteBegin-mpok1519 BUT, the Bible also says we must be equally yolked in our faiths. Which, by all intensive purposes, is impossible; all of our beliefs an faith are ALL individually different, unique, and separate This is just silly. You're changing the meaning of the phrase "equally yoked" in order to support your view. The teaching is simply that Christians should not unite themselves with non-Christians. Or to put it another way, once you're in the body of Christ, you've been separated from the world in certain ways and are not to unite back with it. Doctrinal differences, with some more serious exceptions, do not affect the fact that two people are still being equally yolked in the Body if they are both true believers. That's probably one of the most speculative, unsupported answers you could have given. Stating an opinion is not stating an argument. I suggest looking up the statistics and doing some research on the relationship between our society's acceptance of recreational dating and the increase in divorce. Only a fool would deny that my position here is unsupported. <!--QuoteBegin-Pointer The only reason I mentionedd taht you "didn't even ask a question" is because you said you were gonna and you didn't. That was really my only point: you said you'd do something, you didn't. I did ask a question at the top of page 84. That's what I was referring to at the beginning of the post you quoted. I apologize if I was unclear. I have dated, and no not in the "hollywood" style. I have taken a couple girls out to dinner in the past, nothing more, and have also been involved in a serious relationship with a Christian girl in the past. I am quite familiar with dating, however you want to define it. My point is just as valid for the guy who goes into bars picking up a different girl every night, as it is to the sweet Christian girl who's been "going steady" with one guy in her church, even while remaining sexually pure. The foundational point of my whole argument, which has still yet to be addressed by anyone, is the simple fact that all relationships in Scripture are centered on the idea of the covenant agreement between two parties. Participating in an intimate relationship -- physical, or even just emotional -- with someone of the opposite sex for some other purpose than with the intention of courting that person toward marriage, is based on a cultural view of love and relationships which is simply contrary to the biblical view of love and relationships. What we learn and believe about love and relationships should be based on Scripture, not the ideas of men. When we ask ourselves about what we should do and how we should act around someone of the opposite sex, or what we should do and how we might go about finding a spouse, we are to turn to Scripture, and not a culturally accepted idea which is in conflict to Scripture, as well as the majority of human history. And again, that goes for any sort of dating (if by "Christian dating" you happen to mean getting to know each other with the original intention of pursuing marriage with that person, that is what is meant by "courtship"). Also, I'm interested in this phrase of yours: "...what a date is suppose to be..." Are you suggesting that there are Scriptural guidelines as to how a person should go about dating? I'd love to hear this. I don't doubt that dating can be fun and that it can "work." But that's not the point. The point is that the fun that is often enjoyed in dating is intended by God to only be enjoyed within marriage. And if the fun you are speaking of are things that typical friends can enjoy together, then they should remain friends. There is no reason to get involved in a deeper relationship with someone until the two feel that God may be leading them together with the intention of being united in the covenant of marriage which he established for that purpose. Just because it's fun doesn't make it right. And just because it is one way to eventually fid a spouse doesn't make it OK or acceptable in the eyes of God either. You're simply not going to be able to support a contrary idea on biblical grounds because the idea dating (i.e. getting involved with a person in a more-than-just-friends way, without the specific intention of pursuing marriage -- that is what I am specifically arguing against) is a modern development. To the contrary, it says quite a lot. You're not going to always find a place that says, "this is how you should acquire a partner." But if you dig a little deeper there's plenty there.

Well that scares me personally, as lovingly as I can say that! (And I mean it only as such!) I recommend doing some reading here and here. Story itself aside, the theological implications made in the book are simply heretical. There is absolutely nothing solid about the theology presented in this book. The "god" of The Shack is not the God of the Bible. Here's a list of some great reviews that have already been done on the book exposing its dangers: http://www.challies.com/archives/book-revi...oad-it-here.php http://julianfreeman.ca/toronto-pastors-fe...ck-tim-challies http://theshackinspection.blogspot.com/ http://www.cbmw.org/Blog/Posts/Re-imagining-God-in-the-Shack <-- interesting comments on the problems of using feminine imagery to describe God http://www.davidwesterfield.net/2009/03/sh...bstitution-mp3/ http://www.normangeisler.net/theshack.html http://www.equipresources.org/site/apps/nl...4F}&notoc=1 http://www.tektonics.org/books/shackrvw.html http://www.insight.org/site/PageServer?pagename=shack http://www.omegaletter.com/articles/articl...?ArticleID=6312 http://www.letusreason.org/bookR21.htm http://lifestream.org/blog/2008/03/04/is-the-shack-heresy/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2qIRrjMevE http://www.crosswalk.com/news/commentary/11575218/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pK65Jfny70Y http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KByafEmxYoo When you have ministries this big, across several denominations and theological perspectives (several of these websites I would not normally recommend!), all agreeing that there are some very serious problems with this book ... serious enough to take the time to write an article and suggest that their readers and listeners stay away, that's probably saying something! I also recommend this book to everyone I meet who's read and thought positively of The Shack, so I'll recommend it here as well! Please read these (at least a couple) before challenging my accusations about this book.

Some good stuff here Thanks for sharing

Took me about 25 attempts :\ lol

Added you

I'm still craving London Broil. Haven't managed to get my hands on any since my last post

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say here. The whole idea that we should be developing new methods of evangelism comes from a faulty understanding of the purpose of evangelism and the extent to which the words and schemes of men have any power in helping to resurrect the hearts of spiritually dead people. Once again, it is not the purpose of evangelism to sway the hearts of men. That is impossible. Only God can change a man's heart, and His ability to do so does not rely on our efforts. So whether or not the spoken gospel is warmly received today is completely irrelevant to whether or not we should continue preaching it. As I said in the post of mine you quoted, the gospel is to be preached, in season, and out of season (2 Tim. 4:2). The purpose of preaching the gospel is three-fold: 1) God commands that we do it. And if any man truly loves God, he will obey His commands (John 14:15) regardless of the circumstances or consequences (Mark 8:34-38). 2) Preaching the good news of Christ dieing for sinners always brings glory to God, regardless of the type of response the message receives. And the primary concern of the Christian should be to glorify God in all things (1 Cor. 10:31). 3) God has ordained that the preaching of the gospel be the means by which He will call His children home. While the salvation of lost souls neither depends on nor results from our own efforts in evangelism, God has still decreed that He will use that message proclaimed by believers to call the rest of His children home. That is why, first of all, our evangelism must be only the presentation and explanation and defense of the gospel message which is taught to us in Scripture -- because the Spirit only works through that true message. When men devise more "seeker-friendly" and entertaining schemes to attract people into "making a decision for Christ," they may grow their churches exponentially, but the buildings are full of false converts if they have not learned and embraced the true gospel that is taught in Scripture. Furthermore, when the Christian understands that it is not his own efforts, but God's work alone that turns the heart of a fallen man toward Christ, and when the Christian grasps the three truths listed above, he can put his full trust in God when witnessing to the lost because he knows that God will save whomever He chooses to save (Eph. 1-11). Those who feel that we must devise new methods of sharing the good news because it isn't as warmly accepted in this age quite simply do not understand what the Bible teaches about evangelism and its purposes. In addition, the English word "evangelism" comes from the Greek word "euangelion." The translated words "angel," "messenger," and "good news" also come from the same Greek root word. It literally means to bring good news to someone, specifically in the form of a spoken or written message. That is what the word means. That's why angels who speak to people in the Bible are also referred to as messengers of God. The English word "gospel" actually comes from an Old English word which literally meant, "good word." It was the phrase "Godspell." "God" was pronounced with a long 'o', thus we get "good," and "spell" back in the day meant "word" (which is where we get the meaning of "spelling" from). So, the Old English, "Godspell," from which the modern word "gospel" comes from literally means "good word." You can't pass along a good word without opening your mouth or writing something down. The gospel, or good news, or good word, is not being presented without a spoken or written message. And yet it is the gospel that saves, not our friendly attitudes toward others. We are to demonstrate the love of Christ to others through action. But that in itself is not evangelism. It is not a presentation of the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is only the foundation upon which that message should be presented, explained, and if necessary, defended. Anything short of that is simply not evangelism.

Daniel, Romans, and John are my personal favorite books (in that order) -- I suggest getting familiar with them! As for where to go after Proverbs, I recommend back to the beginning . I read a Proverb, a Psalm, and a chapter of Acts every day, in addition to other readings, and I've found it to be immensely edifying.

And you're right Solja, we should love and respect other people. But that is only the beginning. That in itself is not evangelism. We are called to preach the word, in season and out of season (in other words, in times when it is warmly accepted, and in times when it is widely rejected). God is in control of it all, and we cannot turn the hearts of people one way or another. But we must preach the gospel to all anyway, because it brings God glory, first of all, and secondly, it is the means by which God has ordained that He will call His children to Him.

No it isn't necessary before communion. It is necessary before communion that the person be a believer (1 Cor. 10:21; 1 Cor. 11:29). But baptism is one of the ordinances (like communion); it is not a requirement for salvation.

But why? Is it not what Scripture teaches? Well of course that's the case in a court case because of the more formal structure. But that is not necessarily the case in a philosophical dispute. To make an assertion in a debate is to affirm a position. If I present the gospel to an atheist and he just says, "There is no such thing as God," it is not my responsibility to prove his statement wrong. It is his responsibility to provide an explanation as to why I should believe his statement. If he simply asked me, "Why should I believe that there even is a God in the first place?" the burden of proof would be on me. And in general, depending on the overall topic of discussion, one side will bear the burden of proof moreso than another. You are correct there. But as far as making individual statements, it is always the responsibility of the person making the assertion to be able to provide reasons as to why the other party should accept that assertion as being true. I completely agree. But attempting to change someone's heart is not the point of apologetics, or evangelism. I've already explained this.