Debate with Liberal Methodist

Here is a site that might give you some ideas-

http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/eve.htm

My folks attend an UMC. John, Charles, and George must be spinning in their graves.

I will pray for you to have wisdom and for this man to get saved.

 

I imagine that the logical and erroneous outcome of his belief must be that Jesus Christ, too, is not a literal Person, for He is called "the last Adam".

 

I have always veiwed Gen. 1 as a creation hymn.
Then Gen. 2 as more detailed...


Nothing in this:
2. I will make a him an help meet.
3. Out of the ground the Lord created every beast and every bird.
4. The Lord brought them to Adam to see what Adam would name them.

Says that the animals were created after Adam...
3. could have happened before, and put in as a afterthought.

 

Good point!

Dan V.

 

As we all know, satan, when tempting Jesus, quoted scripture and did so extremely accurately. He's good at this, and can show his human minions how to do so as well.

The problem with his use of scripture was the usage of isolated verses that conformed to his dastardly desires.

The only truly successful defense is to also quote scripture, as Jesus did, but know the true meaning by knowing the circumstances and context of the original inspiration.

Good luck with your task! I certainly do not envy you, and hope that you are better adapted to "logical debate" than I am!!

God bless you in your efforts.

 

Which means that he should not take his salvation as a literal one, too.

Which makes the atheist better than he is, because at least the atheist doesn't believe in damnation, hell, heaven, salvation or Jesus Christ.

 

Hi David.
The whole Bible can not be taken literally , God says he has "wings" to shelter us--does this make Him a ckicken? Christ calls Himself the "bright and morningstar." Does this make Him a super nova? I think you get the point.
(which "translation are you two guys using? ? NIV is vague ---Majority texts are far better.)
Genesis ,I believe , should be taken literally ,and you are correct to say that Gen.2 is a summary. There are some fine points in Genesis I would like to mull-over with you ---BUT Paul tells us to..."give a testimony.." "if it isnt accepted ---shake the dust off your feet and move on.." After all it isnt up to US to convict a person of right and wrong; Its up to the Holy spirit to work with the TRUTH presented from the Gospel and it seems you are on the right track
in Christ angelfire

 

This is one of those statements that can be twisted like a pretzel.

I personally accept as LITERAL any passage that does not give instructions otherwise; "The kingdom of Heaven is LIKE---"; Jesus told a PARABLE of ---; "The LAMB of God.

Most (all?) of the woes etc in end times prophecy I accept as literal usually, OR symbolic if I do not understand the description of the event.

For instance, the following would have made absolutely no sense to Zechariah as he received this from God;

With the advent of nuclear weapons, this becomes totally understandable. How much more will be made clear as the end approaches?

Therefore, IMNSHO, one will do far better to believe God's Word as written, rather than someone who has been educated beyond his intelligence telling you what God meant, as opposed to what He says.

But, to each his own!!

 

Of course the bible uses "word pictures," such as God having "everlasting arms", "wings", and so on. The reality that such a picture illustrates is clear. Mother birds do indeed shelter their young under their wings, the idea of Christ being the "light" of truth shining in the world is common in Scripture. But if we say that a passage like 1 Corinthians 15.45 and 47 is picture-language, what is it illustrating?

45 And so it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being." The last Adam became a life–giving spirit.
47 The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven.​

Did the first man Adam become a living being, or is it a picture? Did "the last Adam", Jesus Christ, become a life-giving spirit, or is it a picture? Was the first man of the earth, made of dust, or is it a picture? Is the second Man the Lord from heaven, or is that just a picture? And if they are pictures, what are they pictures of?

I mostly use the New King James Version.

 

When Jesus talked with the scribes and pharisees He would always say "ye do err not understanding the Scriptures". He never once corrected anything in the first 11 chapters of Genesis which would imply to me that Moses wrote it down the way God said it happened. Here God was with us in the form of Christ and would certainly have cleared up any misunderstandings we had about what was written in His Word.:godisgood: