How to identify a valid pastor.

[Faith]

I would say that they need a lot of training and classes, then ordained by a Christian Church. I went to a non denominational church where the Pastor’s son was being ordained and all it basically amounted to was his dad and two or three other pastors (unsure of their qualifications) prayed over him and declared him an ordained pastor.

I tried another church that did the same thing.

 

[BruceLeiter]

I agree that it teaches all of those things but they aren't assumptions or presuppositions. If we are looking for presuppositions, the clearest one is that God exists. The bible does not make direct arguments for the existence of God. Rather it is written from a theistic paradigm, meaning it simply assumes that He exists and proceeds from that premise..

The creation, just to take the first thing from your list, isn't presupposed by the bible. The very first sentence states "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth.". Had that been an assumption, Moses wouldn't have felt the need to state it. See what I mean?

So, in short, we don't actually disagree on this point, we're just using the term "assumption" in different ways.

My only point then is this...
You cannot identify these doctrines without the use of sound reason. You also cannot compare them to other passages, detect contradictions between them, or even think to make such comparisons in the first place without using reason to do it. And once the idea of comparison has occurred to you, it cannot be done properly if reason is abandoned. There is simply no knowledge, whether theological or otherwise, apart from the proper use of the mind.

Those truths that I mention are the Bible's assumptions about God and his universe, @VeritatisVerba. In my interpretation of Scripture, I use its own assumptions to interpret it, because it is God's inspired Word.

 

[VeritatisVerba]

Those truths that I mention are the Bible's assumptions about God and his universe, @VeritatisVerba. In my interpretation of Scripture, I use its own assumptions to interpret it, because it is God's inspired Word.

I get it but they aren't assumptions. They're precepts not assumptions. I think the full extent of our disagreement on this particular point is semantic in nature.

Whether it is or not, my primary point is that you cannot recognize assumptions, you cannot understand doctrines, you cannot read passages of scripture and you cannot compare any of those thing to any of the others without the use of your mind to do it. Reason is your one and ONLY means of knowledge, understanding and/or communication. It makes no difference whether you get the information from the bible or from scribbling on a cave wall. If you understand it, it's because of a process of reason.

 

[BruceLeiter]

I get it but they aren't assumptions. They're precepts not assumptions. I think the full extent of our disagreement on this particular point is semantic in nature.

Whether it is or not, my primary point is that you cannot recognize assumptions, you cannot understand doctrines, you cannot read passages of scripture and you cannot compare any of those thing to any of the others without the use of your mind to do it. Reason is your one and ONLY means of knowledge, understanding and/or communication. It makes no difference whether you get the information from the bible or from scribbling on a cave wall. If you understand it, it's because of a process of reason.

You're right, @VeritatisVerba, that reason is involved in interpretation. However, it makes a huge difference whether or not you add ideas and assumptions outside of Scripture to the passages that you're trying to interpret.

I grew up in a church that didn't preach the gospel and that was either liberal in denying that God inspired the Bible and embracing being "good people" or neo-orthodox in allegorizing much of it because they didn't like what it says. Then, after I became a Christian in a Baptist church, where I heard the gospel for the first time, I attended a cult that did a lot of imposing of extra-biblical ideas on the Bible by denying the Trinity and the history. I became a pastor in a denomination that is very close to the Bible's teachings without adding to them. Now, I attend just such an independent church.

That's why I've become very sensitive to ways people misuse Scripture.

 

[VeritatisVerba]

You're right, @VeritatisVerba, that reason is involved in interpretation. However, it makes a huge difference whether or not you add ideas and assumptions outside of Scripture to the passages that you're trying to interpret.


I grew up in a church that didn't preach the gospel and that was either liberal in denying that God inspired the Bible and embracing being "good people" or neo-orthodox in allegorizing much of it because they didn't like what it says. Then, after I became a Christian in a Baptist church, where I heard the gospel for the first time, I attended a cult that did a lot of imposing of extra-biblical ideas on the Bible by denying the Trinity and the history. I became a pastor in a denomination that is very close to the Bible's teachings without adding to them. Now, I attend just such an independent church.

That's why I've become very sensitive to ways people misuse Scripture.

You cannot detect a misuse of Scripture without sound reason.


The point I am making is that Scripture does not trump reason. There is no such thing as an irrational truth. The Bible is a book, and like all books, it is language-based. Language itself is a rational construct. That means the Bible depends on reason in order to even exist, never mind be understood and integrated into our worldview and applied to our daily lives. Scripture then is predicated on reason, NOT the other way around. If someone claims to honor God’s word while setting aside sound reasoning, then they are undermining the very foundation that God’s word is built on. Trying to know the meaning of Scripture without reason is like trying to admire a rainbow with your eyes closed. It cannot be done.

Let me pose a question.

What should a person do when they discover that a doctrine they’ve long held turns out, upon careful reflection, to be internally contradictory? I don’t have a specific doctrine in mind, just think through the question as asked.

There are a few ways one might respond.

One could acknowledge that the internal contradiction calls the doctrine into question and that further study is necessary. That is the rational and responsible course.

One could dismiss the contradiction and cling to the doctrine anyway, claiming that Scripture teaches it and that faith requires belief even in the face of unresolved inconsistency. That is not faithfulness, it is evasion and dishonesty.

Or one might try to find a way to resolve the contradiction by redefining terms, appealing to mystery, or introducing qualifications. Sometimes such efforts are appropriate, other times they are plainly not. The key is whether the resolution is coherent or simply a way to camouflage the contradiction. The difference there being primarily one of intellectual honesty. It's the difference between reasoning and rationalizing.

For anyone who truly seeks the truth, sound reason must be the standard. If we abandon that, then we have no means of distinguishing true doctrine from false, or even meaning from nonsense. Without it, the phrase, "sound doctrine" means anything at all and, therefore, nothing whatsoever.

 

[Faith]

You cannot detect a misuse of Scripture without sound reason.


The point I am making is that Scripture does not trump reason. There is no such thing as an irrational truth. The Bible is a book, and like all books, it is language-based. Language itself is a rational construct. That means the Bible depends on reason in order to even exist, never mind be understood and integrated into our worldview and applied to our daily lives. Scripture then is predicated on reason, NOT the other way around. If someone claims to honor God’s word while setting aside sound reasoning, then they are undermining the very foundation that God’s word is built on. Trying to know the meaning of Scripture without reason is like trying to admire a rainbow with your eyes closed. It cannot be done.

Let me pose a question.

What should a person do when they discover that a doctrine they’ve long held turns out, upon careful reflection, to be internally contradictory? I don’t have a specific doctrine in mind, just think through the question as asked.

There are a few ways one might respond.

One could acknowledge that the internal contradiction calls the doctrine into question and that further study is necessary. That is the rational and responsible course.

One could dismiss the contradiction and cling to the doctrine anyway, claiming that Scripture teaches it and that faith requires belief even in the face of unresolved inconsistency. That is not faithfulness, it is evasion and dishonesty.

Or one might try to find a way to resolve the contradiction by redefining terms, appealing to mystery, or introducing qualifications. Sometimes such efforts are appropriate, other times they are plainly not. The key is whether the resolution is coherent or simply a way to camouflage the contradiction. The difference there being primarily one of intellectual honesty. It's the difference between reasoning and rationalizing.

For anyone who truly seeks the truth, sound reason must be the standard. If we abandon that, then we have no means of distinguishing true doctrine from false, or even meaning from nonsense. Without it, the phrase, "sound doctrine" means anything at all and, therefore, nothing whatsoever.

I don’t know what th answer is, but I was going to an LCMS church for a few years and never agreed on their belief that the universe in 6000 years old and they reject theistic evolution. I tried to believe what they do, did TONS of research and intimately had to leave and return to Catholicism where we’re free to believe in an old earth and evolution, or not. It’s science, not a matter of faith and morals so the Church takes no position on it. Although among all the priests I’ve talked to about this, they all believe in an old earth and in theistic evolution.

 

[Lamb]

I don’t know what th answer is, but I was going to an LCMS church for a few years and never agreed on their belief that the universe in 6000 years old and they reject theistic evolution. I tried to believe what they do, did TONS of research and intimately had to leave and return to Catholicism where we’re free to believe in an old earth and evolution, or not. It’s science, not a matter of faith and morals so the Church takes no position on it. Although among all the priests I’ve talked to about this, they all believe in an old earth and in theistic evolution.

That isn't part of the LCMS doctrine of required belief.

 

[VeritatisVerba]

I don’t know what th answer is, but I was going to an LCMS church for a few years and never agreed on their belief that the universe in 6000 years old and they reject theistic evolution. I tried to believe what they do, did TONS of research and intimately had to leave and return to Catholicism where we’re free to believe in an old earth and evolution, or not. It’s science, not a matter of faith and morals so the Church takes no position on it. Although among all the priests I’ve talked to about this, they all believe in an old earth and in theistic evolution.

There is no evidence for either an old Earth or any sort of evolution whatsoever (theistic or otherwise).

NONE!

[Staff edit for rule violation]

If God can't write scripture correctly, why would anyone trust Him with their eternal soul?

If this is a lie....

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day.​

Then so is this...

​

Matthew 28:5-6 But the angel answered and said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. He is not here; for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.​

 

[Lamb]

There is no evidence for either an old Earth or any sort of evolution whatsoever (theistic or otherwise).

NONE!

[Staff edit for rule violation]

If God can't write scripture correctly, why would anyone trust Him with their eternal soul?

If this is a lie....

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day.​

Then so is this...

​

Matthew 28:5-6 But the angel answered and said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. He is not here; for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.​

Name calling is against our site rules.

 

[BruceLeiter]

You cannot detect a misuse of Scripture without sound reason.


The point I am making is that Scripture does not trump reason. There is no such thing as an irrational truth. The Bible is a book, and like all books, it is language-based. Language itself is a rational construct. That means the Bible depends on reason in order to even exist, never mind be understood and integrated into our worldview and applied to our daily lives. Scripture then is predicated on reason, NOT the other way around. If someone claims to honor God’s word while setting aside sound reasoning, then they are undermining the very foundation that God’s word is built on. Trying to know the meaning of Scripture without reason is like trying to admire a rainbow with your eyes closed. It cannot be done.

Let me pose a question.

What should a person do when they discover that a doctrine they’ve long held turns out, upon careful reflection, to be internally contradictory? I don’t have a specific doctrine in mind, just think through the question as asked.

There are a few ways one might respond.

One could acknowledge that the internal contradiction calls the doctrine into question and that further study is necessary. That is the rational and responsible course.

One could dismiss the contradiction and cling to the doctrine anyway, claiming that Scripture teaches it and that faith requires belief even in the face of unresolved inconsistency. That is not faithfulness, it is evasion and dishonesty.

Or one might try to find a way to resolve the contradiction by redefining terms, appealing to mystery, or introducing qualifications. Sometimes such efforts are appropriate, other times they are plainly not. The key is whether the resolution is coherent or simply a way to camouflage the contradiction. The difference there being primarily one of intellectual honesty. It's the difference between reasoning and rationalizing.

For anyone who truly seeks the truth, sound reason must be the standard. If we abandon that, then we have no means of distinguishing true doctrine from false, or even meaning from nonsense. Without it, the phrase, "sound doctrine" means anything at all and, therefore, nothing whatsoever.

I agree with your main premise that we must reason to arrive at true doctrine, @VeritatisVerba, but I want an example of a doctrine that may have "internal inconsistencies" for more specific discussion. What I find in pastors and churches that have strayed from the truth as well as the cults is that they have set up their reasoning powers to be the arbiters of the truth more than the Bible's givens. That's the danger I want to avoid. As John Calvin says, "Go as far as the Bible goes; then, stop." God through Isaiah says,

Isa 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD.
Isa 55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Someone might see "internal contradiction" in that passage, which is about God's grace, by thinking that the contradiction is that it doesn't fit my experiences that there is such a thing as God's grace that gives us free acceptance through Jesus. It's not a contradiction; instead, it's God's thoughts that are far beyond our limited, human thoughts.

 

[tango]

There is no evidence for either an old Earth or any sort of evolution whatsoever (theistic or otherwise).

NONE!

This simply isn't true. There are forms of adaption, aka micro evolution, that can be demonstrated in a laboratory in a matter of weeks.

The idea that life appeared out of nothing and then evolved into what we see today has some evidence supporting it and a whole host of unanswered questions, but it's simply not true to say there's no evidence for any sort of evolution.


You follow up your argument with a very weak argument...

If God can't write scripture correctly, why would anyone trust Him with their eternal soul?

which completely ignores the possibility that Scripture is metaphorical rather than literal. This is ironic, given you also quote the verse that says God's ways are higher than our ways while apparently expecting God to do things the way we would.

... and then a logical fallacy to complete the trifecta of bad arguments:

If this is a lie....

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day.

Then so is this...

Matthew 28:5-6 But the angel answered and said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. He is not here; for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.

If the first is a lie that offers no evidence at all that the second must be a lie. Other possibilities include that the first is a metaphor and the second is literal, the first is false and the second is true.

 

[Frankj]

This simply isn't true. There are forms of adaption, aka micro evolution, that can be demonstrated in a laboratory in a matter of weeks.

So actual new species have emerged from mutations in a matter of weeks?

What are the names of some of them so I can read more about them?

 

[Frankj]

It’s science, not a matter of faith and morals so the Church takes no position on it. Although among all the priests I’ve talked to about this, they all believe in an old earth and in theistic evolution

So this to say that Catholics reject Genesis 2:7 " The LORD God took a handful of soil and made a man. God breathed life into the man, and the man started breathing" as infallible truth and see it as a mere fairy tale and God took something already in existence and mutated it into something else that eventually developed a soul and became different than the other animals?

God didn't directly create Man, man is just another animal that had the same origins as all the other animals.

This would mean that either God lied to us in scripture or that scripture is not truth at all and what is and what is not true about it cannot actually be known as far as I can tell.

I suppose 2Timothy 4:3-4 "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." is also something to be considered just some king of metaphor?

Or, maybe, we should do deep meditation on the meaning of the wide road and the narrow road and which we are on.

 

[Faith]

That isn't part of the LCMS doctrine of required belief.

I know but yet I was told that I wasn’t allowed to teach there (I never wanted to, never inquired about it) because of my beliefs.

 

[Faith]

There is no evidence for either an old Earth or any sort of evolution whatsoever (theistic or otherwise).

NONE!

[Staff edit for rule violation]

If God can't write scripture correctly, why would anyone trust Him with their eternal soul?

If this is a lie....

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day.​

Then so is this...

​

Matthew 28:5-6 But the angel answered and said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. He is not here; for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.​

Prove it.

 

[Faith]

So this to say that Catholics reject Genesis 2:7 " The LORD God took a handful of soil and made a man. God breathed life into the man, and the man started breathing" as infallible truth and see it as a mere fairy tale and God took something already in existence and mutated it into something else that eventually developed a soul and became different than the other animals?

God didn't directly create Man, man is just another animal that had the same origins as all the other animals.

This would mean that either God lied to us in scripture or that scripture is not truth at all and what is and what is not true about it cannot actually be known as far as I can tell.

I suppose 2Timothy 4:3-4 "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." is also something to be considered just some king of metaphor?

Or, maybe, we should do deep meditation on the meaning of the wide road and the narrow road and which we are on.

Read the articles available on Catholic Answers.

 

[Faith]

So this to say that Catholics reject Genesis 2:7 " The LORD God took a handful of soil and made a man. God breathed life into the man, and the man started breathing" as infallible truth and see it as a mere fairy tale and God took something already in existence and mutated it into something else that eventually developed a soul and became different than the other animals?

God didn't directly create Man, man is just another animal that had the same origins as all the other animals.

This would mean that either God lied to us in scripture or that scripture is not truth at all and what is and what is not true about it cannot actually be known as far as I can tell.

I suppose 2Timothy 4:3-4 "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." is also something to be considered just some king of metaphor?

Or, maybe, we should do deep meditation on the meaning of the wide road and the narrow road and which we are on.

This explains the Catholic position better than I can:

So this to say that Catholics reject Genesis 2:7 " The LORD God took a handful of soil and made a man. God breathed life into the man, and the man started breathing" as infallible truth and see it as a mere fairy tale and God took something already in existence and mutated it into something else that eventually developed a soul and became different than the other animals?

God didn't directly create Man, man is just another animal that had the same origins as all the other animals.

This would mean that either God lied to us in scripture or that scripture is not truth at all and what is and what is not true about it cannot actually be known as far as I can tell.

I suppose 2Timothy 4:3-4 "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." is also something to be considered just some king of metaphor?

Or, maybe, we should do deep meditation on the meaning of the wide road and the narrow road and which we are on.

this explains the Catholic position better than I can:

Adam, Eve, and Evolution

The controversy surrounding evolution touches on our most central beliefs about ourselves and the world. Find out what Catholics believe about it.

www.catholic.com

 

[Faith]

Sorry, I messed up my c&p. But the article Adam, Eve and Evolution explains it. See you learn something new everyday.

 

[VeritatisVerba]

Name calling is against our site rules.

Of course it is. I mean Jesus would have gotten banned, why not me!

He's clearly a waste of time. I'll just put him on ignore and save everyone, including myself, the stress.

 

[VeritatisVerba]

This simply isn't true.

Yes, it is 100% true.

There are forms of adaption, aka micro evolution, that can be demonstrated in a laboratory in a matter of weeks.

Changing the definition of the term "evolution" doesn't count as evidence for actual evolution.

The idea that life appeared out of nothing and then evolved into what we see today has some evidence supporting it

No, it absolutely does not.

and a whole host of unanswered questions, but it's simply not true to say there's no evidence for any sort of evolution.

There is exactly ZERO evidence for evolution. It has never been observed nor could it ever be observed. It has become a fundamentally unfalsifiable pseudo-scientific religion.

You follow up your argument with a very weak argument...

Saying it doesn't make it so.

which completely ignores the possibility that Scripture is metaphorical rather than literal.

The plain, unambiguous teaching of scripture is that the Earth and all of life was created. There isn't any reason to think it even might be metaphorical or even allegorical UNLESS you come to the text with it mind to believe secular nonsense like the literally impossible theory of evolution. Calling it an allegory or metaphor is just someone's way of dismissing what it teaches because if God had been a competent author of an allegorical story, He'd have figured out a way to communicate that in the text! He could have said something as mind bendingly complex as "This is an allegory.", but somehow it just slipped His mind, I suppose!

This is ironic, given you also quote the verse that says God's ways are higher than our ways while apparently expecting God to do things the way we would.

They are higher, NOT LOWER!

... and then a logical fallacy to complete the trifecta of bad arguments:

Saying it doesn't make it so.

If the first is a lie that offers no evidence at all that the second must be a lie. Other possibilities include that the first is a metaphor and the second is literal, the first is false and the second is true.

It does if both statements are come from GOD!!!!!